This writer was at Mashhad, Northeastern Iran, waiting for a bus taking us to the Afghan border. It was way back in August 1979. We, myself and two boys in their early teens, my son and his good friend, had started from Athens, travelled through Greece, Turkey and Iran, and were hoping to go through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and finally to reach India. We were, however, persuaded by the Iranians at the bus terminal not to proceed to Afghanistan as it would be a perilous journey and was becoming more so day by day. We followed their advice, no other alternative, took another bus for Zahedan, Southeastern Iran, thus bypassing Afghanistan, and came into Pakistan Baloochistan via its southwestern check-post. This was shortly before the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan at the end of that year.
Then it was at Calcutta(Kolkata), India, shortly after the Soviet invasion. One evening I switched on the Radio to find myself listening to the voice of a well-known Indian historian discussing the Soviet move. He was normally considered to be a leftist as to the method of his research, and maybe that is why he talked about how the British attempt to conquer Afghanistan in the previous century ended in failure, instead of outrightly criticizing the invasion. But the message to the Soviets was clear. Looking back it was even prophetic, and the Red Army withdrew in 1989. The US should have learned the lesson of history when it went to war in 2001. The Twin Tower tragedy was one thing, how to deal with it was another. The US also should have carefully studied why she had so much alienated the Muslim world. This was a political question not capable of being solved militarily.
And now it is the turn of President Obama to preside over another withdrawal from Afghanistan. He announced on 23 June that 'We have turned the corner', the withdrawal would begin in July, the next month, and by the end of September 2012 33,000 forces would withdraw.
It is said that the decision came after a month-long strategy review. One would be reminded of the previous 2009 review at the White House which took a much longer time and which I have described in these columns on 23 May. On this occasion also, as on the previous one, the military were not satisfied with the President's decision, saying that the size was more than expected and it would involve 'more risk'. They usually want to use both manpower and firepower in their possession.
In terms of the previous decision, and particularly after the removal of the Al-Qaeda leader, the withdrawal is welcome. Particularly so for the American people whom Obama promised to divert the military expenditure, or a part of it, for the 'nation-building' in the US.
But for us the Japanese the withdrawal will solve nothing. We will see it the next time.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
A Classic War-time Cinema of Japan
A movie, still black and white, called "Rikugun", The Army, was made in Japan toward the end of 1944, when the decisive tide of the war had already been turned against Japan in the Second World War. This writer had a chance to see it on 15 June. The story was based on a provincial city of Kokura, now a part of Kita-kyushuu, on Kyushuu Island.
It had been made at the request of the Ministry of the Army(there was also the Ministry of the Navy, but the Air Force had been divided between the two services), to commemorate the third anniversary of the opening of the "Great East Asian War" against the US and Britain. One would naturally have expected to see a film full of chauvinism, or hatred of the enemy nations.
But that expectation could not be met. True, one-sided story was told throughout of Japan's overseas expansion without which the movie could not have survived censorship, but it was told in a moderate way by the young Director Kinoshita Keisuke. The proprietor of a prosperous pawnshop at Kokura got very excited, and got a heart attack, to hear that after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5 Japan had to return some of the spoils to China at the instance of three European countries. He told his son to be a good soldier to best serve the Emperor and the country. The son succeeded in entering the Military Academy, was appointed an army officer, but could not participate in actual fighting because of illness. This may have been a tactical device to avoid scenes of battles in the movie. He together with his wife abandoned the old pawnshop, opened a vegetable shop and began to bring up their son in such a way that he would be a good soldier.
Unable to go to the Military Academy because of the changed economic status of the family, the son joined the army under the obligatory military duty. But the father insisted that the son should strongly volunteer to be sent to whichever place where a battle was going on.
Finally that day has come. The son was not alone, but was among hundreds marching to the station in uniform and with a gun on the right shoulder. The mother, Tanaka Kinuyo by name, one of the unforgettable actresses in the cinema history of Japan, arrived rather late on the scene where thousands of citizens got assembled on both sides of the main street to see off the soldiers, soon found the son, and the son also saw the mother. The son had to move on in columns. But the mother, though a frail woman, taking notice of nothing except the marching son, kept walking, almost running, not always in tears but also smiling, because she must have been happy with the son like this, quite unexpectedly, both of them almost in full view of each other. The son's safety must have been her only concern at the time.
It is as if the son's orderly marching and the mother's hustling and jostling and colliding with others continued endlessly. So impressive, so moving. But actually it continued for a matter of just several minutes, and right there ended the 87-minute film itself.
Kinoshita lived a long and active life after the war, but he made no other film on war. He made this one probably with a determination that he would not make it a war-praising one.
It had been made at the request of the Ministry of the Army(there was also the Ministry of the Navy, but the Air Force had been divided between the two services), to commemorate the third anniversary of the opening of the "Great East Asian War" against the US and Britain. One would naturally have expected to see a film full of chauvinism, or hatred of the enemy nations.
But that expectation could not be met. True, one-sided story was told throughout of Japan's overseas expansion without which the movie could not have survived censorship, but it was told in a moderate way by the young Director Kinoshita Keisuke. The proprietor of a prosperous pawnshop at Kokura got very excited, and got a heart attack, to hear that after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5 Japan had to return some of the spoils to China at the instance of three European countries. He told his son to be a good soldier to best serve the Emperor and the country. The son succeeded in entering the Military Academy, was appointed an army officer, but could not participate in actual fighting because of illness. This may have been a tactical device to avoid scenes of battles in the movie. He together with his wife abandoned the old pawnshop, opened a vegetable shop and began to bring up their son in such a way that he would be a good soldier.
Unable to go to the Military Academy because of the changed economic status of the family, the son joined the army under the obligatory military duty. But the father insisted that the son should strongly volunteer to be sent to whichever place where a battle was going on.
Finally that day has come. The son was not alone, but was among hundreds marching to the station in uniform and with a gun on the right shoulder. The mother, Tanaka Kinuyo by name, one of the unforgettable actresses in the cinema history of Japan, arrived rather late on the scene where thousands of citizens got assembled on both sides of the main street to see off the soldiers, soon found the son, and the son also saw the mother. The son had to move on in columns. But the mother, though a frail woman, taking notice of nothing except the marching son, kept walking, almost running, not always in tears but also smiling, because she must have been happy with the son like this, quite unexpectedly, both of them almost in full view of each other. The son's safety must have been her only concern at the time.
It is as if the son's orderly marching and the mother's hustling and jostling and colliding with others continued endlessly. So impressive, so moving. But actually it continued for a matter of just several minutes, and right there ended the 87-minute film itself.
Kinoshita lived a long and active life after the war, but he made no other film on war. He made this one probably with a determination that he would not make it a war-praising one.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
A Special Number on "Pakistan:The Osama Nightmare"
When Osama bin-Laden was killed, this writer immediately scribbled down his impressions in these columns(3 May 2011). Later the Outlook, a weekly magazine from India, published a special number on his death dated 16 May. Most of the articles there are, surprisingly, from Pakistan. Let us look at some of them which are of greater interest.
A Pakistan intellectual says that 'We must repudiate the current policy of verbally condemning jehadism-and actually fighting it in some places-but secretly supporting it in other places...Pakistan will remain in interminable conflict both with itself and the world'(p.41). This is a common sense understanding in tune with what is felt all around.
Rather contrary to the commonly held idea, Pakistan gave the information of that house to the US, and even discussed among themselves the possible consequences of an US action. Skipping why the Pakistanis did not act themselves, this was because 'say sources, Islamabad wanted Obama to be provided sufficient reason and justification to pull back American forces from Afghanistan'(p.48). So Pakistan is planning to set up a second Taliban government under its supervision there?
But the whole wide Arab world was not impressed by the death. '...the people seemed more keen on their campaign for democracy...'(p.54). Moreover, to our great and pleasant surprise, 'Imams have been turning the youth to the precepts of Islam that preach non-violence, objecting to the idea of terrorism. The politics on the ground in much of the Muslim world is moving towards opposition, not just of regimes but opposition to terrorism too...this is becoming an era of non-violent protest...The youth in Egypt did in 18 days what Al Qaeda couldn't do in 18 years'(p.57). One would hope that 'the Muslim world' would come to embrace Pakistan as well.
And we are told that even in Afghanistan 'Many of them(Taliban commanders) are not convinced of the wisdom of carrying on an armed struggle in Afghanistan and would like to see a political solution'(p.57). Wonderful. So the problem seems to go back to the above-quoted two-faced policy of Pakistan. But actually it goes beyond that to India-Pakistan, and further, India-Pakistan-China relations.
A Pakistan intellectual says that 'We must repudiate the current policy of verbally condemning jehadism-and actually fighting it in some places-but secretly supporting it in other places...Pakistan will remain in interminable conflict both with itself and the world'(p.41). This is a common sense understanding in tune with what is felt all around.
Rather contrary to the commonly held idea, Pakistan gave the information of that house to the US, and even discussed among themselves the possible consequences of an US action. Skipping why the Pakistanis did not act themselves, this was because 'say sources, Islamabad wanted Obama to be provided sufficient reason and justification to pull back American forces from Afghanistan'(p.48). So Pakistan is planning to set up a second Taliban government under its supervision there?
But the whole wide Arab world was not impressed by the death. '...the people seemed more keen on their campaign for democracy...'(p.54). Moreover, to our great and pleasant surprise, 'Imams have been turning the youth to the precepts of Islam that preach non-violence, objecting to the idea of terrorism. The politics on the ground in much of the Muslim world is moving towards opposition, not just of regimes but opposition to terrorism too...this is becoming an era of non-violent protest...The youth in Egypt did in 18 days what Al Qaeda couldn't do in 18 years'(p.57). One would hope that 'the Muslim world' would come to embrace Pakistan as well.
And we are told that even in Afghanistan 'Many of them(Taliban commanders) are not convinced of the wisdom of carrying on an armed struggle in Afghanistan and would like to see a political solution'(p.57). Wonderful. So the problem seems to go back to the above-quoted two-faced policy of Pakistan. But actually it goes beyond that to India-Pakistan, and further, India-Pakistan-China relations.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Imran Khan asks, "Friends or Slaves?"
In his interview to BBC, broadcast in Japan on 27 May, Mr.Imran Khan, a great Pakistani cricketeer and now an opposition leader, was asking, "Are we America's friends or slaves?".
This is a very pertinent and timely question. Yes, Pakistan, or rather its government, was America's close friend, at least up to 9/11. Pakistan was useful, not only in the encirclement of the USSR. She was valuable in thwarting the often anti-American India. She was also a bridge between the US and China. The US made use of her to the best of her ability, except the decade after the collapse of the USSR. This was the period when the Taliban, with the collaboration of Pakistan, got hold of most of Afghanistan, and embraced Al-Qaida within its camp. Ahmed Rashid's monumental Taliban:Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, 2000, has made it all clear.
But things changed after 9/11. On one hand Pakistan, under the US pressure, switched over to anti-terrorism in exchange for weapons, but on the other continued to ride on the political Ismam and even Al-Qaida to attack her enemies within and without. No doubt this has led to her two faces, 'the friends and slaves'. As long as this continues she will remain a magazine of Asia. Explosions are taking place every day inside and on the borders. People the world over are keenly aware that she is a nuclear power.
The proud Pakistanis are naturally anxious to get out of this. The key to doing so is to change relations with India, however difficult it may be to swallow it. I am not at all saying that India can remain as it is. But leaving aside India for a moment, Pakistan should stop sending snipers and the like to India including India-held Kashmir, and deprive Al-Qaida of the safe haven in her territory. That will be a sufficient first step. Remember the Indians' attitude is not always hostile to Pakistan. It can be even friendly. That is what I felt at a border-closing ceremony at Wagah, off Amritsar(from the Indian side), in 2008. The farmers in the Indian Punjab who live near the border very much want to sell their crops and vegetables at near-by Lahore rather than far-away Delhi. There is a large community of Indians of Pakistan origin, one Prime Minister among them, who are, by and large, surprisingly pro-Pakistan. And the common people are hungry for cricket matches, official or unofficial. You should get together to discuss Afghanistan not to fix spheres of influence but to cooperate to alleviate poverty there to bring about peace.
India is thus not a difficult problem. A far more difficult one is how to satisfy the legitimate demands of its Pashtun and Baloochi communities(see, for example, Rajmohan Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, 2004). For this Pakistan should organize herself into a democratic and federal set-up and treat them on a par with Punjabis and Sindhis. It will also soothe her relations with Iran. Thus she will be seen leading the way toward peace in the whole of South Asia.
This is a very pertinent and timely question. Yes, Pakistan, or rather its government, was America's close friend, at least up to 9/11. Pakistan was useful, not only in the encirclement of the USSR. She was valuable in thwarting the often anti-American India. She was also a bridge between the US and China. The US made use of her to the best of her ability, except the decade after the collapse of the USSR. This was the period when the Taliban, with the collaboration of Pakistan, got hold of most of Afghanistan, and embraced Al-Qaida within its camp. Ahmed Rashid's monumental Taliban:Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, 2000, has made it all clear.
But things changed after 9/11. On one hand Pakistan, under the US pressure, switched over to anti-terrorism in exchange for weapons, but on the other continued to ride on the political Ismam and even Al-Qaida to attack her enemies within and without. No doubt this has led to her two faces, 'the friends and slaves'. As long as this continues she will remain a magazine of Asia. Explosions are taking place every day inside and on the borders. People the world over are keenly aware that she is a nuclear power.
The proud Pakistanis are naturally anxious to get out of this. The key to doing so is to change relations with India, however difficult it may be to swallow it. I am not at all saying that India can remain as it is. But leaving aside India for a moment, Pakistan should stop sending snipers and the like to India including India-held Kashmir, and deprive Al-Qaida of the safe haven in her territory. That will be a sufficient first step. Remember the Indians' attitude is not always hostile to Pakistan. It can be even friendly. That is what I felt at a border-closing ceremony at Wagah, off Amritsar(from the Indian side), in 2008. The farmers in the Indian Punjab who live near the border very much want to sell their crops and vegetables at near-by Lahore rather than far-away Delhi. There is a large community of Indians of Pakistan origin, one Prime Minister among them, who are, by and large, surprisingly pro-Pakistan. And the common people are hungry for cricket matches, official or unofficial. You should get together to discuss Afghanistan not to fix spheres of influence but to cooperate to alleviate poverty there to bring about peace.
India is thus not a difficult problem. A far more difficult one is how to satisfy the legitimate demands of its Pashtun and Baloochi communities(see, for example, Rajmohan Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, 2004). For this Pakistan should organize herself into a democratic and federal set-up and treat them on a par with Punjabis and Sindhis. It will also soothe her relations with Iran. Thus she will be seen leading the way toward peace in the whole of South Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)