Through a (narrow) looking glass

India’s security-centric policies makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable.

On June 29 Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh told 25 print editors that 25 per cent of the Bangladeshi population was anti-Indian—inadvertently triggering a diplomatic crisis in the aftermath. Singh’s comment was meant to be off-the-record, but the whole transcript of the interaction with the editors made it in the public domain after it was published in the PMO website-which was later removed.

“At least 25 per cent of the population of Bangladesh swear by the Jamiat-ul-Islami [sic] and they are very anti-Indian, and they were in the clutches, many times, of the ISI,” Singh said according to reports.

If that is the method by which New Delhi makes its calculation about its friends and enemies, most of the South Asian countries surrounding India would qualify as anti-Indians. By that standard more than a third of Nepali population would be anti-India given that they voted for the Maoists.

The comment from Dr Singh, who is soft-spoken and mild-mannered, came at a time when he is preparing to visit Dhaka. Fortunately Delhi and Dhaka have managed to improve ties considerably since the Awami Leauge government came to power in 2008. But the fact that it was meant to be off-the-record, indicates that the prime minister was aware of the sensitivity and gravity of the “information” he was passing off. Such a comment reflects poorly not only on Indian political leadership’s judgement, but also how its agencies process information strictly in black and white categories.

The problem lies therein. India’s neighbourhood policy is obsessively security-centric and that regularly makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable, taking decades to resolve. Of course, not everything India does in its neighbourhood is purely out of security concern and security is not the entire sum of its bilateral relationships. To be fair, it has supported the growth of democratic and pluralistic society in the region. It spends majority of its foreign assistance in the region-often amounting to millions of dollars. Nepal receives billions of rupees every year in bilateral assistance. But the high-handed approach of India’s bureaucrats makes its neighbours uncomfortable and suspicious about the New Delhi’s larger game plan. Some of these issues are a product of unfavourable perception partly shaped by historical and cultural baggage, but certainly India hasn’t done itself a favour by allowing the perception to perpetuate. It is also extra-sensitive to presence of extra-regional powers, especially China and to some extent US and EU countries in what it considers its sphere of influence Why is New Delhi not assured even when Dhaka has a very India-friendly government at the moment? There are many reasons, but primary among them is that its neighbours do not share New Delhi’s security concerns-making them uncooperative. This leads the security agencies to conclude that a country X or party Y is destructive to their interests—an ‘either you are with us or against us’ argument of sorts.

Over the years, India has also failed to develop a security doctrine that is shared by even its neighbours-allowing genuine Indian concerns to be perceived unfavourably as meddling.

Every time the Indians forward a proposal or make demands relating to security, its neighbours get suspicious about its intent. Often, the suspicion manifests itself into strong security dilemma forcing them even to reach out to “extra-regional powers” like China or the US to balance Indian overtures. There cannot be a purely unilateral security approach without the regional ownership of its partners. And no security doctrine is going to succeed on its own. It needs to be integrated in a larger development and economic vision for the region.

New Delhi will have to revamp its public diplomacy in the region-projecting its values and vision for the region, not its fears and insecurities-and coordinating the works of its different agencies-giving it a degree of coherence.

Public resentment is not permanent, and it can be changed with proper set of policies. Take for example, the opinion about America in the Muslim world during the Bush era. After President Barrack Obama assumed the leadership of America, he consciously reached out to the Muslims. In two short years, the public across Arab countries are calling for American help in democratising their country. What George Bush failed with American military might and money, Obama succeed with his quiet diplomacy and sustained public engagement. New Delhi’s public statement on the importance it attaches to its neighbours has not been matched by its action. No Indian prime minister has visited Kathmandu since 1996 on an official visit.

“It appears that there is neither an interest in the neighbourhood nor time for the political class in India to deal with its neighbours, except when it comes to Pakistan,” wrote Smruti S. Pattanaik in his journal article, “India’s Neighbourhood Policy: Perceptions from Bangladesh,” published earlier this year.

To many, its policies on Nepali or Bangladeshi imports, for example, give away the paradox that India is-a mismatch between its global-power ambition and small-power mindset.

“A resourceful and capable India, therefore, has appeared to the smaller neighbours as a petty trader of economic goods and advantages. India has not been able to earn political goodwill through its economic diplomacy despite the fact that it is the most important economic partner of some of its neighbours and has provided huge assistance and support to them,” SD Muni, an eminent Nepal expert in India, wrote in an article published in 2009.

Lack of coherent and integrated security and development policy makes waste of India’s leverage in the neighbourhood and the resources it pours. Without bringing more coherence to its bilateral dealings, India will forever struggle to make sense of its neighbourhood-making paranoid pronouncements. In turn its neighbours will be left to wonder about New Delhi’s words and deeds-leaving the door ajar for more “extra-regional” players-not less.
India’s security-centric policies makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable, taking decades to resolve

Of course, the onus also lies on its neighbours to understand New Delhi better, but as the regional power house with global ambition, India’s responsibilities are greater.

Silent revolution

Great things are happening in rural Nepal unknown to the media fixated on politics.

A cursory look across many towns and villages across eastern Nepal offers a promise of social and economic transformation. Sleepy bazaars have become bustling towns, villages on the periphery are fast becoming a sort of suburbs—thanks to improved road connectivity, expanding internal markets, rising commodity and land prices, and above all, a rise in the purchasing power of average Nepalis with increased flow of remittance. Of course, the trend isn’t limited to eastern Nepal; but given the presence of better infrastructure and basic services, the region is better poised to make a leap.

A recent report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), The Rise of Asia’s Middle Class, has quantified the size of Nepal’s middle class at 23 percent of the population (or 6.1 million people). Middle class is defined as having a daily earning of between US$ 2-20. Though the income categorisation appears somewhat faulty, there is no denying that Nepal’s middle class is rising. The rise has been contributed by more than one member contributing to the family income. Even for farmers, traditionally the poorest segment of the population, farming is not the only source of income generation anymore. Remittance has played a key part in slashing the poverty rate. Its contribution to the GDP is over 23 percent.

With a steady cash flow from many income sources, today an average village cooperative boasts over Rs 1 million in deposits—an amount that can easily be used for cooperative businesses. A high unemployment rate is also sowing the seeds of entrepreneurism

among youth. Gulf returnees are bringing skills, and most importantly, the work ethic and discipline to toughen it out, which is required for entrepreneurial success. There needs to be a proper empirical study to ascertain the depth of this silent transformation taking place. But the general discourse is still dictated by Kathmandu-centric politics and the media’s urban-centric coverage.

Even at the local level, everyone complains about the political situation and the impact of a protracted transition on employment generation and business opportunities. Desperate talk about wanting to go abroad for employment and settlement is not uncommon, yet what is also becoming common is educated youth taking up self-employment or start-ups.

An acquaintance was a teacher at a higher secondary school in Kavre. He gave up his job and returned to his native Jhapa to take up cattle rearing and supplying milk to local dairies. He says it is harder work, but more money as well. Another individual I know went through various jobs without much success before starting a successful poultry farmer’s cooperative. Today, the farmers themselves run

some of the meat stalls—removing the middle man who exploited them. Though he still complains about lack of a supporting environment, he isn’t thinking about quitting. In fact, he is thinking of expansion.

For every success story, there are many busted ideas; yet this process is making Nepalis more adaptive to the changing situation. Reinventing yourself to fit a different career mould is not an easy task. But as career counsellors will tell you, those who do it have a higher chance of staying afloat even during the rough and tumble. Employment in the Gulf countries is also providing much needed international exposure to Nepalis from even the most remote part of the country. Many return home with some cash after a few years inspired to set up their own start-ups.

Though high migration from villages to urban centres and even abroad is still the norm, reverse migration is also taking place as road connectivity has pushed up land prices even in the hinterlands. Subsequently, many entrepreneurs who had left their villages are suddenly seeing more business opportunities in small towns and villages than big cities. There is tremendous room for growth for both small businesses and services even in the current environment. Of course, not all is well.

Prospects for large-scale industrial revolution remain hobbled by rising costs of production and transportation, trigger-happy unions and acute power shortages, among many other problems. Even by a regional comparison, we are not doing as well as we should be. Bangladesh on average is doing better than us despite the many problems it faces. But that doesn’t take away the fact that even during the insurgency period, the Nepali economy achieved a steady growth and continues to do so. Much of the social and economic changes are taking place despite the government.

Unfortunately, Kathmandu-centric politics continues to hijack public discourse even though the pace of social and economic change in the towns and villages provides a real basis to underpin a true revolution. But with a new-found focus on infrastructure development in Kathmandu, the tone for economic development is being set right, though belatedly. New highways are in the pipeline, connecting remote parts of the country.

The budgetary allocation for infrastructure development this year stands at Rs 37.19 billion for roads, drinking water projects and housing programmes. Of this amount, Rs 27 billion, including Rs 2.51 billion for maintenance, was allocated for roads and bridges; while Rs 4.83 billion went to drinking water and Rs 3.2 billion for housing programmes.

Of these, the Mid-Hill Lokmarga connecting Chiyabhanjyang in Panchthar district

in the Eastern Region with Jhulaghat in Baitadi in the Western Region is close to completion. The 1,770 km long highway links at least 23 hilly districts across 12 zones. The road passes through Panchthar, Dhankuta, Bhojpur, Khotang, Okhaldhunga, Udaypur, Sindhuli, Kavre, Bhaktapur, Kathmandu, Dhading, Chitwan, Tanahu, Kaski, Parbat, Baglung, Rukum, Surkhet, Jajarkot, Dailekh, Achham, Doti, Dadheldhura and Baitadi districts. The proposed 7.5-m wide road will connect the eastern part of the country with the west, thus stimulating growth and providing market access to agro products.

The degree of change may vary from region to region and district to district, but the form of change is similar across Nepal’s 4,000 villages and adjacent small and big towns. If the preoccupation in Kathmandu can be diverted from self-defeating politics, the situation is ripe in Nepal for a major transformation.

Beating around the bush

John Narayan Parajuli

Last Monday, CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal hurled a broadside at Nepali Congress’ prime ministerial contender Ram Chandra Poudel—that should have resonance across the political spectrum. “Repeated defeat in the PM polls reduces his [Poudel’s] qualification [for the top job],” Khanal told reporters emerging from the CA hall after the failed 15th round of election. Few minutes later Poudel ventured with a ready retort: “How much has his qualification increased?”

In last three years no politicians have been able to burnish their credibility, except perhaps late Girija Prasad Koirala and Baburam Bhattarai. Khanal certainly can’t claim the moral high ground now. His spirit for consensus may be admirable, but he has done very little to translate his idea into reality. Khanal is as guilty as Poudel and Dahal for the erosion in the public faith from the political system.

The hair-splitting over whether Poudel’s withdrawal or an overarching agreement should come first is equivalent to the chicken-and-egg conundrum. There is probably no right way of deciding it. But in any case, Dahal and Khanal, if they are serious about consensus, should be able to assure that they (especially Dahal) mean what they say.

The Maoist leaders have a serious credibility issue, as far as Nepali Congress is concerned.

They feel that the former rebels have reneged on many written and unwritten agreements. While both sides are calling for a new set of agreement, their understanding of why is it necessary varies. Congress and others want a new agreement to implement the past agreements. The Maoists feel that at least some of the past agreements have outlived their utility. They also argue that the solution to the political stalemate lies in Delhi. There is fundamental difference in the perception among them as to where the crux of the problem lies: Delhi or the Maoist dubiousness. Though each agrees that if the other side is flexible, solution isn’t far away.

For Congressites, and those who share their worldview, the problem lies in the undependable nature of the Maoists. They find it hard to take Maoist commitment at face value. They complain that Pushpa Kamal Dahal tells them what they want to hear, but never goes as far as implementing them. In short, Dahal doesn’t make his word count. There is a fatalistic acceptance among the Congressites that India’s ‘influence’ is inescapable, and they find Dahal’s effort to neutralise it via Beijing unrealistic, and even dangerous.

To a certain extent they are right. But it doesn’t at all help the image of Nepali Congress, as a party that espouses liberal democracy to adopt a ‘take it or leave it’ absolutist approach. As the largest party and one half of the peace process, the Maoists should do their fair share. But there has to be a middle ground, where both the Congress and the Maoists feel comfortable. Dogged insistence on past agreements without the flexibility or imagination to achieve the same ends will only stall the process further. Onus also lies on the new NC leadership to take a proactive approach in addressing Maoist concerns. There is no right formula for integration, and it is right that there has to be solution to issue of armed combatants before the Constitution is promulgated. But parties should also be willing to come up with a framework where the Maoists can detach themselves from the combatants (without a total surrender) before a constitution is drafted. That is where an honest broker can play a role.

The Maoists also have to get better at voicing their concerns and reservations more clearly. By simply committing to complete the integration and rehabilitation within four months (of which only two and a half remain) either to regain power, or under UN pressure, or both, without actually intending to do it, will only raise more questions about their words and deeds. The Maoists clearly do not want to give up their combatants before they can be assured of their ‘desired’ type of constitution. One way of ensuring a win-win formula is to have a neutral third-party oversee the combatants until the day of constitution promulgation, more or less in UNMIN’s mould, but with a clear enforcement mandate to hand them over to government control on day of constitution promulgation.

With less than seven months to go for the extended deadline of the CA, no politician wants to think about the prospect of another extension. They rightly fear that they would overreach any claims of legitimacy—inviting unintended consequences should they go for second round of extension.

A renewed sense of urgency in resolving the outstanding disputes in the constitution drafting is palpable, perhaps triggered by the hanging Damocles sword. But that by itself may not sufficiently built momentum for integration. There are legitimate concerns on both sides that are preventing a progress on the issue. They can only be resolved through clear and sustained communication among parties. Rather than beating around bush through the media, or taking detours through foreign capitals, they should sit down and talk—and talk really long and hard.

Change in the air

The Introdcution of television debate has ended the dreariness of the British elections
John Narayan Parajuli
Following the first television debate on April 15 between the leaders of the top three parties in British politics, the campaigning for elections to be held on May 6 have certainly come to life. The appearance of Nick Clegg, the leader of the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats, is creating new excitement in electioneering. Overnight, Clegg became media’s darling. Many have begun to draw parallels with Obama’s campaign. Previously shunned by the media as a straggler, Clegg’s party has shown a meteoric rise in the polls following the two debates — now standing in the second position ahead of Labour.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown had tried to woo him during the first debate with copious amount of “I agree with Nick” or “Nick agrees with me” refrain — which had backfired — rather personally for Brown. Clegg has now suggested Brown’s head as a precondition for a Lib-Lab pact in the event of a hung parliament with Labour in the lead.

Lib Dems are emboldened by the prospect of a kingmakers’ role. Most polls have shown the possibility of a hung parliament. On three previous occasions Britain had a hung parliament, the last one in 1974, there was a mid-term election within a year. Though the big parties are dreading the prospect, the Lib Dems are relishing it.

Defining moment

This is a defining moment in the British politics — against the backdrop of financial crisis that threatens to unravel the welfare state, burgeoning public deficit that has put UK in the ranks of Greece, Spain and Ireland, and MPs expenses scandal that tarnished the image of every politician. The gap between what the British government raises in taxes and its spending stood at £163.4 billion for the last financial year. The Conservatives favour a radical reduction in public expenses to reduce the deficit, but they have refused to support Labour’s proposal to raise the national insurance contribution calling it a “tax on jobs.” Then there is the issue of politicians’ own finances. A number of MPs from all parties have wrongfully claimed expenses for a whole host of items.

The MPs expense scandal has brought the parliament into disrepute. Many fear a lower turnout this year given the high level of cynicism among the British public. All these have made the job of politicians harder. David Cameroon, the leader of the Conservative party, has failed to exploit the anti-incumbency factor so far. Though polls have shown that the Tories would emerge as the largest party, but the ground could very well shift by May 6 as number of swing voters continue to swell.

Brown faces even tougher challenge. He has seen already three ‘coup’ attempts to dethrone him from the top job from within his party — since he took over from Blair in 2007. Outside his party, he is blamed largely for letting the financial sector run wild during his stint as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And now with the introduction of American-style television debates, Brown’s fate looks even more precarious. Even Labour strategists admit Brown is not cut out for a television debate. He looks old (and he is), worn out and out of fresh ideas. Sensing his disadvantage, Brown expressed his frustration in no uncertain terms during opening for the second debate. “If it is all about style and PR, count me out. If it is about the big decisions, if it is about delivering a better future for this country — I am your man.”

The debate

Immigration and economy are the two most debated issues in this election. On economy, Labour and Lib Dems appear to be leading in the polls, but the Conservatives seem to be carrying the public on the immigration. The conservatives have proposed a cap system that will limit the number of immigrants in each category. The Lib Dems, though they oppose a cap system, have equally drastic proposal to check the rising immigration. They want to limit the mobility of the immigrants by tying them down to a particular area. They want to introduce a regional clause to the point-based system. Under the proposal immigrants with a particular region stamped on their visas won’t be able to move to another region of UK and take jobs. The Labour concedes that the immigration system needs to be tightened, but it remains iffy about bringing more drastic measures like two other parties.

On the issue of economy, the Lib Dems favour a tax on banks and breaking up of the financial sector to prevent them from taking excessive risk and stopping the recurrence of the ‘too big to fail’ government bailouts. They also want to repeal taxes on low and middle earners, in addition to getting rid of the Trident, the submarine-based nuclear deterrence system. On the other hand, the Conservatives are pushing for a restructuring of the ‘broken’ British society and change the ways public services are delivered. They want to give more ‘power’ to the people in running schools, hospitals and police stations. And there is the issue of electoral reform including changes to the House of Lords. Labour, because of its policies or lack thereof, appears to favour the status quo on most issues.

British parliamentary elections are a dull affair by most measures, but advent of television debates have given a crucial opening to Clegg and his party to punch above their weight and present a viable alternative to two major parties. As Jeremy Paxman, the irreverent host of BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight challenged Nick Clegg during an interview recently, there is little prospect of Lib Dems leading a new government: “Let’s first of all establish which planet you are on, you are not going to sit there, are you, and claim that you could be the next prime minister?,” Paxman told Clegg.

The debate is more than just a personality contest. There is a yearning for change in Britain. But the issues are muddled in rhetoric, party labels and political mathematics for public finances that do not add up.

There is an echo of Obama’s campaign of hope and change in all three parties’ electioneering, however only Clegg appears to have his leg up at the moment as a relative outsider. Labour can’t be seen as an agent of change after being in power for 13 years, the Conservatives appear rather oxymoronic when ‘change’ is put next to the party name — plus the privileged background of some of its leaders isn’t helping the way they are perceived. That leaves Clegg. But even for him, the prospect of matching Obama’s success or chances of becoming the next prime minister is pretty slim. And unlike Obama, as one commentator put it, ‘Clegg is not the messiah; he’s just a pretty boy.’

(Parajuli is doing his Masters in War and Conflict Reporting in Swansea University, Wales)

UN bodies should stay

UN bodies' untimely exit will make the peace process more susceptible to manipulation and will increase China and India's opaque influence

At a time when the crisis of confidence between the parties in the peace process has taken a serious blow, not least due to the demise of Girija Prasad Koirala and by the intentional ratcheting up the conflict on many fronts, the term of two UN bodies is coming to an end. The mandates of the UN’s political mission, UNMIN, and the UN’s human rights agency, OHCHR, expire on May 15 and June 9 respectively. Whatever the argument against them may be, the argument for their continuing presence is compelling for one simple reason: if nothing else, they provide a framework for a veneer of trust and confidence for both sides (the Maoists and the state) to operate. Despite the Maoists’ rhetoric and even threats to return to violence, they know that they cannot do so without massive provocation. Even on the side of the state, the army is equally beholden to its commitment, however reluctant it may seem to fulfil its end of the bargain. The presence of UNMIN, symbolic as it may be, is a guarantee against incidents like the Doromba massacre from ever recurring. At least, that is the idea.

Both sides have plenty to dislike about UNMIN and OHCHR, primarily because they perform a thankless job and are not doing either party’s bidding. So when UNMIN stuck to the letter and spirit of the Agreement on Monitoring and Management of Arms and Armies (AMMAA) and refused to divulge details about combatants (something that was in the Maoists’ favour by default), the government and its media operatives began a smear campaign. Now the government is even trying to terminate their mandate that is up for renewal

Nitpicky neighbours

There is more to the government’s reluctance than just the disenchantment of the ruling coalition. Nepal’s two giant neighbours are railing against it. China fears both UN bodies will make a foray into its underbelly, the Tibetan issue. India also has qualms about UNMIN limiting its role, and fears that the intention of OHCHR Nepal office to ‘oversee’ South Asia will bring in unnecessary meddling into its own rights issues — causing embarrassment on the international stage — especially its right record will be up for Universal Periodic Review in 2012. Both neighbours who claim to look out for Nepal’s best interest seem willing to push Nepal up against the wall when their own perceived interests are at stake. If India wants to play a role commensurate with its influence in Nepal’s peace process, why is it then shying away from declaring it formally? Why hasn’t New Delhi even appointed a special envoy? Why has it been left to unaccountable intelligence operatives and bureaucrats?

New Delhi needs to come clean on what it wants. It is unbecoming for a big democratic power like India to continue to conduct its affairs in stealth and secrecy in the neighbourhood. What makes Nepalis suspicious of India is the clandestine nature with which it exercises its influence in Nepal. This is not to disparage the importance of India to Nepal: It has been an ardent supporter of our democratic aspirations and millions of Nepalis eke out a living from jobs throughout India. But its good deeds are overshadowed by its reliance on shadowy intelligence figures and clumsy and piecemeal handling of crisis in Nepal. That’s where they differ from the Chinese.

If India wants to play a role in Nepal in proportion to its influence and new found global position, it needs to shed the colonial hangover of its bureaucracy and exercise its influence at the level of its political leadership. It should also have the courage to wield its influence formally and transparently. That’s a decision India has to make.

But Nepal government’s reluctance to extend the stay of UNMIN and OHCHR is self-defeating and myopic. If the government can’t resist neighbourly pressure now on issues that are important for the country, it will have to forever cave into that kind of hounding. It will set a precedent that future governments will find hard to overcome. It is vital that both UNMIN and OHCHR stay until the peace process is completed and a semblance of normalcy returns. The idea that UNMIN should pack its bags the day the issue of army integration is resolved is rash and inconsiderate of the contingencies that are a normal part of any peace process. The idea that the peace process would somehow lend itself to a speedy conclusion is too optimistic to be true. The progress so far is indicative that assumptions about quick resolutions are unrealistic. As for the fate of OHCHR, lobbying from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has partly played out against its extension. Office bearers in the NHRC are getting unnecessarily territorial. All the efforts the NHRC has made so far suggests that it is a work-in-progress, at best.

Smear campaign?

A section of UML-leaning intelligentsia has been trying to mitigate blame of the government by misdirecting it on UN bodies (the shortcomings of the UN agencies is topic for another discussion). First the diarrheal epidemic in Jajarkot was blamed on bad rice delivered by the WFP; the NHRC and INSEC’s grudge against OHCHR has been building up for quite some time; and now the gun has been trained on UNMIN for its ‘pro-Maoist bias.’ It hardly seems to be a coincidence that these allegations are coming mostly from those affiliated to UML in some way. It also seems rather convenient that it all started with the formation of the Madhav Nepal-led government.

Like Afghan President Hamid Karzai blaming the UN and the European Commission for orchestrating the electoral fraud in last August’s presidential elections in Afghanistan, these allegations in Nepal also have a familiar ring to them — they are survival tricks of a desperate government propped up by the self-serving political elite. One can only hope that the situation won’t deteriorate further. The only deterrene that stands between the current situation and full scale escalation of conflict is the presence UN bodies and the international community. It is also the only deterrence that stands in the way of more opaque and hence unaccountable involvement of the neighbours. Those who point to the UN’s failure elsewhere as an argument for UNMIN’s early exit would do well to remember that it is ultimately up to the political leadership in Nepal and that the UN’s presence in itself is no guarantee of success. The least it does is assure that the trust gap between the parties would not lead to renewal of large scale violence.

But it is also the responsibility of the international community not to be discouraged by partisan quarreling or sucked into it — and to make sure that the UN’s political presence continues uninterrupted in Nepal as long as the peace process isn’t complete.

Building blocks of civilisation

The Kathmandu Post on Saturday
Photo: Buddha K.
MAR 05 -
As a world heritage site and a major cultural jewel of the U.K., Stonehenge is place of extraordinary importance for historical, mystical and aesthetic reasons. It is a thing of beauty and a thread that ties us with the past, however distant it may seem. At least 800,000 visitors come to see the site every year. Located near the intersection of the two highways in the grassy fields of Wiltshire County in the Salisbury plains of England, it consists of a circular ditch surrounding an inner circle of stones. There are plans to reroute the intruding highway to restore the ambience surrounding the monument in the run-up to the preparations for the 2012 London Olympics.

Along with the Stonehenge in nearby Averbury and a series of burial mounds, the region appears to be a part of a prehistoric time capsule with secrets waiting to be unlocked. Although the site in Averbury have been pillaged for stone chips for construction, visitors can still enter the circles to share a similar experience with people entering these hallowed ground millenniums ago.

UNESCO, the United Nations body responsible for preserving heritage globally (in conjunction with national authorities), describes Stonehenge as “one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design...”

My first reaction on seeing the site was that of disappointment and even guilt—of having spent a fortune to see a pile of stones. The site isn’t as impressive in reality, as it appears in the pictures. Hyper-reality is perhaps always more mystical and conveys a degree of profoundness than reality does. But what appears to be a betrayal of expectations at first glance soon turns into an overwhelming sense of belonging and continuity. These are not just stones or any stones. The mortals who built them did so without the impressive heavy-lifting technology of the modern era, and whose purpose remains a mystery.

There are many theories about the origin and the purpose of the Stonehenge, some of which seem ludicrous. Many offshoots of new age movements have sprung up with supernatural explanations to boot. Though no known religion of that time exists, later religious groups like druids believe that it is a sacred site for both healing and worship.

This is where I let my thoughts to wander off in a direction that science and modernity would not easily permit. I wonder if these mere mortals—barely a notch up from the ‘barbarism’ of the Stone Age—were really capable of what stands proud even today, affirming some eternal idea. Could there be more to these relics that remains hidden from our understanding? I wonder if our faith in linear evolution of human civilisation militates against our ability to comprehend what these sites have to tell us about our past.

A colossal irony of our modern times is that we think we know everything there is to know. We are confident of our civilisation, but at the same time increasing insecurity and uncertainty seem to be hallmarks of our age. At least, the ages before us believed in certain truths and had a certain moral compass. What we believe today is clear, and perhaps easier to articulate things the other way round: the list of things we don’t believe in.

We think that we are the best that there has ever been in terms of human civilisation—a linear civilisation understanding. Any civilisation before ours was at best primitive who by fluke achieved monuments like pyramids or Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku in Bolivia believed to be about 1,700 years old), so the mainstream thinking goes. There are many other anomalies of the past which mainstream history and archaeology brushes aside as mere flukes. Hence any suggestion of alternative thesis to history as we have been told raises eyebrows.

But coming back to Stonehenge, there are five theories that have been proposed. Many archaeologists have concluded that the site is a burial ground and have unearthed evidence in support of their claim, but not everyone agrees that it had only one purpose. Given the enormity of the site and the work that has gone into building it, it is likely that the site served multiple functions. New age groups see the site as a place of healing, while others insist that it was an astronomical observatory. Others see it as a place of worship.

The stones are aligned almost precisely with the sunrise on the summer solstice, and many gather for prayer during solstices. But some have gone a step further and have linked the site to extra-terrestrials. There have been many ‘reported cases of UFO sightings.’ As the theory goes, aliens helped build the site. Such theories are bound to arise when the nearest source of the bluestones that the henge consists of is in the Prescelly Mountains in Wales, about 300 km away; and when the largest stone weighs as much as 26 tonnes.

Stonehenge has kept a vigil over the earth for over 5,000 years and despite efforts to understand them, their true purpose eludes us. Nonetheless, it continues to inspire different ideas among different people—some of which are as equally fantastic and far-fetched as the monuments themselves.

A pacifist legacy

The Kathmandu Post On Saturday
Feb 27 - Howard Zinn, a radical historian best known for his book A People’s History of the United States, in which he celebrated the contribution of feminists, workers and coloured people, died on Jan. 28. He was 87. An incorrigible peace-monger and often referred to as a “people’s historian”, he inspired a generation of activists and authors to oppose wars and other military interventions. In his July 2009 column for the Progressive, he wrote, “…We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities.”

His opposition to wars was shaped by his personal experience as a bombardier during the Second World War. When the war ended, he put his medals in an envelope, and wrote ‘never again’ on it. Referring to the Second World War, he said in a recent interview with The New York Times: “I would not deny that war had a certain moral core, but that made it easier for Americans to treat all subsequent wars with a kind of glow. Every enemy becomes Hitler.”

After the war, he worked odd jobs, and entered New York University on GI Bill and received his bachelor’s from there. GI Bill was a government scheme that provided education and training to returning World War II veterans. Later he received his Master’s degree from Columbia University.

He was a polarising figure in a country where chauvinism, the idea of American exceptionalism, and songs of benign hegemony continues to be sung to this day. He chose to shine light on the atrocities of the past, and tried to unravel the tidying up of history books. Even in the left-liberal circle, despite admiring his candidness, some took a skeptical view of his version of history.

I had corresponded with him over email in September 2004 while reviewing one of his books for the Nation Weekly, a short-lived newsweekly. In a typical journalistic illusion of being a resourceful individual, I shot an email to him after I found his address through Google; I was rather surprised by how accessible he turned out to be. I had not expected to hear back from him; I just wanted to feel better that I at least tried. He was against elitism and practised what he preached.

I asked him what was the message he was trying to get across in his book On War (it is published in South Asia as Rule by Force)? In response, Zinn said that his “book is intended to show by historical example, personal experience and logical argument that war is not morally acceptable or practically effective as a solution for whatever problems we face in the world.”

The title of his lucid, engaging autobiography—You Can’t Stay Neutral on a Moving Train—sums up the position he took. Zinn’s views are always powerfully expressed and often sharply at odds with conventional wisdom. He once said that his own experience crystallised his opposition to all wars. “After my own experience in that war, I moved away from my own rather orthodox view that there are just and unjust wars, to a universal rejection of war as a solution to any human problem.”

Equally unorthodox is his rejection of the common view of the historian as an impartial observer. He once remarked, “Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable.” His writings are powerful partly because they are partisan. He contends that American history is an account of how an air of nobility was accorded to “ugly realities” by sympathetic chroniclers. He gives many examples of how even profound believers in democratic ideals have trampled on others’ rights in the name of “nationalism and expansionism” since the period immediately after the American independence.

Noam Chomsky said of his old friend Zinn: “Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.”

Writing on U.S. foreign policy, Zinn said: “In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli.” He further claimed that a nation’s relative liberalism at home often serves to distract domestic attention away from the ruthlessness abroad.

His criticism of the American government may strike many as hyperbolic. In his essay On Libya, he argued that if the Libyan leader Khadafi was one face of terrorism, the other was President Ronald Reagan during his presidency. “Does a Western democracy have a better right to kill innocent people than a Middle Eastern dictatorship?” In one of his essays Of Fish and Fishermen, Zinn offers a powerful metaphor about the need to reverse the perspective to see the horror of war: He refers to an eerie movie clip in which the fisherman gets hooked instead of the fish and makes a desperate bid for escape. For the first time the fisherman gets to see himself from the standpoint of the fish. The image of the fisherman is used to explain why there was a Japanese pacifist movement following the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He was involved in the civil rights movement, but Vietnam soon became the focus of his opposition. In his essay, A Speech for LBJ (President Lyndon Johnson) he suggested that the then-president tell the nation: “No one in the world needs to be told how powerful we are. We can stay in Vietnam as long as we like. We can reduce the whole country to ashes. We are powerful enough to do this. But we are not cruel enough to do this. I as your president am not willing to engage in a war without end that would destroy the youth of this nation and the people of Vietnam.”

Zinn would find the equivalence between Vietnam and Iraq obvious. “All wars,” he said, “present agonizing moral questions,” and every war has two faces. If one face of the war in Iraq is promoting democracy and emancipating Iraqis from the ruthless chains of Saddam’s tyranny, the other face is unending violence and mounting human casualties.

Writing for the Nation, the American newspaper, right before he died, he said he was struggling to find a “highlight” of Obama’s presidency. Speaking at a Boston University lecture series named after him, where he was a professor emeritus of political science, he criticised Obama for not delivering on his rhetoric. “I believe he is dominated by the same forces that have determined American foreign policy since World War II—the military-industrial complex,” Zinn said. “He showed his subservience to the militarists as soon as he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and Robert Gates as secretary of defense. By surrounding himself with hawks, he has made it inevitable that he would pursue an aggressive military posture,” he told his audience.

Zinn’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “just or righteous war” is a challenge to the world to confront issues of justice, not without a struggle, but without war. And perhaps that anti-violence, anti-war conscience is his legacy.