Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

India, a war cry to take on China ....


India, a war cry to take on China ....

Reading the full text of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s speech at the Indian Science Congress annual session at Bhuvaneshwar on Tuesday alongside the Indian media reports on it will sent you into giggles. Most reports cast the speech as a war cry to take on China in the field of science and innovative technology. Very few got the drift of the PM’s speech right. Most cub reporters got it terribly wrong.

Is it that there is something seriously wrong with the grasping power of our reporters due to poor IQ or lack of good education? I don’t think so. Somehow, the Indian media have come to assume that if the establishment mentions China in any context, it must be invariably in a spirit of rivalry. The thesis of the ‘competition-cum-cooperation’ with China, which our pundits have begun enthusiastically expounding (soon after the Americans began using the phraseology), has permeated the popular consciousness.

Before filing the copy from Bhuvaneshwar, our guys could have done some surfing on the internet to see where China figures in comparison with India in the field of innovative technology so that they could somewhat divine what might have been PM’s thought process like...

I have this Economist Intelligence Unit’s report on the subject dated April 2009. Of course, by 2005 in the listing of triadic patents per million population, India was already placed at rank bottom although with an improved standing as compared to ten years ago. China was a shade above India. When the OECD average was 42.97, India’s was 0.12 and China’s 0.27.

But then, India and China also held the world record in population. A better barometer was the international patent index. Here China was evaluated expectedly at 5.67 while India’s stood at 5.14, which was a shade below. PM is right: China began ‘overtaking’ India....

But what struck me really was that both India and China have some solid catching up to do; countries that outstripped them were UK, USA, Switzerland, Germany, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Singapore and South Korea. India was stuck in a league that broadly included Russia, China, Brazil and Mexico.

So, why compare with China? Why not with UK, who was our old lord and master? I think PM was rightly pointing out that in the poor man’s league, too, India is increasingly lagging behind....
Now comes the shocking part – global innovation index of 2011. By 2011 China is zooming ahead of India, having reached the 29th spot on the world table, as compared to India’s placement at 62. China has virtually joined the OECD countries while India gets bracketed with Mongolia, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Guyana, Ukraine, Oman, etc. Is there any scope for harboring a sense of ‘competition’ with China? Envy, admiration, disbelief, despair - yes. Rivalry? No, Sir.

By the way, what are the inputs that go into innovation inputs index? Don’t get a fit of uncontrollable laughter, but according to one prominent TV channel at least, they boil down to finding the money to make a supercomputer. Whereas, the EIU lists out the following inputs: R&D as percentage of GDP; quality of the local research infrastructure; education of the work force; technical skills of the work force; quality of IT and communications infrastructure; broadband penetration.

In a nutshell, it is a tough proposition. But then, it all boils down to how much money India can find for butter after apportioning generously for the guns. It’s a hard choice between A.K.Antony and Vilasrao Deshmukh. You can’t have the cake and eat it too, can you? Seriously, make the difficult choice at this formative period of India’s ‘take-off’. Want to live like Switzerland? Or, like USSR? It’s up to us. China seems to be able to have the money for butter as well as guns — like Ronald Reagan’s America did. But is it a matter of finding the money alone?

According to the EIU report, the weights for the innovation index is split among the following ‘environmental’ conditions: political stability; macroeconomic stability; institutional framework; regulatory environment (tax regime, labor market, openness to foreign investment, etc); openness of national culture to foreign influence; popular attitudes to scientific advancement, and so on. It’s a long haul for India, isn’t it? On the whole, I think PM gave a rosy picture. PM’s speech is here.





Thursday, November 17, 2011

India, a Tiger in the dragon's yard...



[India is not the superpower that Indian and American leaders would like to pretend her to be (SEE: Investing Your Future In A Poison Peace Process .... ). Every dollar wasted on setting itself up as America's policeman is a dollar that could be invested in the people of India. No other nation, except perhaps the US, shows such a glaring disparity between the super-capitalists at the top and the untapped sea of potential workers and consumers at the very bottom. How can its leaders justify buying and building, eventually, aircraft carriers, to enforce US sea lane controls?]


India, a Tiger in the dragon's yard...
By Sreeram Chaulia

This year's East Asia Summit (EAS) in Bali, Indonesia on November 18-19 will welcome two new member states - the United States and Russia [1]. The new members make this annual grouping of odd-fitting dialogue partners an even more complex body, while defying the geographic context of its title.

The EAS has had extra-regional dimensions since its inception in 2005 in Kuala Lumpur, when the presence of Australia, New Zealand and India excited controversy from different quarters. The hosts and chief initiators of the whole project, Malaysia, objected the presence of two Pacific states that were ethnically non-Asian and seen as Western stooges, while China resisted the the inclusion of India, as a South Asian state that could threaten its predominant position.

Among the non-East Asian powers that now command seats at the EAS, India faces perhaps the greatest challenges in justifying its influence over the region's diplomatic agenda. Coverage in Indian media in the run up to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Bali voyage has focussed largely on a bilateral pow-wow he is scheduled to have with US President Barack Obama on the summit's side-lines. Hardly anything of import about India's capacity to become a major East Asian player has come to light, reflecting a large gap between aspirations and reality.

India's strategic elites want to shape their country into a countervailing force in China's strategic surroundings, possibly replacing the US in the long run should Washington lose the fiscal strength needed to project power in East Asia. Since China's military and economic penetration of South Asia, India's "near abroad", is quite advanced, New Delhi seeks tit-for-tat pressure points in Southeast and Northeast Asia to remind Beijing that hegemony in Asia will not be conceded without contest.

The political dimensions of India's two-decade-long "Look East" policy underscore this willingness to enter a zone that China has lorded over since Japan's decline, with hopes New Delhi will be entrenched as a "resident power" like the US. However, unlike Washington, New Delhi faces a serious paucity of material means to fuel its dreams of becoming a pivotal actor in the Southeast and Northeast Asian regions.

Indian naval strategists warned earlier this year against bravado in the disputed South China Sea waters, following a spat with China over oil exploration by an Indian state-owned oil company off the coast of Vietnam. Admiral Arun Prakash, a retired chief of India's navy, cautioned against conflict with China over "freedom of navigation in international waters" at a time when the Indian navy was thinly stretched and lacked the means to "sustain a naval presence some 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 kilometers) from home to bolster ONGC Videsh Ltd's stake in South China Sea hydrocarbons".

In an inversion of former US president Theodore Roosevelt's maxim of "speak softly and carry a big stick", Indian officials have been unable to seamlessly integrate diplomatic exchanges with China-fearing countries in Southeast Asia like Vietnam and the Philippines into concrete naval expansion.

Unlike the US, India lacks the naval bases or warships that could deter the formidable People's Liberation Army Navy in Southeast and Northeast Asia.

China, which usually dismisses India's pretensions as an Asian superpower over its internal weaknesses, has not however been complacent about multilateral military exercises involving India, the US, Japan and Australia in waters Beijing claims. But bowing to the fait accompli presented by its relatively weak navy, New Delhi has in the past limited these exercises to avoid riling China.

The Chinese position that foreign navies should not be "intruding" on vast oceanic areas far beyond the concept of territorial waters and exclusive economic zones is arguably the central security issue of the EAS. Despite its soaring ambitions, India is at best a bit player on this point and will remain so as long as its navy is not a global force.

In the economic sphere, India's free-trade agreement (FTA) with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) does lend New Delhi an undeniable importance at the EAS. While this pact much smaller in the volume of exchanged goods than China's FTA with ASEAN, the mere availability of another gigantic market of a billion-plus consumers in the vicinity of China is a welcome development for smaller nations in the EAS that fear damage to local producers at the hands of China's predatory exports.

However, one of the deficiencies in India's "Look East" economic policies is that its gaze has reached far enough east. Indians are more familiar with plotting a role in Southeast Asia than farther afield in Northeast Asia. The latter is witnessing remarkable moves towards closer economic integration, a process in which India is currently a non-entity.

In spite of their historic and strategic divides, China, South Korea and Japan have deepened a series of currency swap agreements put in place since the global financial crisis of 2008 to absorb sudden shocks. As export-dependent economies, the three Northeast Asian powers are closely enmeshing their financial sectors, generating a new dynamic of pro-China domestic constituencies that rival the older pro-American lobbies in Tokyo and Seoul.

India's challenge as a rising economic power is to find ways to cultivate pro-India forces in East Asia through concrete trading and financial tools. Unless the Indian economy develops a significant manufacturing and exporting segment, New Delhi will find itself locked out of the innovative economic regionalism that China is spearheading in its neighborhood. It is China's prowess in exports that has enabled it to now prepare a yuan trade settlement agreement with the 10-member ASEAN group, boosting the yuan's status as a regional reserve currency in Asia.

At the Bali summit this weekend, Manmohan will make all the ceremonial statements and satiate the press corps back home with photo-ops with Obama. However, the crux of the matter is the reality that India is still not a central actor in the East Asian theater. New Delhi will need to orchestrate multiple structural transformations of its naval priorities and economic thrust before it can claim to be a genuine match to China and a tiger with teeth in East Asia...

The “peace process” has been sold to Pakistani leaders as a doorway out of this hellish existence, into the arms of the “community of nations,” even though entry will only be possible if Pakistan kneels before the Imperial dictates of the United States and its Indian proxies. Pakistan’s biggest problem is its history with the CIA. For more than thirty years, Pakistan has served as the CIA’s terrorist/jihadi laboratory, the place where the spymasters have perfected their art of “Islamist” destabilization. This is the behavioral science of motivating indigenous Muslim populations to overthrow their own governments. From the many years of practical experience that has been gained in Pakistan, the CIA mind-benders have established a working formula of “Islamist” agitation of highly religious, though under-educated Muslim populations, that takes advantage of the weaknesses in human nature itself, to cause the populations to rise-up against their own governments, demanding that those legitimate governments enforce a system of corrupt “Shariah Law” upon them. This “peace process,” much like the failed Israeli/Palestinian peace process, is a delusional process, used to sell the participants a false “bill of goods” as the only “road map” to peace, even though it only leads to war.

Pakistan has many times seen the Islamist armies that it has trained turn against its trainers, usually for failure to live up to the Jihadi standards that they were taught. These disaffected Jihadis then become active enemies of the state, such as the TTP in Waziristan and Swat. These reversals have happened under the watchful eye and protection of that same State. It is a moot question, at this point, whether the Army and ISI were willing players in all of this, or whether they too have fallen victim to American psywar games. It is a process that has played-out in too many countries to be written-off to the workings of fate—the CIA mind games could never succeed without willing participants among the homeland populations. Pakistani leaders have sold Pakistanis out, just as American leaders have continually sold Americans out. It is the way of the Evil Empire. You must invite the vampire into your house before he can drink your blood.

Now that this northern army has become fully activated as true enemies of the State, they work toward the same goals as the Baloch Liberation Army in the south, the destruction of the legitimate, democratically elected government of Pakistan. Both puppet (proxy) armies dance to the same puppeteer’s tunes, but they believe that they are fighting for either Allah, or for country. This is the glaring hypocrisy of the American Hegelian dialectic–the American government is continually building things up, to later knock them down. Pakistan is suffering from a traditional pincer movement, but since they appear to be completely opposite in nature, with completely different goals, we tend to ignore the connection. The AfPak region, more specifically, the Pashtun belt of that region, is being squeezed into a fluid, homogeneous mass, which can easily be pushed back and forth, to erase the invisible border which impedes American actions.

But you will hear about none of this from an Indian analyst.

American analysts are different, in that we analyze the Imperial plans from an American nationalist perspective. Taking a patriotic angle, we look for weaknesses that will help us slay the Imperial Beast that has taken over our government and has been set loose upon the world. We have become a fascist power in our effort to reshape the world, and realistic American analysts understand this. Any useful analysis of world events must be based upon that premise.

The fascist power operates through a traditional “bait and switch” strategy. They promote “Democracy” throughout the world as the primary weapon of destabilization, with the intent of crushing the results of any democratic movement in the end. We use it as bait, to tempt the targeted audience with unimagined political freedoms which will never materialize, holding them up as promised rewards for them risking their own lives in mass-movements to reform their own governments. The switch comes after the regime is forced to change, whenever the democratic-revolution is exposed as an exercise in American Imperialism, giving the Empire veto power over any “democratic” decisions made by that government or the people they claim to represent. After the dust of “regime change” has settled, the next American puppet government rules for as long as it can continue to repress the people. Any elected government that doesn’t adhere to this rigid fascist formula becomes itself the next subject for regime change.

A realistic analysis of the India/Pakistani peace process would have to proceed on the assumption that the primary beneficiary will prove to be American. If a deal between them is brokered by the US State Dept., by the Dept. of Commerce, or by the Pentagon, everyone should understand by now exactly where the big pay-off will go. Mr. Singh is proving himself to be even more of a dupe than Zardari. Nobody really expected anything less from Mr. Ten Percent, but the world put high hopes on Manmohan Singh.

Obama wants India and Pakistan to play nice, so that he can pretend to withdraw from Afghanistan, while leaving both of them (and the rest of the regional players) holding the bag after 2014. Obama wants you to build and protect TAPI, which is to be the first of many pipelines on the strategic corridor to Central Asia, otherwise referred to as the “Silk Roads.” Obama wants India to fill the great void of the former Soviet space with warm Indian bodies, some tending shiny new American-made jet fighters, others slaving in the elements on Indian road crews.

Obama wants Indian telecommunication companies as well as construction companies to help energize the CIS space, especially to build the currently non-existent road and rail networks needed to assimilate the resource bonanza. India does stand to reap enormous financial rewards from this, if it will consent to transferring its developing industry into Central Asia, away from the Indian homeland, where it is needed even more urgently. In Central Asia there are not enough roads because there have never been enough people, as opposed to India, where perhaps half a billion people suffer from economic deprivation that is exacerbated by a lack of development and the great investments which come with it.

Obama wants all of Afghanistan’s neighbors to lend full support to the hidden American plans, without ever revealing what they are, always with the promise of rewards beyond measure for unquestioned collaboration in that unrevealed plan. He sells them a message of Hope, resting upon an appeal to Blind Faith in Americans and their inescapable commitment to do the Right Thing. This is the formula for the fascist “snake oil” that Obama is peddling to get his way in the world.

The leaders of both Pakistan and India must be prepared to turn away from the American bait and switch operation at play in Afghanistan, if they want to survive without suffering through violent repercussions for their partnerships with the devil. All Nations with peoples yearning to be free must be prepared to turn away from the fraudulent con-games which pass for world government these days, before the devil can ever be brought to his knees and humanity can finally learn what it means to be truly Free....


Notes:
1.) The 18 countries attending this year's East Asia Summit are: Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United States, and Vietnam.

Sreeram Chaulia is a professor and Vice Dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs in Sonipat, India.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Arab Spring: Opening A Pandora's Box for Eurasia, MENA, Africa, India, China and beyond?


The Arab Spring: Opening A Pandora's Box for Eurasia, MENA, Africa, India, China and beyond?

By A. K. Verma

The so called Arab spring represents a massive popular movement, not seen or predicted in the Arab world ever since the Suez sponsored Nasserite upheaval. It is as significant as the falling of the Berlin wall. The effects of the falling of the Berlin wall are still being felt. Similarly, the Arab spring will lead to irreversible and continuous changes.

Although a common thread links the movement in all the regions its origins are not monocausal. The common denominator is that the entire region seeks a total transformation of ruling political structures and processes, fundamental reforms in governance to foster social equity and emancipation of the poverty ridden classes. The downtrodden have risen to forge a new identity, to look for better opportunities in education, development and personal enhancement.

The spring started in Tunisia with a policewoman slapping a young adult who immolated himself later. This ignited into a blaze the widespread discontent which had been there in Tunisia against the regime, leading ultimately to the flight of the president of Tunisia. Reactions followed in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria where similar undercurrents of discontent prevailed against the autocratic regimes. The Egyptian president had to abdicate also. The Yemen President, hurt in an assault at the Presidential Palace, took refuge in Saudi Arabia. Other rulers are facing armed insurrections.

The specific issues vary from country to country but broadly they can be placed in two categories. The movements in Tunisia, Bahrain and Libya are more social than political or economic, engineered by unhappy tribal or sectarian maladjustments, aggravated by authoritarian rulers. In Egypt, Yemen and Syria the roots lie in political, economic and sectarian dissatisfactions. Only Bahrain is monarchial: the rest of the five countries are republican. Great anxieties are being felt in their neighbourhood, especially the monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the gulf region. If the unrest spreads to these regions, absolutely unpredictable consequences can arise. Instability in Saudi Arabia will lead to severe repercussions in the oil and energy politics of the world. There are many who dread at the thought of instability in Saudi Arabia as it is also the custodian of the Muslim holy places of Mecca and Medina.

In Egypt the problem also has an inter religious dimension. The Copts and the Muslim citizens have never been able to live in total harmony all these decades past. In Bahrain and Syria the rulers are from minority communities, Sunni and Shia respectively and the Shia Sunni divide has now come to the fore as never before in these two countries. The sectarian conflict is also being provoked from outside, Saudi Arabia in the case of Bahrain and Iran in the case of Syria. Iran is also supporting the majority populace of Bahrain. The Sunni cause has received support from the Saudis who are forever striving to establish the supremacy of Sunni Islam over the entire Islamic world through liberal funding and projecting Wahabism and Salafism. In Libya, the problems arise from a society, divided heavily between the tribes, clans and regions, each imbued with its own sense of sub nationalism. The Libyan unrest is compounded further by a Western interference, operating under a new aggressive principle of defending the indigenous population against the so called depredations of its own regime This is too thin a cover to disguise the Western Powers’ real objectives in Libya, originating from their desire to control the economic and oil resources of Libya. The West is otherwise also reluctant to lose its preeminence in the Arab world, particularly Egypt and Yemen. The interests of the West and Saudi Arabia in this respect coalesce. These developments point to two geopolitical factors at play in the region, rising Shia Sunni rivalries and the open Western intervention in the region, to safeguard their energy security.

Aggravation of Shia Sunni divide will cause unbridled manifestation of competitive religious chauvinism, as is already happening in Pakistan, and as had become common, though largely one-sided, during the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Several Arab countries have significant Shia populations like Kuwait (30%) and Saudi Arabia (17% mostly in oil locations), not to mention Iraq which has a majority. As Shia Sunni antagonism crosses the point of no return these countries could get severely troubled.

The West, to protect its concerns regarding hydrocarbons, has already co-opted the UN to justify armed attacks in Libya. It has also set in motion the reconstitution of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), primarily of Arab Sheikhs and monarchs, but now to include also the kings of Jordan and Morocco. The GCC will be expected to provide counterweight to the republican Arab regimes if they emerge as hostile entities.

Some broad contours of the likely shape of events in the affected regions can be made out but the distant future remains very hazy. In Egypt while a general consensus to have a new constitution has evolved, the debate remains unsettled what should come first, elections or constitution. A significant development in Egypt has been the recognition of the Muslim brotherhood as a political party, which entitles it to participate in elections overtly using its own agenda as its manifesto. The Muslim brotherhood had for a long time tried to seek recognition and acceptability in the country but had not succeeded so far. Although it has indicated now that its participation in the elections and in the governance thereafter if elected to power, will be bereft of any overtones of violence, it cannot be taken for certain that its strategy will not change in the future, like the Maoists in Nepal who joined the civil processes in Nepal giving up their violent ideology but have retained the desire to become ultimately the supreme power in Nepal. The Muslim brotherhood in Egypt always had the aim of establishing a complete sway over the country and, thereafter, to spread the tentacles of its ideology to other regions of the Arab world. The Muslim brotherhood had been founded in the vision that all Arabs would unite to form one single Islamic Umma but that dream was not fulfilled because the Arabs felt that they were Arabs first and Muslims later. Will this dream reappear in case the Muslim Brotherhood gains power in Egypt remains to be seen but the possibility that some kind of pan Islamist ideology will get promoted in the Arab world under its tutelage will be on the cards.

In Yemen, after the President ran away to Saudi Arabia, a serious tribal conflict has ensued. Yemen is a major strong hold of Al Qaeda in the Arab world and therefore the Saudis and West are deeply interested there to liquidate it. In Bahrain Saudi troops have helped the ruler to crush the Shia opposition for the time being but the discontent rages. Possibly, in Libya, Muammer Qaddafi will have to leave the country in which case how the equation of governance will be resolved with acute differences existing among its tribes, clans and regions will be a time consuming affair. The West would like a pro West government to be established in Libya but the Arabs of Libya are also highly anti US and they do not necessarily consider pro Western government to be in their best interest.

In Syria issues are equally complex. The Syrian president controls all the levers of military power with members of his Alawite sect in all key positions. The Sunni majority, unable to construct a serious alternative, may decide to accept the continuing leadership of President Bashir, albeit reluctantly, till better scenarios surface. Sooner or later, however, the strength of the majority will be felt in the ruling corridors of Syria more and more emphatically and the status quo will change. Syria is the last bastion of Bath socialist philosophy and ideology and if Bashir is thrown out that will mark the end of the last secular establishment in the Arab world.

Who are the real shakers and movers in the Arab world? They are largely the young generations familiar with the internet, face book and twitter and, thanks to them, cognizant of the happenings all over the world in terms of enlarging peoples’ rights, economic renaissance and upward mobility. They are better educated than previous generations but they lack adequate avenues of employment and personal development. Their education and awareness heightens their sensibilities, strengthens their aspirations for better living standards and raises their demands for liberty, equity, justice and fair play in their societies. Their desperation was acute and any spark anywhere had the potential for their frustrations to explode. The Tunisian episode became the trigger and they have seized the opportunity to seek new spaces for themselves.

Will the new structures of governments which may get established be able to fulfill the aspirations of this growing community of young people and, if they do not, what will be the consequences? Their energies will then stretch into areas which will militate against a harmonious existence and relationship between the governed and the governing.

In such a milieu an ideology like Muslim brotherhood gets a new opportunity to stake a new role and play it out more successfully than what it was able to achieve in the past.

Egypt is the largest Arab country and can be expected to be in a leadership role in the region. A Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo may act as a magnet for the Islamists in the entire region. Since Islam remains inhospitable to democracy, in due course Islam will rise to preeminence in all the countries. Sooner or later this will result in the clergy assuming more importance and weightage in the administration as happened in Pakistan. The process can develop into a sturdy slide towards Islamization of the Arab world and later into an Islamist configuration as a more myopic view of Islam gets generated elsewhere in the world.

The grounds for such a configuration worldwide are fairly strong. In many regions irrespective of the nature of regimes, where Muslims feel victimized, Muslims are always pushing towards Islamization. In Muslim countries, the thrust towards Islamization invariably spawns a drift towards Islamism. In certain countries in Western Europe and also in the United States, the writings on the wall have been deciphered. They are forsaking the values of multiculturalism, which grew out of Renaissance, and Reawakening in some previous centuries in Europe and which had become articles of faith in the conscience of the Western people. Threats of terrorism, fear of Muslim immigrants overtaking and outnumbering the natural residents, and the rigidity of Islamic practices and doctrines which lead to unbridgeable gaps with other religions, have compelled several European countries to turn their face away from multiculturalism. An outline of a dreadful scenario could be in the offing, foreseen more than 15 years ago by a Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington, who had created a lively controversy then by enunciating what he called a theory of Clashes of Civilizations. Discarding multiculturalism is tantamount to hardening one’s own cultural posture. Set against the Muslim desire to live by their own religious and cultural standards, the space for compromise in these countries narrows down. Under these circumstances can a clash in a higher profile be ruled out altogether in the future? In the US this dilemma is not being articulated in the public domain yet because their constitution recognizes the supremacy of the rights of the individual over the rights of the State. There are many Muslims in America who are born Americans and, therefore, enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population. Publicly, the administration there cannot ask the Muslim Americans to live by the values of the majority. There the conflict is sought to be controlled covertly in the sense that laws have been amended or enacted, like the Patriot Act, to give the enforcement agencies more powers to keep under aggressive surveillance any citizen suspected of transgressing the laws of the country or acting suspiciously.. This private posture of the US government cannot remain hidden for too long and the battle will be out in the open as in Germany, France and Australia. Muslims are averse to any reforms in their religious and ideological doctrines. In the “new” Arab world already burdened with anti US and anti west images, the reactions are bound to be mirror opposites. The growing influence of Al Qaeda ideology will ensure such a result.

Some conclusions which can be immediately drawn from the unfolding events in the Arab world are as follows:-

(a) The area will remain destabilized over an extended period.

(b) There will be long disputes over new political structures and methods of governance. Democracy’s chances appear slim.

(c) Polity will get polarized with religious conservatism gaining an upper hand.

(d) As Al Qaeda has made significant in roads and anti US and anti West sentiments predominate, a slide towards Islamism seems unavoidable in the long run.

(e) The dominant strand of such an Islamism will be Sunni. Shia Sunni chasm will widen.

(f) Resultantly, religious extremism will grow which in turn will fuel radicalization and Jehadism.

(g) At the wider international level Arab countries of the region may constitute themselves into a bloc against the western world.

(h) Energy will become more expensive.

India will need to keep an eagle’s eye on the developing scenarios in the Arab world. While its own energy security will perhaps remain the prime concern, it will also need to insulate itself against the influences of a possibly growing Islamic resurgence in West Asia and North Africa....