During these two weeks or so Mahatma Gandhi's name was as much on people's lips as, I think, never before since independence. Many, if not all, regard Anna Hazare as 'aaj ka (today's) Mahatma Gandhi'. Gandhi is very much alive, not dead. Whether he is really today's Gandhi depends on the definition of Gandhiism. As for me I would say 'yes', although not completely without doubt.
People watching him on the stage at the Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, may have noticed that he was almost alone, not in the sense that he has no followers, who were millions, but in the sense that he is the sole leader, and everybody else, including the now fearless members of the "Team Anna", has to consult him. True, Gandhi may have been in a similar position on a number of occasions. But he was backed by legitimate resolutions by the AICC, CWC or the whole Congress Sessions as the case may be, though many of them were drafted by himself. In other words here was no organization to speak of whereas there was one there. Is it democratic?
Aruna Roy, the social activist, goes further. She questions the way Anna is forcing a deadline to the Parliament for passing his Jan Lokpal Bill, and fears that the 'structure' would be shaken by this method. She says that the Parliamentary Standing Committee(on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice) instead should be trusted to draft a Bill, adding that, in the case of the Right to Information Act of 2005, the original Government Bill left much to be desired, but as many as 153 amendments were written into it in the Committee. The Government, by the way, had submitted its Lokpal Bill to the said Committee on 8 August 'for examination and report within three months'.
What Aruna Roy and many others are seriously worried about, though they are agreeable to the people's grievances, is a question of satyagraha vs.parliamentary legislation. Here comes an opportunity to listen to what Gandhi himself said on the subject, in his interview to N.G.Ranga on 29 October 1944.
He said, 'Civil disobedience and non-co-operation are designed for use when people, i.e., the tillers of the soil, have no political power. But immediately they have political power, naturally their grievances, whatever their character, will be ameliorated through legislative channels...If the legislature proves itself to be incapable of safeguarding kisans' interests they will of course always have the sovereign remedy of civil disobedience and non-co-operation. But...ultimately, it is not paper legislation nor brave words or fiery speeches, but the power of non-violent organization, discipline and sacrifice that constitutes the real bulwark of the people against injustice or oppression'.
So Gandhi was clearly saying that ordinarily satyagraha will not be the legitimate means of political struggle once democratic institutions have been installed, but there are occasions when they will have to be resorted to. This writer is of the view that the past two weeks have been one such occasion which has been proved by the tremendous response on the part of the people. Anna has, at least to that extent, acted as a Gandhian.
Anna decided to break his fast in the evening of 27 August, his Day 12, on receiving a letter from the Prime Minister accepting some of his demands, broke the fast the next morning, and was hospitalized at Gurgaon.
It is yet to be seen if the past two weeks have been enough to effect changes with the Passport Office, traffic and border police, etc., or if a single Bill, let alone a 'paper legislation', is going to be enough to take on larger public crimes.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Anna Hazare Ends Fast (1)
Kisan Baburao(Anna) Hazare, 74, comes from a village in Maharashtra State, Western India. He went to school for only seven years. For years he served the Indian Army as a driver. After coming back to his village, he worked a lot for its improvement by prohibition, irrigation, introduction of new crops, increasing milk production, spreading education, curtailing social cost of marriages and so on.
He is almost landless and gets his pension from the Indian Army. As a social activist he contributed to the enacting of the State Right to Information Act, which became a base for the national act of the same name in 2005. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, when the Indian Society of Gandhian Studies met at another place in his State in 2007.
Anna Hazare as a social activist led a Lokpal(Ombudsman) movement, demanding the setting up of a strong Lokpal both at the Centre and the States(to be called Lokayuktas) to fight corruption widely permeated in the Indian society. He fasted in this connection in April 2011, his 12th, many of which were against corruption.
The Government of India made its own Lokpal Bill in July, but it did not satisfy some of Anna's crucial points, leading his second fast demanding his more strict Jan Lokpal(People's Ombudsman) Bill to be passed by the Parliament. It suddenly created an atmosphere of a peaceful revolution all over the country, especially in big cities, for the first time after independence, for about two weeks, with hundreds of thousands of people gathering and marching together.
We must consider the meaning of corruption. The innumerable number of people who gathered had got grievances some way or another against the bureaucracy. Passport Office, traffic police, water and electricity bills, admission to schools etc., birth and death certificates(really?). Those offices all wanted bribery, people said. I have my own small experience. When I crossed from one State to another by a taxi a few years ago, after I paid the legitimate tax at the border, I saw my driver approaching the policeman and paid him Rs.20. I asked him what would happen if he did not pay the money. The answer was that we would have been detained there for one hour. He further told me of his having to pay huge sum of money if he tries to get a job, a lower one, in the government offices.
Those gathered could be broadly called the middle class people, the ordinary citizens, not ones fetched from the villages for political mobilization, and not one or two but almost everybody has got such a story of paying bribery to tell, or too common to tell. In the early evenings in the weekend they were marching hand in hand, strangers to each other, just like a human chain, something unheard-of in this country. Today's urban aam admi maybe a bit different from seven years ago when it was first said by the Prime Minister. The anti-corruption is thus a demand for a just distribution in the society.
The movement was compared to the "Quit India" of 1942. Slogans like "Corruption, quit India" have appeared. Some called it "the Second Freedom Struggle". Anna Hazare repeated, like Gandhi then, "Karenge ya Marenge(Do or die)". He further said that this government is looting the country. Strong words. But it is a great credit to Anna and his 'Team Anna', and to the people at large, that it has been non-violent throughout. In this it is not comparable to the JP Movement of 1970s, which not only led to much destruction but also was snatched away by the Hindu communal forces.(to be concluded)
He is almost landless and gets his pension from the Indian Army. As a social activist he contributed to the enacting of the State Right to Information Act, which became a base for the national act of the same name in 2005. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, when the Indian Society of Gandhian Studies met at another place in his State in 2007.
Anna Hazare as a social activist led a Lokpal(Ombudsman) movement, demanding the setting up of a strong Lokpal both at the Centre and the States(to be called Lokayuktas) to fight corruption widely permeated in the Indian society. He fasted in this connection in April 2011, his 12th, many of which were against corruption.
The Government of India made its own Lokpal Bill in July, but it did not satisfy some of Anna's crucial points, leading his second fast demanding his more strict Jan Lokpal(People's Ombudsman) Bill to be passed by the Parliament. It suddenly created an atmosphere of a peaceful revolution all over the country, especially in big cities, for the first time after independence, for about two weeks, with hundreds of thousands of people gathering and marching together.
We must consider the meaning of corruption. The innumerable number of people who gathered had got grievances some way or another against the bureaucracy. Passport Office, traffic police, water and electricity bills, admission to schools etc., birth and death certificates(really?). Those offices all wanted bribery, people said. I have my own small experience. When I crossed from one State to another by a taxi a few years ago, after I paid the legitimate tax at the border, I saw my driver approaching the policeman and paid him Rs.20. I asked him what would happen if he did not pay the money. The answer was that we would have been detained there for one hour. He further told me of his having to pay huge sum of money if he tries to get a job, a lower one, in the government offices.
Those gathered could be broadly called the middle class people, the ordinary citizens, not ones fetched from the villages for political mobilization, and not one or two but almost everybody has got such a story of paying bribery to tell, or too common to tell. In the early evenings in the weekend they were marching hand in hand, strangers to each other, just like a human chain, something unheard-of in this country. Today's urban aam admi maybe a bit different from seven years ago when it was first said by the Prime Minister. The anti-corruption is thus a demand for a just distribution in the society.
The movement was compared to the "Quit India" of 1942. Slogans like "Corruption, quit India" have appeared. Some called it "the Second Freedom Struggle". Anna Hazare repeated, like Gandhi then, "Karenge ya Marenge(Do or die)". He further said that this government is looting the country. Strong words. But it is a great credit to Anna and his 'Team Anna', and to the people at large, that it has been non-violent throughout. In this it is not comparable to the JP Movement of 1970s, which not only led to much destruction but also was snatched away by the Hindu communal forces.(to be concluded)
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Arab Spring, Gene Sharp, Mahatma Gandhi
Prof.Gene Sharp's a little old book, Gandhi as a Political Strategist, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1979, is an important contribution to the Gandhian literature even today, especially in view of the movement for "Arab Spring". The second chapter is particularly significant. This is where the author refers to 'Gandhi's acquaintance with various cases of nonviolent action, and his first contact with the theory of power upon which it is based.'(p.27).
On the one hand the author says that Gandhi was not the initiator of non-violent action, and he knew it himself. Gandhi, for instance, seeing the overwhelmingly non-violent nature of the 1905 Russian Revolution, wrote that 'The present unrest in Russia has a great lesson for us...We, too, can resort to the Russian remedy against tyranny'. On the other hand, 'The view of the power of rulers as being dependent on the ruled continued throughout his life to be the fundamental political insight upon which Gandhi's struggle rested'(p.39). We will have to grasp this aspect of Gandhi's political thought by re-reading his Hind Swaraj, which is well-known at least partly by its submission that the British rule over India has been made possible by the subservience on the part of the Indians, particularly the educated class.
Gene Sharp's grasp of Gandhi here is wholly from the point of peace and democratization. As such, it, together with several instances of more recent non-violent movement against Nazi or communist regimes discussed in the first chapter, must have encouraged the Arab Spring, or any other movement similar in nature.
The anti-dictatorship alone, however, is not entirely Gandhian. The latter should include some schemes for the just distribution in the society, whether Gandhi himself succeeded in doing so or not. The ongoing 'Anna Hazare Phenomenon' in India is such an example. It is a movement against universally permeated bribery, and as such demanding a more just distribution. But we will look at today's Gene Sharp effect more closely, putting off Anna Hazare to our next column.
From Dictatorship to Democracy:A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, The Albert Einstein Institution, Boston, 4th US Edition, 2010, is one of Sharp's more recent works. It is a booklet of only 93 pages, but of great significance. He initially wrote it in Thailand in 1993 at the request of a Burmese in exile. It is 'a generic analysis', a 'brief examination of how a dictatorship can be disintegrated'. Even without referring Gandhi or Martin Luther King it is from the beginning to the end on nonviolent defiance vs.dictatorship. When the author says 'Contrary to popular opinion, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on the population and the societies they rule'(p.20), the link with the earlier one is immediately apparent.
When the BBC reporters reached the Tahrir Square, Cairo, earlier this year, they saw that the booklet had been widely distributed in its Arabic translation. Some of the readers had been detained, but some others were reading it with a torch by the side of the tank. Gandhi's contemporary significance has extended this much.
Have the courageous fighters in Libya, Syria and others also read this booklet?
On the one hand the author says that Gandhi was not the initiator of non-violent action, and he knew it himself. Gandhi, for instance, seeing the overwhelmingly non-violent nature of the 1905 Russian Revolution, wrote that 'The present unrest in Russia has a great lesson for us...We, too, can resort to the Russian remedy against tyranny'. On the other hand, 'The view of the power of rulers as being dependent on the ruled continued throughout his life to be the fundamental political insight upon which Gandhi's struggle rested'(p.39). We will have to grasp this aspect of Gandhi's political thought by re-reading his Hind Swaraj, which is well-known at least partly by its submission that the British rule over India has been made possible by the subservience on the part of the Indians, particularly the educated class.
Gene Sharp's grasp of Gandhi here is wholly from the point of peace and democratization. As such, it, together with several instances of more recent non-violent movement against Nazi or communist regimes discussed in the first chapter, must have encouraged the Arab Spring, or any other movement similar in nature.
The anti-dictatorship alone, however, is not entirely Gandhian. The latter should include some schemes for the just distribution in the society, whether Gandhi himself succeeded in doing so or not. The ongoing 'Anna Hazare Phenomenon' in India is such an example. It is a movement against universally permeated bribery, and as such demanding a more just distribution. But we will look at today's Gene Sharp effect more closely, putting off Anna Hazare to our next column.
From Dictatorship to Democracy:A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, The Albert Einstein Institution, Boston, 4th US Edition, 2010, is one of Sharp's more recent works. It is a booklet of only 93 pages, but of great significance. He initially wrote it in Thailand in 1993 at the request of a Burmese in exile. It is 'a generic analysis', a 'brief examination of how a dictatorship can be disintegrated'. Even without referring Gandhi or Martin Luther King it is from the beginning to the end on nonviolent defiance vs.dictatorship. When the author says 'Contrary to popular opinion, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on the population and the societies they rule'(p.20), the link with the earlier one is immediately apparent.
When the BBC reporters reached the Tahrir Square, Cairo, earlier this year, they saw that the booklet had been widely distributed in its Arabic translation. Some of the readers had been detained, but some others were reading it with a torch by the side of the tank. Gandhi's contemporary significance has extended this much.
Have the courageous fighters in Libya, Syria and others also read this booklet?
Saturday, August 27, 2011
T.R.Sareen's New Book on the Making of Pakistan
There were not a few surprises in the new book by my respected friend T.R.Sareen entitled Jinnah, Linlithgow and the Making of Pakistan-A Documentary Study-, Uppal, New Delhi, 2010. The title is quite appropriate, as the book, and the real process of creating Pakistan seventy years ago, evolved around these two personalities, the President of the All-India Muslim League and the British Governor-General and Viceroy.
Shortly after the Second World War broke out, and Jinnah promised his support to the British war effort, Linlithgow gradually began to look at the League as representing the Muslims in India. To Jinnah's demands of 5 November 1939 that the British should look at all the problems of the future Indian constitution de novo, and there should be no declaration or constitution which were not supported by the two major religious communities in India, Linlithgow replied "yes" on 23December. 'The leaders of the Congress were not aware that Jinnah was working in close confidence of the Viceroy and had given an understanding that he had no wish to come to any agreement with the Congress'(p.37).
And finally the British Secretary of State for India spoke in the House of Lords on 18 April 1940 that 'I cannot believe that any Government or Parliament in this country would attempt to impose by force upon, for example, the 80 million Muslim subjects of His Majesty in India a form of Constitution under which they would not live peacefully and contentedly'(p.244).
So far, in my understanding, Linlithgow's 'August Offer' of the same year, written under the direct guidance of Winston Churchill, the new Prime Minister, and handing over a virtual veto on the constitutional question to the Muslims, tended to be viewed as the climax of the triangular British-Congress-League negotiations. But no, the Secretary's Lords speech was the real climax, which was made within a month of the League's Lahore Resolution demanding Pakistan, and as such almost rubber-stamping the Resolution. It is the reason why the 'August Offer' is included in this book not among the documents but as Appendix I.
My greatest surprise, however, was the Appendix II(pp.251-267).
It is the Report of the (League)Foreign Committee on Pakistan Scheme, 23 December 1940. It plans to establish a federal sovereign state in the northwest of India and another in the northeast. So far it is according to the Lahore Resolution. It, however, goes beyond, and sometimes far beyond, it. The Northwest state includes Delhi as part of the Punjab and a part of UP up to Aligarh. The Northeast gives up Bankura and Midnapur Districts of Bengal from the territory of Pakistan, but includes Purnea of Bihar into it. It claims that all the Princely states under the Muslim rulers will be considered to be sovereign, and especially Hyderabad, the largest of them, should form together with the above two the triangular Muslim powers. The plan, moreover, indicates the possibility of federating the neighbouring Princely states, whether under Muslim rulers or otherwise, with Pakistan. Kashmir, Patiala, and even non-adjoining Bikaner and Jaisalmer in the northwest and Coach Behar, Tripura, Manipur and Khasi Hills in the northeast are mentioned in this context. The fact that the League made such an aggressive plan fairly early and kept it to itself would show that they were serious about Pakistan, which was far from a bargaining counter. It was also jealously kept from the Congress, and not even hinted at even during the 18-day long Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1944. Much of the plan was not realized, but we may conclude that Pakistan was as much a creation of the Pakistan elite as of the British.
At the same time we regret to see that there was no consideration of what would happen to the Muslim minority in the Hindu majority areas and the Hindu minority in the Muslim majority areas. As such it was based on the exclusive interests of the elite classes.
Shortly after the Second World War broke out, and Jinnah promised his support to the British war effort, Linlithgow gradually began to look at the League as representing the Muslims in India. To Jinnah's demands of 5 November 1939 that the British should look at all the problems of the future Indian constitution de novo, and there should be no declaration or constitution which were not supported by the two major religious communities in India, Linlithgow replied "yes" on 23December. 'The leaders of the Congress were not aware that Jinnah was working in close confidence of the Viceroy and had given an understanding that he had no wish to come to any agreement with the Congress'(p.37).
And finally the British Secretary of State for India spoke in the House of Lords on 18 April 1940 that 'I cannot believe that any Government or Parliament in this country would attempt to impose by force upon, for example, the 80 million Muslim subjects of His Majesty in India a form of Constitution under which they would not live peacefully and contentedly'(p.244).
So far, in my understanding, Linlithgow's 'August Offer' of the same year, written under the direct guidance of Winston Churchill, the new Prime Minister, and handing over a virtual veto on the constitutional question to the Muslims, tended to be viewed as the climax of the triangular British-Congress-League negotiations. But no, the Secretary's Lords speech was the real climax, which was made within a month of the League's Lahore Resolution demanding Pakistan, and as such almost rubber-stamping the Resolution. It is the reason why the 'August Offer' is included in this book not among the documents but as Appendix I.
My greatest surprise, however, was the Appendix II(pp.251-267).
It is the Report of the (League)Foreign Committee on Pakistan Scheme, 23 December 1940. It plans to establish a federal sovereign state in the northwest of India and another in the northeast. So far it is according to the Lahore Resolution. It, however, goes beyond, and sometimes far beyond, it. The Northwest state includes Delhi as part of the Punjab and a part of UP up to Aligarh. The Northeast gives up Bankura and Midnapur Districts of Bengal from the territory of Pakistan, but includes Purnea of Bihar into it. It claims that all the Princely states under the Muslim rulers will be considered to be sovereign, and especially Hyderabad, the largest of them, should form together with the above two the triangular Muslim powers. The plan, moreover, indicates the possibility of federating the neighbouring Princely states, whether under Muslim rulers or otherwise, with Pakistan. Kashmir, Patiala, and even non-adjoining Bikaner and Jaisalmer in the northwest and Coach Behar, Tripura, Manipur and Khasi Hills in the northeast are mentioned in this context. The fact that the League made such an aggressive plan fairly early and kept it to itself would show that they were serious about Pakistan, which was far from a bargaining counter. It was also jealously kept from the Congress, and not even hinted at even during the 18-day long Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1944. Much of the plan was not realized, but we may conclude that Pakistan was as much a creation of the Pakistan elite as of the British.
At the same time we regret to see that there was no consideration of what would happen to the Muslim minority in the Hindu majority areas and the Hindu minority in the Muslim majority areas. As such it was based on the exclusive interests of the elite classes.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
No Bhopal, No Hiroshima, No Fukushima
Today 6 August is the Hiroshima Day. At 8.15am, when the bomb exploded, thousands who assembled at the ceremony ground stood up for a minute's silence. They were joined by millions across the country. The Mayor's speech, called the 'Hiroshima Declaration of Peace', is the main item. This year he again called for a nuclear-free peaceful world, and also wanted the nuclear power policy, which is generating so much damage and confusion because of the severe accident at Fukushima, be revised. He added that the extent of the radioactive 'black rain', which showered on the city soon after the explosion but which has been minimized by the government so far, should be properly delineated scientifically so that we could reach a more accurate figure of the victims.
This year a list of 5,785 who had passed away during the last year out of the survivors was prepared, making the total number of dead at Hiroshima 275,230. The number of survivors all over the country has come down to about 220,000 by now. The corresponding figure for Nagasaki of the number of dead in the past year will come out in a day or two. The fateful time for Nagasaki is 11.02am.
The Prime Minister spoke after the Mayor. He referred to the 'ultimate abolition of the nuclear weapons', their preferred phrase to mean that they are not going to be bound, and bind others, by any time-bound arrangement.
Kan, however, added that the existing myth of safety about the nuclear power plants would be looked into, and we will aim at a society not dependent on nuclear energy. Hope he will be as good as his words. I may add here that the nuclear power plants have originally come out of President Eisenhower's famous UN speech on 'Atoms for Peace' in December 1953. It is essentially a part of a plan to make nuclear weapons acceptable. No wonder that the safety element of the plants has not been looked into carefully enough.
Bhopal is the capital city of a major Indian state of Madhya Pradesh(central state). In December 1984, the Union Carbide factory in its suburbs leaked insecticide gas in the thick of the night, causing several thousand of casualties. I had a chance to take a look at the cite in 1988. The factory had been closed, but I saw a statue of a mother embracing a little child crying(written in words) 'No Bhopal, no Hiroshima, we want to live'. This was not a nuclear-related factory. But I was impressed to find 'Hiroshima' there. It was unexpected. But there can be no barrier between nuclear or non-nuclear when it comes to inhuman disasters.
This year a list of 5,785 who had passed away during the last year out of the survivors was prepared, making the total number of dead at Hiroshima 275,230. The number of survivors all over the country has come down to about 220,000 by now. The corresponding figure for Nagasaki of the number of dead in the past year will come out in a day or two. The fateful time for Nagasaki is 11.02am.
The Prime Minister spoke after the Mayor. He referred to the 'ultimate abolition of the nuclear weapons', their preferred phrase to mean that they are not going to be bound, and bind others, by any time-bound arrangement.
Kan, however, added that the existing myth of safety about the nuclear power plants would be looked into, and we will aim at a society not dependent on nuclear energy. Hope he will be as good as his words. I may add here that the nuclear power plants have originally come out of President Eisenhower's famous UN speech on 'Atoms for Peace' in December 1953. It is essentially a part of a plan to make nuclear weapons acceptable. No wonder that the safety element of the plants has not been looked into carefully enough.
Bhopal is the capital city of a major Indian state of Madhya Pradesh(central state). In December 1984, the Union Carbide factory in its suburbs leaked insecticide gas in the thick of the night, causing several thousand of casualties. I had a chance to take a look at the cite in 1988. The factory had been closed, but I saw a statue of a mother embracing a little child crying(written in words) 'No Bhopal, no Hiroshima, we want to live'. This was not a nuclear-related factory. But I was impressed to find 'Hiroshima' there. It was unexpected. But there can be no barrier between nuclear or non-nuclear when it comes to inhuman disasters.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
A Proposal Bona Fide, Serious but Unacceptable
Dr.Hinohara Shigeaki is the most popular physician in Japan at present. He is 99 years old, but his diaries are said to be filled up with appointments for the next at least several years. He has an innumerable number of works to his credit which have significant social meaning apart from purely clinical. For example he was among the first to introduce the idea of hospice here. He also incorporated music as a means of therapy. He is the Chairman of the renowned St.Luke's Hospital, Tokyo. Even in the car he is always writing or dictating. But when out of the car he walks without a stick, and runs up the stairs by two steps at a time.
Hinohara is also a great lover of peace, and says that the Article 9 of our Constitution should not be revised or deleted. Recently he wrote in his weekly newspaper column that when he visited Okinawa earlier this year he revealed a plan of his own designed to solve the question of the US military bases there.
He says that the Okinawans should put up with the present state of the bases for ten years, and the US should return them at the end of the period. Freezing. As simple as that. And he adds that when he put the idea to the 1,000-strong audience they all applauded and said 'yes'.
I have been thinking about it for a few weeks. With all my respect and good wishes to him, however, I am not able to bring myself to accept it. Why?
First, we can abolish the Security Treaty after one year once we notify the US. This is the right prescribed in Article 10 of the Treaty. Are we going to abandon it, together with the possibility that we will mobilize ourselves in that direction?
Second, at the moment we are simply watching the bases as the US use them as they please, with all the accompanying noises, dangers, and so on. Are we to ask the Okinawans to wait for ten years more, on and above the several decades already past?
Third, its not simply freezing, as new developments are bound to occur. The bases are not simply there. They are for transmitting the troops and equipment where ever they are needed. They will not therefore give them up automatically. The idea Hinohara has put to us is not designed to put enough pressure on the US to leave. It is not likely to put any pressure at all.
What puzzles me, after all is said, is why the audience has all agreed, though most of them must be locals. May I suggest, without any cynicism, that it is Hinohara magic?
Hinohara is also a great lover of peace, and says that the Article 9 of our Constitution should not be revised or deleted. Recently he wrote in his weekly newspaper column that when he visited Okinawa earlier this year he revealed a plan of his own designed to solve the question of the US military bases there.
He says that the Okinawans should put up with the present state of the bases for ten years, and the US should return them at the end of the period. Freezing. As simple as that. And he adds that when he put the idea to the 1,000-strong audience they all applauded and said 'yes'.
I have been thinking about it for a few weeks. With all my respect and good wishes to him, however, I am not able to bring myself to accept it. Why?
First, we can abolish the Security Treaty after one year once we notify the US. This is the right prescribed in Article 10 of the Treaty. Are we going to abandon it, together with the possibility that we will mobilize ourselves in that direction?
Second, at the moment we are simply watching the bases as the US use them as they please, with all the accompanying noises, dangers, and so on. Are we to ask the Okinawans to wait for ten years more, on and above the several decades already past?
Third, its not simply freezing, as new developments are bound to occur. The bases are not simply there. They are for transmitting the troops and equipment where ever they are needed. They will not therefore give them up automatically. The idea Hinohara has put to us is not designed to put enough pressure on the US to leave. It is not likely to put any pressure at all.
What puzzles me, after all is said, is why the audience has all agreed, though most of them must be locals. May I suggest, without any cynicism, that it is Hinohara magic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)