The blog Rabbiting On recently published an interesting write-up on Curzon’s Durbar. A Durbar was simply the Indian coronation of a new monarch, but the British found it so spectacular that they thought it was a unique cultural ceremony unique to India, and held three during the height of the Empire. The second was held in 1911, and was also known as Curzon’s Durbar, which described as the grandest, most colourful, and widely acclaimed of the three.

The Durbar coronation—which the author labels a “Curzonation”—was overseen by Curzon personally, who was the master planner behind the event. He had the city of Delhi rigged for electric lighting, installed a light railway, and arranged to provide medical services to the city for a full two weeks. There were luxurious, colourful tents and Maharajahs by the drove complete with retainers and campfollowers, and guests included British civilians, army officers and their families, the British, Indian and Princely states regiments, animals such as elephants and camels, dancers—and the Indian public loved the spectacle.

You’ll also forgive me that the author is perhaps the first Indian I have seen say something like this:

But this post is as much to bring to attention the highminded and fair character of Curzon, possibly the best of our Viceroys, as it is to display the images of the Durbar that Menpes has given us. The Viceroy made sure that over three hundred veterans of the Mutiny were invited to the Durbar and honoured. One of them, long bearded with sword in hand, is shown above. Menpes gave the fanciful title “Akalis Fanatical Devotee” to the picture but he is no fanatic and what is more, a brave veteran of the Mutiny who fought loyally for his British masters.

And on a final note, for those of you who know me, I can’t help but feel that the historical Curzon and this blog writer are truly kindred spirits:

What makes Curzon’s Durbar so interesting, apart from its colourful and grand pageantry, is the personality of Curzon himself… Curzon loved any form of public display of imperial power [CZ: Indeed.]. Having initiated the Victoria Memorial project in Calcutta, he was not one to let go of the opportunity to grandstand once again by staging a Durbar.

While doing research for my trip to Iraq in 2007, I came across an article written by independent Basque journalist Karlos Zurutuza. He was one of the very few sources I could find who’d been there recently and did so alone, not in uniform. Since then, he’s continued to travel to places that make this blogger, and surely our Coming Anarchy readers, rather jealous. Like us, he is drawn to conflict zones and approaches them with the preparation, research and sense of adventure that we do. Two of his recent articles (and especially photos) are worth reading.

The first involves Balochistan, a region that has been overlooked and wrongly so. He spent some time with separatists and has a fantastic article and pictures to show for it.

PAKISTAN’S OTHER INSURGENTS
A Day in the Desert With Baloch Guerrillas

Just a few of the Baloch soldiers who patrol one of the most inhospitable deserts in the world. From left: Umit, two unidentified fighters, Girok, and Mir. The departure point was in Pakistani Balochistan. Our hosts, a patrol of Baloch guerrillas, requested that we be no more specific than that.

The driver and his passenger had their faces wrapped tightly so that only their eyes showed. Before we began the trip deep into the desert, Said (my contact) and I were blindfolded for “security reasons.” For two hours we rode like this, our eyes covered, in a 4×4 with tinted windows. “Paadha, Baloch,” a popular tune, hissed on the car stereo the entire time: “Wake up, Baloch, we’re at war!”

You can read the rest here and for more photos, check out the 3 Balochistan sets here.

Second, he writes about a little known Christian section of Quetta.

Meet Quetta’s ‘Untouchable’ Christians

They embraced the religion of their invaders to escape the caste system that had condemned them to a miserable existence. But Karlos Zurutuza reports on how, centuries later, Christians in the Taliban stronghold of Quetta are once again becoming ‘untouchables.’

Dubbed ‘Little London’ when still under British rule, Quetta, in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province, was levelled to the ground by an earthquake in 1935. Yet, although the physical evidence of the city’s colonial heritage was lost in the temblor, reminders remain of the British legacy—locals still add milk to their tea, for example, and when they take to the roads they drive (nominally at least) on the left.

Read the rest here.

Given that territorial disputes and separatism are great interests of mine, I took note of yesterday’s news that a new state will be created in India. It is important to note though that, “The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated” and thus while likely, there is no guarantee.

India announced on Thursday that it planned to create the country’s 29th state, after a hunger strike by a regional leader and escalating protests from supporters. Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the government would begin work to found the separate state of Telangana, which will be carved out of Andhra Pradesh in the southeast. [...]

Since the partition of British-ruled India in 1947, various separatist and state movements have raged across the vast nation. Three new states were created in 2000, when Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were divided to give rise to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.

Although a precedent by no means, it may still take years to actually come into being and around 60 state legislaters that day turned in resignations in protest. By today, that number is up to around 130.

Background

After Indian independence in 1947, events not unlike today’s played out. In an effort to gain an independent state, and protect the interests of the Telugu people of Madras State, Amarajeevi Potti Sreeramulu fasted until death. Public outcry and civil unrest after his death forced the government to announce the formation of a new state for Telugu speaking people. Andhra attained statehood on 1 October 1953, with Kurnool as its capital.

And yet, three years later, on 1 November 1956, the Andhra State merged with the Telangana region of Hyderabad State to form the state of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad, the former capital of the Hyderabad State, was made the capital of the new state Andhra Pradesh.

Just over a year ago, in November 2008, the Nava Telangana Party declared the region’s statehood. Thus, today’s announcement is no surprise given the regions 60+ years of unrest and seeking autonomy/independence.

Questions

1) Will this new state be economically viable? How will it earn revenue with a smaller, poorer tax base?

2) Will a new smaller state with a more homogenous population and thus government actually be able to govern more effectively?

3) Will this further propel the Hyderabad region upwards as it no longer has the anchor of poorer regions dragging it down?

4) How will this affect the balance of power between the individual states? And how will it affect the balance between political parties? Andhra Pradesh will lose voting power nationally with the creation of a new state and the new Telangana is far more likely to gravitate left than right. What does this mean for the major politically parties like the INC and BJP?

5) How will this affect the endless other separatist groups (violent and nonviolent) and ethnic minorities agitating for more autonomy? Will this make India more or less stable?

6) What will the long term effects be of this new states success or failure?

Final Comments
Although it is unlikely this issue will receive much more international attention, it will be of interest to India watchers and especially those interested in devolution, separatism and related issues. Newly independent states such as Kosovo are often the most studied while developments such as this inside functioning states and that are legally sanctioned receive less attention. I’ll try to keep an eye on this and would always appreciate further comments from readers who may have more to add.

Kaplan had another piece out ten days that we didn’t post at the time. Here it is, advocating the importance of geography and paying attention to the Indian Ocean.

The center of a new world

For better or worse, phrases such “the Cold War” and “the clash of civilizations” matter. In a similar way, so do maps.

The right map can stimulate foresight by providing a spatial view of critical trends in world politics. Because of their own geographic circumstances, Americans, in particular, continue to concentrate on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The bias is even embedded in mapping conventions: Mercator projections tend to place the Western Hemisphere in the middle of the map, splitting the Indian Ocean at its far edges.

And yet, as the pirate activity off the coast of Somalia and the terrorist carnage in Mumbai last fall suggest, the Indian Ocean — the world’s third-largest body of water — already forms center stage for the challenges of the 21st century. The dramatic economic growth of India and China has been duly noted, but the equally dramatic military ramifications of this development have not.

India’s and China’s great-power aspirations, as well as their quests for energy security, have compelled the two countries to focus on their sea power. And so a map of the Indian Ocean exposes the contours of power politics in the 21st century…

As the whole Indian Ocean seaboard, including Africa’s eastern shores, becomes a vast web of energy trade, India is seeking to increase its influence from the Plateau of Iran to the Gulf of Thailand. And, as India extends its influence east and west, on land and at sea, it is bumping into China, which, also concerned about protecting its interests throughout the region, is expanding its reach southward.

As this competition between India and China suggests, the Indian Ocean is where global struggles will play out in the 21st century. The old borders of the Cold War map are crumbling fast, and Asia is becoming a more integrated unit, from the Middle East to the Pacific…

But that idea fails to capture what the Indian Ocean is all about. The Indian Ocean forms a historical and cultural unit, yet in strategic terms, it, like the world at large today, has no single focal point. The Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf, the Bay of Bengal — all these areas are burdened by different threats with different players. A better approach would be to rely on multiple regional and ideological alliances in different parts of the Indian Ocean.

Like a microcosm of the world at large, the greater Indian Ocean region is developing into an area of both ferociously guarded sovereignty and astonishing interdependence. And for the first time since the Portuguese onslaught in the region in the early 16th century, the West’s power there is in decline, however subtly and relatively. The Indians and the Chinese will enter into a dynamic great-power rivalry in these waters, with their shared economic interests as major trading partners locking them in an uncomfortable embrace. The United States, meanwhile, will serve as a stabilizing power in this newly complex area. Indispensability, rather than dominance, must be its goal.

Robert Kaplan has a new article out in The Atlantic called Talking to the Taliban (via Arab Media Shack).

Kaplan points out that Obama’s new strategy, which consists of convincing Pakistan to sever ties with its long time ally the Taliban, and increase them with its long time foe, India, makes no sense whatsoever and has little chance of success.

No matter how much leverage you hold over a country, it is rare that you can get it to act against its core self-interest. [...] The U.S. demands that Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), its spy agency, sever relations with the Taliban. Based on Pakistan’s own geography, this makes no sense from a Pakistani point of view. First of all, maintaining lines of communications and back channels with the enemy is what intelligence agencies do. What kind of a spy service would ISI be if it had no contacts with one of the key players that will help determine its neighbor’s future?……

Read the rest. As always, it’s well worth it and spot on.

Robert Kaplan has a new article up at The Atlantic discussing India (Hat tip to Lexington Green). Below are the opening paragraphs.

India’s New Face

If the spirit of modern India has a geographic heartland it is Gujarat, the northwestern state bordering Sindh, in Pakistan. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the mahatma—Sanskrit for “great soul”—was a Gujarati, born in Porbandar, on the Arabian Sea, in 1869. The signal event of the Indian independence movement was the Salt March that Gandhi, joined by thousands, led in March 1930 across Gujarat, from the Sabarmati Ashram 241 miles south to Dandi, on the Gulf of Cambay. There Gandhi picked up a handful of salt on the beach and defied the British law prohibiting the collection or sale of salt by anyone but the colonial authorities. “Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life. It is the only condiment of the poor,” Gandhi wrote. In a letter to the viceroy he argued, “I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint. As the independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with this evil.”

Gandhi’s identification with the poor was intrinsic to his universalist philosophy. As he put it:

I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. It means in its nakedness that in order to achieve the supposed good of 51 per cent the interests of 49 per cent may be, or rather, should be sacrificed. It is a heartless doctrine and has done harm to humanity. The only real dignified human doctrine is the greatest good of all.

To protect the poor against the ravages of capitalism, which benefits only the majority rather than everyone, India would adopt socialism after independence. More to the point, although the Hindus would numerically dominate, they could not ignore or trample the rights of tens of millions of Muslims. Indeed, the “greatest good” necessitated that the conscience of the new nation and the ruling Congress Party be avowedly secular.

But the spirit of India has undergone an uneasy shift in this new era of rampant capitalism and of deadly ethnic and religious tensions, which arise partly as violent reactions against exactly the social homogenization that globalization engenders. Gujarat finds itself once again at the heart of what is roiling India, and what singularly menaces the country’s rise to “Great Global Power” status. India is home to 154 million Muslims, the third-largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan. India has arguably more to lose from extremist Islam than any other country in the world. Yet, as Dwijendra Tripathi, a historian based in Gujarat, lamented to me, “The Hindu-Muslim divide here is worse than at any time since the partition.” Not coincidentally, this rift is deepening even as Gujarat booms economically, with brand-new malls, multi plexes, highways, and private ports transforming it into a pulsing region-state athwart Indian Ocean trade routes.

Gujarat’s heightened religious tensions stem from “2002,” as it is simply called by everybody in Gujarat and the rest of India. In the local lexicon, that year has attained a symbolism perhaps as resilient as the force of “9/11” for Americans. It connotes an atrocity that will not die, a sectarian myth-in-the-making that constitutes a hideous rebuke to Gandhi’s Salt March. And at its epicenter stands another charismatic Gujarati, Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, an icon of India’s economic growth and development, and a leading force in the Hindu-chauvinist Bharatiya Janata (Indian People’s) Party, or BJP.

What local human-rights groups label the “pogrom” began with the incineration of 58 Hindu train passengers on February 27, 2002, in Godhra, a town with a large Muslim population and a stop on the rail journey from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh, in north-central India. The Muslims who reportedly started the fire had apparently been taunted by other Hindus who had passed through en route to Ayodhya, in Uttar Pradesh, on their way to demonstrate for a Hindu temple to be built on the site of a demolished Mughal mosque. Recently installed as chief minister, Modi decreed February 28 a day of mourning, so that the passengers’ funerals could be held in downtown Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s largest city. “It was a clear invitation to violence,” writes Edward Luce, the Financial Times correspondent in India, in his book, In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India. “The Muslim quarters of Ahmedabad and other cities in Gujarat turned into death traps as thousands of Hindu militants converged on them.” In the midst of the riots, Modi approvingly quoted Newton’s third law: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Mobs coalesced and Hindu men raped Muslim women, before pouring kerosene down their throats and the throats of their children, then setting them all on fire. Muslim men were forced to watch the ritualistic killings before they, too, were put to death. More than 400 women were raped; 2,000 people, overwhelmingly Muslim, murdered; and 200,000 more made homeless throughout the state.

The killers were dressed in saffron scarves and khaki shorts, the uniform of the RSS, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Organization of National Volunteers)—the umbrella group of the Hindu nationalist movement—and came armed with swords and gas cylinders, as well as electoral registers and computer printouts of addresses. The police stood by and observed the killings, and in some cases, according to Human Rights Watch, helped the rioters locate Muslim addresses. As for the 200,000 made homeless, the Gujarati state government provided very little in the way of relief, or compensation for the loss of life and businesses. Today, much of Ahmedabad’s Muslim population remains sequestered in squalid relief communities that Modi once called “baby-making factories.”

Read the rest at The Atlantic.

While the US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic have consistently made the news, few realize that other countries are equally interested in ballistic missile defense (BMD). Unsurprisingly, those are Japan, Israel and India (Russia to some extent).

And while Russia has the experience, expertise and technology to build some countermeasures, others do not. Therefore, when I read about Indian BMD, I wonder how Islamabad will react as they have a far smaller capacity to do so with most of their technology being Chinese or North Korean.

Buoyed by the successful testing of its fledgling ballistic missile defence, India is pushing ahead with an ambitious version of the star wars project capable of shooting down incoming ICBMs in the 5,000 km range. The phase-II of the BMD systems, likely to be deployed by 2014, will be an important part of India’s defence as both China and Pakistan possess nuclear capable missiles. Once the BMD is in place it will place India in a fairly exclusive club alongside US, Russia and Israel.

Even the possibility of effective BMD presents a major threat to Pakistan’s strategic weapons. Given that their warheads will be delivered by a combination of missiles and F16s, and that the Indian Air Force would likely intercept at least some of those planes, what are Pakistan’s options for countering India’s BMD program? They have neither the money or indigenous capabilities to develop their own, nor are they likely to find a country willing to sell them the technology. Even a partially successful Indian BMD program could have a major destabilizing effect on relations with Pakistan at a time when Pakistan is fighting for its very existence from internal threats.

While recently doing research on Pakistan (my least favorite country in the world), I’ve developed four short scenarios to help myself and others think about alternative futures for that country and the implications for US policy as well as the region. They are NOT meant as predictions, but rather narratives to help the reader set aside his or her personal bias and assumptions and consider different paths, their implications and to better process current developments in Pakistan to discern the direction it is going.

Your Job: Choose which scenario you find to be the most likely and why. What are the implications for US policy?

1) The Territory Formerly Known as Pakistan
As US and NATO forces increase in Afghanistan, the Taleban insurgency in Pakistan spreads and the central government is unable to resist, ceding more and more control to the Taleban.. Government control extends only to the Punjab. The FATA and NWFP remain lawless and a safe haven for international jihadists as well as Afghan and Pakistani Taleban. The economy continues to decline as FDI all but vanishes and foreign nationals leave. Waves of people try to emigrate.
As the Pakistani government moves from one crisis to the next, US support wanes while Pakistan’s government changes several times a year through shifting coalitions and coups. In addition to secret US bases, NATO establishes a series of permanent and official bases in Pakistan 15 miles across the border from Afghanistan. Serious consideration is given to seizing Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, and several covert joint US-Pakistani operations in ungoverned territories seize and relocate part of their arsenal. Kashmir remains unsolved but Pakistan’s weakness essentially seals Indian dominance and control of the region.

2) Nuclear Nightmare
Taleban insurgents infiltrate further into Pakistan proper and the NWFP and FATA remain sanctuaries for the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Suicide bombings and violence increases as an increasingly impotent civilian government fails to improve the situation. The economy falters with even Chinese FDI dramatically shrinking. As unemployment and unrest grow, the military launches a coup. Although the situation initially stabilized, overly aggressive government action against jihadist groups at the behest of NATO/US lead to an increasing split within the military – the nation’s strongest and only truly functioning institution.
As more NATO/US forces are deployed in Afghanistan, Taleban and al-Qaeda activity within Pakistan grows again pitting secular elements against religious ones. When religious factions of the military, partnered with local militia seize 60% of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities (including its nuclear arsenal), Pakistan stands on the bring of outright civil war while India and the US consider preemptive nuclear strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.

3) Peace at Home, Peace in the World
Taleban insurgents fight further into Pakistan and the NWFP and FATA remain sanctuaries for the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Violence increases and the civilian government fails stem the tide. The economy falters with even Chinese FDI dramatically shrinking. As unrest grow, the military launches a coup followed by aggressive and large scale military action. Although levels of violence go up, the military successfully defeats extremist elements while making peace with others. It establishes a satisfactory autonomy agreement with the NWFP and FATA which help to expel (but not eliminate) foreign jihadis. The Pakistan/Afghanistan border is formally recognized internationally and violence in Afghanistan is also winding down to manageable levels. The Pakistani military government reaches out to India in a series of confidence building measures and a contact group is setup over Kashmir. Pakistan’s new government makes the strategic decision to treat jihadis/insurgents as its primary national security threat instead of India.

4) Islamic Republic of Pakistan
The creeping Talebanization of Pakistan continues unabated until all but the Punjab is controlled directly or indirectly by Islamic extremists. Nearly powerless the civilian government is forced to form a coalition government with the Pakistani Taleban as the military itself remains divided between secular and religious elements. Over time, Islamists seize control instituting a drastic version of Sharia law, expelling Western diplomats and ending all military agreements and cooperation with the United States. NATO supply routes into Afghanistan are in peril as all of Pakistna becomes a base from which to fight Western troops next door. A nuclear armed Islamic Republic is declared and immediately recognized by Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt.
Although Pakistan now serves as a base for exporting Islamic revolution, it maintains basic relations with its neighbors, including India. Bangladesh eventually succums to an Islamist takeover as well. However, both China and India, wary of Pakistani interference in their own Muslim populations, begin covert action against it while China plans for a potential seizure of Pakistanis nuclear facilities and India for a large scale war. The West struggles on in Afghanistan, as the situation worsens and European allies begin to pull out. Slowly, a China-India-US axis forms against a Pakistani-Bangladeshi-Iranian one.

Robert Kaplan, Kishan Rana and former Indian ambassador Satinder Lambah discuss the relationship between India and its neighbors, including from the global perspective. Hosted by the Aspen Institute, The 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival will engage its participants in a variety of programs, tutorials, seminars and discussion events which together are guaranteed to charge the atmosphere with vibrant intellectual exchange. Think of it as a week-long summer university for the mind—remarkable lectures and classes across a stimulating array of topics.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Similar Posts: Ethiopia – Poland – Armenia – Persia – Russia

Today is Republic Day in India. And In my latest post in my series of posts on the maps of the world, here comes a post on Indian subcontinent over the past 2,500 years.

This time, instead of posting multiple images, I’m taking a different graphical approach and copying methods used by some contributors to wikipedia: using animated gif files instead of multiple images to show the changes of the kingdoms and empires. Once again, take this with a grain of salt—but I believe this to be generally accurate.