Desicritics Category: Politics: Europe

Tall and Shrinking Muslims, Short and Growing Europeans

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:01:13 EST

I have written about the Arab Human Development Report before. It is indeed shocking to read about how the Arab lands are now. It does concern the rest of the world, because the Arabs and this region play a very big role in the religious wars and terrorism now roiling the globe. The Arab Development report points to various issues that the region has to grapple with. Obviously, Human Development is a comparative study, you compare the performance of the other countries to the Arab lands to check how far they are apart.

But what happened in the past? And I don't mean along the lines of Bernard Lewis’s What went wrong type of analysis. Where did the divergence happen? Well, I think we have a partial answer to that question. As is well known, the anthropometric (height/weight etc) dimensions of human beings is a good indicator of economic and human development. In other words, there is a good correlation and causality between good nutrition, good economic development, reasonably good height / weights.

So what was the difference? An article, Tall and shrinking Muslims, short and growing Europeans: The long-run welfare development of the Middle East, 1850–1980 by Mojgan Stegl & Joerg Baten of the University of Tubingen in Germany, published in the Explorations in Economic History came into my in-box recently.

They have done a sterling job in collecting anthropometric data from a staggering variety of sources and have combined it to provide some very interesting data. Without going into the intricacies of how they managed to do it, this is their first graphical result of the heights of the populations they studied.

And these results are statistically significant, the authors ran some standard statistical tests to make sure that the populations, samples etc. etc. are accurate. So how did the wages bit turn out around the inflexion point? They calculate real wages in Istanbul and industrializing countries in grams of silver per day (weighted by population size).

Curious result, no? It shows how the divergence in urban and rural areas emerge. The main improvement in the west happened in the cities, because if you strip out the cities, then the performance was about the same as urbanised Istanbul. Here’s another way of looking at the economic impact by comparing GDP per capita:

Not looking good, is it? If you go the whole hog by applying PPP and adjusting for population size, you get this picture:

So what were the other reasons given by the authors - besides the obvious economic development driving nutrition? Well, they point to the fact that in in many areas around the Middle Eest, people lived next to animal husbandry, and given that this was a concentrated protein rich diet, their heights and weights were quite good. However, as as the number of people living off animal husbandry in the Middle East started to drop, right at the same time, the supply chains in Europe improved with developed economies and better farming technologies. Diseases were further controlled and the graphs say it all. The Arab / Muslim (so as to incorporate the non Arab world of Turkey) world in the Middle Eest has steadily lost ground since then.

Now you can definitely incorporate the elements of colonialism, history, imperialism and the like, but that will make it a bit more difficult to ascribe differences in nutrition to imperialism, no? Does this mean that till about 1900/1910, Arab/Muslim imperialism and colonialism was still existent and then it was overtaken by European imperialism so the story flipped? I wonder what the situation will be in another 100 years of time?

Technorati Tags: History, Arabs, Middle East, Europe

Book Review: The Enemy at the Gate by Andrew Wheatcroft

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:53:39 EST

In 2004, when Turkey’s admission to the European Union was being debated, Frits Bolkestein, a Dutch member of the European Union's executive committee objected on the grounds that Europe risked becoming "Islamized" and the Battle of Vienna would have been in vain.

The Battle of Vienna took place in 1682. At that time, the Ottoman Empire had crossed the zenith of its power and glory. Almost 600 years ago in 1071, at a place called Manzikert in Turkey, Turkish forces had defeated the Byzantine troops of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was the beginning of the end for the Eastern Roman Empire, which had outlived the Western Roman Empire by almost 6 centuries. The Ottomans considered themselves to be the heirs to the Roman Empire, though other western powers did not share that opinion. The Ottomans moved from one victory to another. Murad I and his Christian vassals defeated Lazar, the Prince of Serbia at Kosovo Polje in 1389. Serbia became a vassal state until 1521 when Belgrade was captured. At the Battle of Mohács in August 1526, Sultan Suleiman I (Suleiman the Magnificent) defeated King Louis II and occupied southern Hungary. Vienna blocked the Ottoman route to the heart of Europe. At the height of its glory, the Ottoman troops led by Suleiman the Magnificent tried to capture Vienna in 1529, but the siege failed.

Andrew Wheatcroft’s book The Enemy at the Gate chronicles the second attempt by the Ottomans to capture Vienna, this time in 1683. Wheatcroft is uniquely positioned to describe this conflict since he is an expert on both the Habsburgs, the then most powerful ruling power in Europe with control over Vienna, and the Ottomans. Wheatcroft’s previous works include books on both the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. In clear, lucid style using limpid prose, Wheatcroft builds up the battle settings, giving us an inside view of the players and politics involved.

The Thirty Years War had got over just a few decades earlier and there was not much warm feeling towards the Habsburgs from the Protestant powers. It was even said that Protestants living in Ottoman Europe were treated better than Protestants under the Habsburgs. Even Catholic France was not very supportive of the Habsburgs. The Ottomans too had a major enemy in the form of the Persian Empire with whom they were constantly fighting The main difference between the European wars fought by the Habsburgs and the Persian wars fought by the Ottomans was that the Habsburgs learned a lot from their experiences. Their armies had an organisation and chain of command which the Ottoman armies lacked. The art of generalship was well developed. The Ottomans relied on individual bravery and skills, while the European forces relied on teamwork, organisation and methodical preparation.There were so many areas where the Ottomans were much superior to the Habsburg forces. Their supply chains were much better, with Ottoman soldiers on the battlefield put up in much more comfort than the average Habsburg soldier, though the Ottomans were so far away from home. The biggest advantage which the Ottomans had was that there was a central authority in command, usually the Grand Vizier who acted in the Sultan’s name. In the case of the European forces, the soldiers were supplied by many nation states, some of whom were reluctant to do so and all of whom required payment or other rewards.

The Ottomans lost the battle for Vienna, one of the most intense battles ever fought. There were various reasons for this loss, the main one being the incompetence of the Turkish Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa. Do read the book to find out the various mistakes which the Ottomans committed. Both sides were charged with zeal, religious and nationalistic. Wheatcroft cites quite a few examples of bravery, but I don’t want to describe them here and spoil the fun. Wheatcroft’s descriptions of battles and troops are second to none. For example, when Wheatcroft describes the Polish hussars who arrived just in time to relieve the siege, he says:

The Polish hussars were heavy cavalry par excellence and they had no equivalent in 17th century Europe, In effect a holdover from the great age of medieval chivalry, man and horse together were a missile with their lance or wielding their long spear like triangular swords more than four foot long – they existed only for the charge. Facing the disciplined volley fire of western armies, they had largely become a liability, but against the Janissary infantry of the Ottomans or their loose flowing formations of sipahis, they could be as devastating as artillery fire.

Wheatcroft does not stop after the Battle of Vienna. He goes on to describe how the Europeans capitalised on their victory and went on to win more battles. Hungary was freed from Ottoman power, though the initial attempt to take Budapest was a failure. As the Ottomans became weaker and weaker, they began to be regarded as just another European power. The Habsburgs and the Ottomans discovered various mutual interests. After Napoleon was defeated by Czar Alexander I, the Russians became stronger and this led to the Austrians and the Ottomans growing closer. During the Crimean war, the Turks fought on the side of France and Britain against Russia. Finally, in the First World War which resulted in the destruction of both the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires, the Habsburgs and the Ottomans were on the same side.

The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:31:42 EDT

Two young Conservative politicians in the UK, Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan have come up with a plan (the “Plan”) for what they call – “renewing Britain”. Daniel Douglas Carswell has been the Conservative MP for Harwich and Clacton since 2005. Hannan, a writer and journalist, is the Conservative Minister for European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. The plan put forth by Carswell and Hannan is set out in a 195 page document titled “The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain” that can be either bought (for £10) or downloaded (for £5) online.

Bad Shape – In the eye of the beholder

The Plan is based on the assumption that the UK is in a bad shape. Like beauty, bad shape is also something that lies in the eye of the beholder. I remember when I started my first job in the UK, I was told (apologetically) by so many colleagues that the building which housed our offices was in a terrible shape. ‘Ghastly’ and ‘horrible’ were the adjectives most often used. Before coming to London a year before to do a one-year masters course at the London School of Economics, I had a four year stint in Mumbai during which time I had seen a lot of wobbly buildings with even more wobbly staircases and antique lifts. To my eye, I could find nothing wrong with my new office building. On the contrary, it looked unbelievably solid and sturdy. No, the problem I soon learnt, was not in the stability of the building, but in its aesthetics. Grey in colour, with no glass or other frills one sees in most modern buildings these days, it was clearly not intended to have people exclaim in admiration as they walked past. The same is the case with the UK, a very prosperous country by any standard, with nothing much seriously wrong with it.

What exactly is wrong in the UK?

Carswell and Hannan manage to find a lot wrong with the current state of affairs in the UK. But they are not just cribbers, they have a magic bullet solution for UK’s ailments.

“The British state is failing. It can’t deliver even the most basic services competently. We have the highest prisoner population in Europe, and one of the highest crime rates. Our schoolchildren compare dismally with similarly aged pupils in other countries and in previous generations. Our healthcare system is more likely to kill its charges than any other in the developed world. Our roads are choked, our railways crumbling, our airports unbearable. Our borders are, to all intents and purposes, wide open.”

Each of the statements made above by Carswell and Hannan is debatable. For example, the International Centre for Prison Studies says that Russia has the highest rate of prison population (635 per 100,000) in Europe. Scotland and England and Wales have the 17th and 18th highest rates in Europe. I guess that when Carswell and Hannan say “Europe”, they mean “Western Europe”. Even then, Spain has a higher rate than Scotland or England and Wales. Northern Ireland is 39th in Europe, lower than France or Germany with a prison population of 87 per 100,000. The United States of America, a source of inspiration to Carswell and Hannan in many respects, has the highest prisoner population in the world. If you look at the percentage of female prisoners within the prison population, England and Wales is at the 19th place, way below Norway, Austria, Switzerland and Germany. The British health care is admittedly not as good as say, healthcare in various other European states, but then, as Carswell and Hannan admit in the Plan, such other states spend a lot more on healthcare than the UK. British road and rail infrastructure is indeed not as good as what you find in say, Germany, but then Germany has always had better roads even during the days of Winston Churchill.

The Plan

The Plan revolves around a series of legislative measures (which will not take more than 12 months) to reform Britain. Carswell and Hannan feel that MPs are too powerless and have too many perks. They want to clean up Westminster by pruning the amount of perks MPs get. The House of Commons will be reduced in size. The House of Lords is not really compatible with democracy, Carswell and Hannan opine, but do not want to tackle it as part of the Plan since it will require a lot more time than one year. Policing and prosecution decisions must be made by elected officials. Judges should not be allowed to make law as they have been doing of late. Parliament must reign supreme, in its pruned form. The UK must withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. English counties and cities should have all the powers that have been devolved to Scotland. Parents who send their children to private schools must be able to claim the per capita average being spent on them. Similarly, patients must be able to opt out of the NHS. There should be greater devolution of powers. Local governments must be given all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland and the right to collect sufficient revenue to do many things on their own.

Small government

“To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.” This quote from Aristotle finds place at the beginning of the Plan document. The main grouse espoused by Carswell and Hannan, which runs throughout the Plan, is that the UK was traditionally a small state with the bulk of its laws derived from customs and practices, but is no longer so. In the last few decades, especially as a result of the accession to the EU, the UK has come to become a state run by bureaucrats and quangos (Quasi Non-Governmental Organizations) not elected by the people. Britain has moved towards continental European values which prefer a neutral and supposedly impartial administrator to an elected politician who may have biases and prejudices. Carswell and Hannan don’t like bureaucrats or quangos who only help themselves and create more paper work for themselves. On top of it all, even bureaucrats or quangos will have their own prejudices, we are told. Carswell and Hannan don’t use the words ‘welfare state’, though it becomes clear that they do want the British welfare state to be rolled back.

After the recent turmoil in the financial markets, not many people will find the idea of a small government appealing. The question being asked now is why the independent regulators weren’t more vigilant. There isn’t much of a demand to do away with regulators despite their many lapses. However, Daniel Hannan has not changed his mind if this blog post of his is any indication.

To be fair to Carswell and Hannan, their idea of a small government is a lot more than financial deregulation. As explained in detail below, the Plan envisages a small government everywhere, especially at the local level.

Elected Sheriffs

Carswell and Hannan want the UK to emulate the US in various respects, one of which is the subservience of police chiefs and prosecution services to elected Sheriffs. Sir Ian Blair, the London Metropolitan Police Chief, is used as an example of how undemocratic and unaccountable a police chief can be. At the time of the Plan’s publication, Sir Ian Blair was clinging to power despite facing an enormous amount of criticism. His role during the 7 July bombing and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes left a lot to be desired. The London Assembly passed a resolution of no-confidence in Sir Ian Blair. The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said that he would like Sir Blair to leave. Despite all this, Sir Blair stayed in power since he could only be fired by the Home Secretary (which happened recently after the Plan was published). Elected Sheriffs should also have the power to set local sentencing guidelines. This might mean that different towns or counties might have different approaches to the same offence. Shoplifting might attract a higher penalty in London than in Manchester. But that would be quite democratic. If the residents of London want to follow a particular approach to an offence, they should be free to do so, irrespective of what Manchester thinks.

I have some sympathy for this approach. You might argue that a nation as small as the UK should not try to emulate the US and end up with different laws in different parts of the country. If Carswell and Hannan have their way, illegal immigrants might, if caught in Barking, be flogged and deportated, whilst Argyllshire in Scotland might merely deport them. In the US, Texas enthusiastically enforces the death penalty whilst 13 states have abolished it. However, it cannot be denied that a much higher percentage of Texans support the death penalty than citizens of states where the death penalty has been abolished. If you believe that democracy should be subservient to the goal of moving the entire nation to a higher plane of values, you might not like this approach. However, what constitutes a ‘higher plane of values’ will always be debatable.

Human Rights Act

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights and all UK laws are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 framed under this convention. Laws made by the British Parliament can be overruled if they are found to violate the Human Rights Act. It is not unheard of in the UK to challenge laws and regulations on the ground that they breach human rights. Carswell and Hannan do not like the idea of judges using the Human Rights Act to override the will of the Parliament. They want the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. If the Plan were to be implemented, the UK will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Illegal immigrants, minorities and to a lesser extent prisoners, rely on this law more than others since they have very few other rights. Carswell and Hannan cite the example of an illegal immigrant who in 1997 was able to overturn his deportation order on the grounds that he would not receive the same medical treatment in his home country as was available in the UK. The illegal immigrant relied on Article 3 of this convention which says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ I find this example a bit outdated since the UK now deports illegal immigrants who are ill and need urgent medical care. In the beginning of this year, media reported the case of a cancer-ridden Ghanaian woman who was deported from the UK and died soon after.

All the examples cited by Carswell and Hannan as examples of how courts have used the Human Rights Act to overturn the will of the Parliament involve illegal immigrants or prisoners or citizenship applications. I do have sympathy for the view that Judges should only interpret and should never make the law. However, if the Human Rights Act were to be scrapped, the most vulnerable section within British society will suffer the most.

Parliament must be supreme

Carswell and Hannan want a Reserve Powers Act to be enacted in order to guarantee the supremacy of the legislature against judicial activism. Carswell and Hannan find it intolerable that a national legislature might be subservient to an international body. For this reason, they oppose the International Criminal Court which can prosecute national leaders, a process which they rightly say may be misused. At least in theory, any political leader anywhere in the world, including from the UK, may be tried by the ICC. Carswell and Hannan go to the extent of saying that “the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals have now become a law unto themselves, prosecuting some men for no better reason than that it was thought politically expedient to have inductees from all sides in a war.” The job of prosecuting national leaders must be left to national courts, they say.

Thankfully not many people in the world share this point of view. If they did, war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic would never have been brought to book.

Carswell and Hannan want the UK’s defence and foreign policy to be determined entirely by the Parliament with a lot more parliamentary oversight over diplomats. According to Carswell and Hannan, “British foreign policy is cocooned from the democratic process. It is conducted by highly qualified officials who, although often technically brilliant, have drifted away from the values of the rest of the country. Left to their own devices, diplomatists have evolved an approach to international relations that is elitist, managerialist, supra-nationalist, technocratic and contemptuous of ‘populism’.” Reading this, I was reminded of Republicans accusing Obama of elitism!

And look at what these elitist diplomats have got the UK into? They got the UK into the EU! What could be worse than that? Carswell and Hannan seem to hate the European Union more than anything else in the world.

Each and every real and perceived foreign policy mistake is blamed on elistist diplomats who follow their own ideology rather than the people’s dictates. Unlike the diplomats of yore, modern diplomats do not project British interests. Though experts, diplomats have as many prejudices and biases as anybody else. Currently, diplomatic appointments, the contracting of treaties and national defence, are all controlled by Downing Street under Crown Prerogative powers. This has allowed the Foreign Secretary to sign up to treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty without Parliamentary approval. Carswell and Hannan want all these powers to be transferred to the Parliament. Each time the Parliament is reconstituted, all treaties and diplomatic appointments must be reviewed and approved, else they will lapse. Even if this sounds like a good idea in theory, I doubt if this can be implemented in practice unless the MPs work all year around in the Parliament, something which doesn’t fit in with the Plan for a reduced House of Commons.

Gentlemen (or Lady) Members of Parliament

Carswell and Hannan want to prune the pay and perks which MPs get. MPs will meet only for a limited number of days in a year and will be ‘amateur’ politicians. In the sense that they will need to carry on a trade or profession of their own which will pay their bills. The only compensation they get will be for the days they need to spend in Parliament.

On paper this sounds good. But in practice this would generally prevent people without a great deal of inherited wealth from entering politics. In my opinion, it is not possible to be a part-time politician. Even if an MP does not have to spend all his/her time in Parliament, I doubt if it will be possible for the MP to hold a regular job. There will be exceptions for sure, but this proposal would take politicians to a situation similar to that of sportsmen in the days when sport was played (mainly by the wealthy) for glory rather than money.

Right to Opt-Out from State Schools and the NHS

Carswell and Hannan feel that schools in the UK are ‘failing due to too much government.’ They want the Danish system to be followed in the UK which would give parents who send their children to private schools the right to claim the per capita average being spent within the state system. In other words, the cost of sending children to private schools will come down. The net impact of such a move, in my opinion, would be to widen the rich-poor divide in the education system. The poorest children would continue to languish in state schools, whose quality would deteriorate even further.

Something similar is to be done with the NHS. Carswell and Hannan rightly say that the NHS is bloated and inefficient. Patients should have the freedom to seek services from a private health care provider and opt out of the NHS. Carswell and Hannan specifically recommend the health care system in Singapore where patients deposit money in a health care savings account (till the money reaches a critical limit) and pay their private health care providers from that account. Catastrophic insurance (of around £400 per annum) is also bought by everyone. The Plan rightly claims that the Singaporean system is even better than the system (of privately insured healthcare) in the United States.

Personally speaking, I would benefit if these suggestion were to be implemented. So would most middle-class residents in the UK. But these bits of the Plan have the potential to make British society a lot less egalitarian.

Devolution of power

Carswell and Hannan want local governments to be autonomous with all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland. At present ninety per cent of all revenue collected in Britain goes to the Chancellor in Whitehall. This money is distributed by the Chancellor to various authorities and bodies. The net result is that local councils are quite powerless and good candidates are not interested in standing for elections at the council level.

The Plan proposes the scrapping of VAT and replacing it with a local sales tax (“LST”). Different regions will have different rates of LST. This will lead to tax competition between various regions. Local councils should also have the freedom to scrap council tax.

I can see a lot of merit in these suggestions. However, the consequences may involve a drastic fall in the amount of money being available with local councils in deprived areas. The Plan does mention a top-up for such areas, but I feel it is unlikely to be equal to the actual loss in revenue.

Social security is to be distributed at the local level. Carswell and Hannan rightly point out that local authorities are in a much better position to detect welfare fraud and determine parameters for entitlement. This is something I fully endorse as long as deprived areas as given a proportionately higher allotment to meet their welfare costs.

Cut down on red-tape

Carswell and Hannan want to repeal various Acts that provide the legal base for burdensome and costly regulation. The Plan lists 26 Acts which are to be repealed. These include laws framed under the EU Directives on Part-Time Work giving part-time workers equal access to pay, pensions, annual leave and training as full-time staff, Anti-Money Laundering Rules and the Hunting Act 2004 which outlaws hunting with dogs. As would be evident to anyone who reads the entire Plan, most of the laws which Carswell and Hannan want to repeal are social welfare legislation which conservatives have always hated. You might agree or disagree with Carswell and Hannan depending on which shade of the political spectrum you belong to.

The Plan proposes that all new pieces of legislation are to have a sunset clause that will ensure that enactments do not survive in perpetuity. I don’t agree. Some laws contain sunset clauses and these are usually the draconian anti-terrorism laws which curtail civil liberties. Otherwise laws are meant to make things better and ought to survive for perpetuity.

Alternatives to the EU

As mentioned earlier, Carswell and Hannan don’t like the European Union and they propose that the UK ought to withdraw from the EU and instead be a part of the European Free Trade Area (“EFTA”) just like Switzerland. Being in the EFTA would give the UK trade access to the European Market without having to tag along with the EU in matters such as labour policy or welfare measure or immigration. Carswell and Hannan point to countries such as Iceland and Switzerland which are not part of the EU and manage to remain prosperous. I guess Iceland was a prosperous country when the Plan was published. It is no longer so very prosperous at the moment.

I do agree that if ideologically most people in the UK differ from continental Europe, it makes little sense to be a part of the EU.

People’s Bills and Blocking Referendums

Carswell and Hannan recommend that citizens ought to be able to table bills in the Parliament if they collect sufficient signatures. The top 6 popular bills should be voted on by MPs. Similarly, if 20,000 people sign a petition to block a bill which has received its third reading, but before it receives Royal Assent, the bill should be blocked. If within a prescribed period a specified percentage of the electorate sign up to the petition, the bill should not become law.

These are good proposals and I would support them. Please read the Plan in full if you want to understand these proposals since the explanation I have given above is sketchy and may not give you an accurate picture of the proposals as contained in the Plan.

What’s the Position on Immigration?

One very important issue which has not been addressed in the Plan is that of migration. Thought not always discussed openly, migration has been one of the hottest issues in the Western world in this decade. Surprisingly, Carswell and Hannan don’t have much to say on this. There are a few mentions of reversing the flow of illegal migration, cracking down on illegal immigrants and the failures of the Migration Service. When discussing the drawbacks of being in the EU, it is said that the EU has prevented the UK from having an annual quota on immigrants. But a specific policy to tackle the perceived problem of immigration is missing. This is a glaring omission indeed.

Since the Plan is silent on this vital issue, I am tempted to infer what Carswell and Hannan might have in mind based on what they have said on other matters.

Switzerland has the most successful policy on migration in the whole of Europe. When I say “successful”, I mean success in controlling migration since controlling and reducing migrant inflows is the cornerstone of most migration policies, including that of the UK. How does Switzerland do this? To apply for Swiss citizenship, the applicant must have legally lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years. The final decision on a citizenship application is made by the local community where the applicant lives. The local community will interview the applicant and put his application to vote before citizenship is granted. Do Carswell and Hannan wish to implement the Swiss approach I wonder? It would fit in with the Plan which wants to devolve power to local communities. Currently, a person who has worked in the UK for five years will almost automatically obtain permanent residency. Permanent residents obtain citizenship (almost automatically) a year after becoming permanent residents. If the Swiss system were to be implemented in the UK, I would assume that the number of people who obtain British citizenship will be reduced to a trickle. Would members of one community or race find it more difficult to get citizenship than others? Possibly.

No foreigner has the right to migrate to another country. The visa stamped on a foreign passport is always a favour bestowed on the passport holder rather than an entitlement. Every country has the right to implement the most appropriate immigration policy. That being said, immigration is an emotional topic, especially during a recession when jobs are being lost and the economy feels pinched. It is very easy to cause scare mongering and get voters excited on this topic. Sometimes the scaremongering works, sometimes it doesn’t. I do wish Carswell and Hannan had not remained silent on this issue.

Book Review: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's August 1914

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:22:46 EDT

August 1914 is the first book in Solzhenitsyn's Red Wheel series which covers the collapse of Tsarist Russia and the birth of the Soviet Union. Set during the initial stages of the First World War, it delves into the reasons for the catastrophic defeat suffered by the Imperial Russian army at the hands of the Germans in the area around the Masurian Lakes, in what's now called the Battle of Tannenberg. Prior to the First World War, Russia had a string of defeats, at Crimea and then against the Japanese, followed by a none-too-glorious Turkish campaign.

Colonel Vorotyntsev plays the most important role in August 1914. A member of the Russian General Staff, Vorotyntsev travels (mainly on horseback) throughout the war theatre meeting various senior Russian army officers, analysing Russian positions and tactics and finally reports back to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army. It goes without saying that Vorotyntsev is very much unhappy with the way things are done by the Russian generals. In the course of Vorotyntsev's wanderings through the war theatre, we get to know of their near total ineptitude. None of the generals have bothered to keep in touch with the latest advancement in military technology or tactics. And why should they, when the War Minister himself has boasted of having not read a single military textbook since he left university 35 years ago? Promotions are always by seniority. Orders are telegraphed without using codes (en clair) since the operators don't have much schooling and do not understand code.

Russian generals do not have access to much intelligence. There are a few aeroplanes for aerial reconnaissance, but nothing compared to what the Germans have. German artillery is a lot better and lot more effective. There is one motorised ambulance unit for the whole Russian army. Russian generals are totally clueless about the whereabouts of the German armies whilst the Germans know exactly where the Russians are. There is no coordination whatsoever. Soldiers advance on foot for many miles through enemy territory only to get lost and have to trudge back. Despite all this, Russians fight with enormous gallantry and courage, putting up with extraordinary hardships.

The Commander in Chief of the Russian army is Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, Tsar Nicholas II's uncle. Solzhenitsyn shows some respect for his military abilities. When the Grand Duke was made the Commander in Chief, he had plans to revamp the entire general staff and put competent people in vital positions. However, the Tsar tells the Grand Duke to not to replace any of the Tsar's appointees, which meant that the Grand Duke’s plans come to naught.

Most generals don't have a plan of action other than to save their own skins. They make false claims of having won battles and captured territories. Generals are very religious and prayers form a vital part of the campaign. When the Tsar gets to know of the enormous casualties suffered by his troops, he sends a letter to the Commander-in-chief. It says "Dear Uncle Nick, I deeply grieve with you over the loss of our gallant Russian soldiers. But we must submit to the will of God. He who endures to the end will be saved. Yours Nicky (Nicholas II)" In addition to such words of encouragement, the Tsar dispatches an icon of the blessed virgin appearing in a vision to the Holy Father Sergius. Apparently this icon has accompanied the Russian army on many of its battles and campaigns, both successful and the unsuccessful (such as during the Russo-Japanese war).

The climax of the novel comes towards the end when Colonel Vorotyntsev manages to meet the Grand Duke and appraise him of what's happening on the war front. The Grand Duke convenes a meeting of all Generals. Vorotnysev launches into a brilliant analysis of what's going wrong. Articulate, erudite and his anger under control, he tears the Generals apart. The Grand Duke is silent, thus implicitly supporting Vorotnysev. However, towards the end Vorotnysev makes a fatal error. After criticising the generals, he criticises the treaty between Russia and France which obligated Russia to launch the war fifteen days after mobilisation started. In reality, the Russian army needed sixty days. Vorotnysev tells the assembly that Russia had an obligation to support friends but no obligation to commit suicide. Throwing untrained troops into battle fifteen days after mobilisation was, in Vorotnysev’s opinion, a criminal act. The Grand Duke is forced to ask Vorotnysev to leave. The treaty was signed by the War Minister and himself and approved by the Tsar. No one has the right to criticize the Tsar, the deeply religious Grand Duke agrees with one of the idiotic generals.

Towards the end of the book, the capture of Lvov by Russian troops is announced. It is a great victory, the public is told. In reality, Russian generals have committed a blunder. They had the Austrian army in a pincer, but allowed them to escape. They have captured an empty Lvov from which the Austrians had already withdrawn.

Solzhenitsyn does not tell us much about Vorotyntsev's personal life other than that he is not on very good terms with his wife. And herein lies the biggest flaw of this book. When compared with any of the other great Russian war stories – be it Tolstoy's War and Peace or Sholokhov's Quiet Flows the Don, August 1914 lags behind in the quality of its tale. Solzhenitsyn's only focus in August 1914 is the war and the political realities of those times. He does not bother to tell us about the person behind any of his characters, many of whom make a brief appearance and are never seen again. Once in while, Solzhenitsyn does get philosophical. ‘What makes a human being cease to shun death?’ his readers are asked. But on the whole, the book is an analysis of the causes of Russia's defeat. If you are looking for a story and nothing more, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, if you enjoy political commentary and analysis (as I do) you will really enjoy this book.

That the Russians are very patriotic people is brought out very well by Solzhenitsyn. He tells us of Russian families exiled by the Tsars to the Caucasus which after many generations are still devoted to the Russian empire. Revolutionary spirit and desire for change is shown to be widespread, even among the rich people. However, so-called revolutionaries sign up to the army when Mother Russia is said to be in danger. The Russians have enormous contempt for the Germans, even though they find Germany to be an advanced country. Solzhenitsyn is very good in describing the awe with which Russian soldiers see Germany when they are in German territory. It is a case of people from an underdeveloped country being suddenly exposed to a first world country.

Various minor characters softly slide past the reader in the course of this 650 odd page saga. One of them is Isaaki, a model student who considers himself a “Tolstoyan”. Isaaki goes to Tolstoy's farm one day hoping to set eyes on the great man. Isaaki is lucky. Not only does he catch a glimpse of Tolstoy, who is shorter than he expected, but also exchanges a few words with him. Isaaki is not Jewish, but is mistaken for one (because of his name) when he applies to University. Unfortunately for Isaaki, the quota for Jews is full and his application is rejected. Isaaki is forced to produce his baptism certificate in order to get admitted.

There's Madame Kharitonova, a Headmistress, who is of a liberal and revolutionary bent of mind. She hates her son for having enrolled in the army. However, despite her liberalism, she hates it when her daughter runs off and marries a poor engineer.

Ilya Isakovich Arkhangorodsky, a Jew, is one of the rare minor characters who we get to know much better than any other minor character. Ilya Isakovich is an engineer, an expert on flour milling machinery and the owner of many mills and factories. Since Solzhenitsyn was always dogged by claims that he showed traces of anti-Semitism, I was particularly interested in the way he has depicted Ilya Isakovich. Solzhenitsyn contrasts Ilya Isakovich with Obodovsky, a very famous and talented Russian engineer. While Ilya Isakovich is stocky and well dressed, Obodovsky is tall, fair and is dressed untidily. Ilya Isakovich is rich, while Obodovsky doesn't really care about money. Obodovsky used to be a revolutionary, but gave up his cause and devoted himself to engineering. Having travelled through Europe seeing how things are done, Obodovsky has come back to Russia to make things better for his country. However, Ilya Isakovich is not your average rich Joe. After gaining his engineering degree, he worked in a mill as a workman (even though he could have started off as an engineer) before he became the chief manager and finally the owner of the mill. He soon acquires many more mills and factories. We meet Ilya Isakovich's pretty wife who doesn't say much and his two teenage children who call themselves revolutionaries. They condemn the support shown for the Tsar by the Jews of Rostov who held a service in the synagogue to pray for Russia and the Tsar and took out a 20,000 strong procession. Solzhenitsyn tells us that Ilya Isakovich is not a practising Jew and that his family "ate matzos for Passover and then at the orthodox Easter, they baked Easter cakes and painted eggs."

There's an interesting discussion between Ilya Isakovich, Obodovsky and Ilya Isakovich's two children. Obodovsky tells the children that a revolution will be pointless. Ilya Isakovich is very indulgent towards his kids, but he has no sympathy for a revolution either. Instead, both the engineers want to industrialise Russia. "Heat the tundra, drain it and see what minerals lie underneath,' Obodovsky tells them all. 'Climate change! Global warming! I screamed in my head. However, let's not forget that it was a different era altogether.

I wouldn't say that Solzhenitsyn has shown Ilya Isakovich as slimy or a weasel, unlike in the case of Tsezar Markovich, a Greek-Gypsy-Jew, a character in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. However, the net effect of Solzhenitsyn’s depiction of Ilya Isakovich, especially when contrasted with Obodovsky, is one of a man who is superior to everyone else around him, in terms of the ability to make wealth. It is not that Solzhenitsyn does not mention other wealthy people in his story. There are many wealthy landowners, one of whom is Tomchak, who manages to buy an exemption from military service for his son. However, Ilya Isakovich is the only character who lives a very comfortable life without doing physical labour or owning any land. I don't think this should open up Solzhenitsyn to a charge of anti-Semitism since many Jews in Russia did live comfortably using their brain power.

Book Review: If You Don't Know Me by Now by Sathnam Sanghera

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:02:27 EDT

Much before Santham Sanghera's misery memoir, If You Don't Know Me by Now: A Memoir of Love, Secrets and Lies in Wolverhampton, got published, I knew him very well. Or I thought I did. For those who don't know, Sanghera is a British journalist of Indian origin who used to write for the Financial Times and is now with the Times. Reading Sanghera's very British and very interesting pieces in the FT and the Times such as this and this, I used to think, here's yet another British Indian who's done well. Sanghera's family, I thought, must be one of those traditional Indian families where education is prized above everything and the educated non-working mother sits the kids down after dinner and helps them with their homework. However, Sanghera's autobiography which unflinchingly lays bare the life stories of himself, his parents and various other members of his family, tells us a different story all together. And a shocking one at that.

Sanghera's father and elder sister suffer from Schizophrenia. Sanghera's mother, the sole breadwinner of the family is illiterate and had to rely on her sewing to put chappatis on the table. Sanghera's father migrated to the UK in his youth, to join a number of family members already there. Even before he was married, his family knew that he was ill, but they thought that marriage would cure him. Sanghera's mother came to the UK when she was sixteen or so, to be married to a violent mentally ill man. Things only got worse for Sanghera's mother before they could become better. Until Sanghera's father was arrested (for violent assault), imprisoned, diagnosed as mentally ill and treated (with medicines and electroconvulsive therapy), Sanghera's mother bore the brunt of the violence. She was slapped in the face on her wedding day and later punched in her stomach on her wedding night. Later, his paternal grandmother began to suspect Sanghera’s mother of being a witch, someone who brought bad luck to Sanghera’s father and the rest of his family.

Sanghera, the youngest child, was his mother’s pet and his mother lavished her love on him. He was handfed traditional Punjabi food (which Sanghera now considers unhealthy and yucky), dressed in colourful clothes which are very un-British (memories of which seem to still upset Sanghera) and made to grow his hair long (unlike his brother and father who have short hair). Even though no one in Sanghera’s family had been to college and his parents don’t speak English at all, Sanghera manages to get into a good grammar school and read literature at Cambridge.

Sanghera has an elder brother and two sisters. They all go to ordinary state schools and get run-of-the mill jobs, including his eldest sister who suffers from Schizophrenia. His eldest sister’s first arranged marriage breaks down, but she is married off again to a man imported from India who needs British citizenship. Sanghera’s first breakthrough is when at the age of 14, he goes to a barber on his own and cut off his long hair. He expects his mother to be deeply upset, but she takes it very calmly. After his hair is cut off, Sanghera becomes ‘normal’. He makes friends at school, girls are interested in him and he is no longer bullied.
Sanghera is in his mid-twenties when he accidentally finds out that his father has always suffered from Schizophrenia. It is a shock to him, but it explains a great many things. At that time, Sanghera has had a series of broken relationships and he is under pressure from his mother to enter into an arranged marriage. All of this makes Sanghera want to understand his family’s history and he delves into his parents’ past, the medication his father took, the doctors who treated him, the courts which sentenced him, the violence suffered by his mother at the hands of his father etc.

Sanghera hates everything about his Indian-Punjabi community. He hates the food, the attitudes and values (towards women, family honour), lavishness (especially for weddings) and everything else. For example, as Sanghera explains how much he hated community get-togethers such as weddings, he says “…And then, just when I dared to hope I was running out of cousins to get married, cousins I didn't realize I even had started appearing from India as well, bearing gifts of sugar cane, asking to be shown the whereabouts of the nearest porn shop and announcing that they wanted to be married too…. As soon as they made it through Customs and Immigration, or as soon as they were liberated by their human trafficker of choice into an alleyway in Dudley, and before they had got used to Western customs such as not spitting on the living room floor, arranged marriage aunties were scouring the land for potential spouses, their criteria being that the person be a British Sikh of the appropriate sex and caste and be willing to get married very quickly.”

Sanghera’s anger extends to everything Indian. You’ll find phrases such as “Indians always need to blame someone” very often in the book. The India-born GP who treated his father during the initial stages of his illness did not make legible notes of his father’s case or the treatment given. The GP practice, which is still run by India-born GPs, does not promptly produce records pertaining to the treatment when Sanghera makes a request while doing his research. Sanghera places the blame squarely on the GP’s Indianness, though I doubt if many GP in the UK in the 1960s maintained legible and elaborate records of their patients and the treatment given. Sanghera also has similar problems with the Wolverhampton Crown Court in getting hold of details pertaining to his father’s imprisonment. But here, there are no Indians involved and so India makes a narrow escape.

I have many British Asian friends, a few of whom are not particularly fond of their connection to India or Pakistan. Most of them are however, very proud of their lineage and all trappings that go with it (mainly religion and language). The other day I was having a drink with a few friends, one of whom is British-Punjabi whose parents (like Sanghera’s) came to the UK in the 1950s as illiterate labourers. There was only pride in my friend’s voice as she explained how her parents managed to put her through school and college and made her a solicitor. It is also very common to see British Asians change their attitude to India after the economic boom in India. For example, Randeep Ramesh, a British Indian journalist, explains in this article how the earlier contempt for India changed into pride and admiration.
Sanghera does not state that his total hatred for Punjabi and Indian culture is connected to the childhood he had. However it is reasonable to make this connection since Sanghera also hates Wolverhampton, the British Midlands town (close to Birmingham) where he grew up. There are very funny passages in the book about the first Starbucks Café in Wolverhampton and how the not-so-sophisticated citizens of Wolverhampton get used to café culture. I am not really sure if Sanghera’s anger towards Indian/Punjabi culture was ingrained from childhood or it was something he developed after he found out about his father’s illness and the violence his mother suffered at his father’s hands.

Even though Sanghera makes his childhood sound extra-horrible, it is possible that it is the result of hindsight (clothes in horrible colours and rich, fatty Punjabi food etc.). Sanghera says that he never saw his father hit his mother and he himself was never the victim of violence (though once when he was in primary school, a couple of semi-crushed cockroaches where found in his shoes as he changed for PT).

Sanghera is (very rightly in my opinion) very grateful to the UK which allowed the son of immigrants such as his parents to go to Cambridge and become a very respectable journalist. He (again very rightly) rails against ‘multiculturalists’ who argue against forcing immigrants to learn English, which would allow immigrants (such as his mother) to be aware of their rights (against domestic abuse) and fight for them. However, I wonder if Sanghera is aware that had his parents stayed on in India, they would have been relatively rich (as most Jat Punjabis who own land are, thanks to the green revolution), Sanghera would have had a decent education and a very good chance to make something of himself.

Even though Sanghera’s pain and anguish show at every turn, the book is not a very heavy read. From the beginning of the book, Sanghera tells us that he is working towards writing a letter to his mother where (at the risk of breaking her heart) he will tell her that he does not want an arranged marriage and that he plans to get married to a girl of his choice. The letter is to be written in English and translated into Punjabi before it is sent to his mother. Does Sanghera manage to write this letter? What are the consequences? Does his mother become very upset or does she take it as calmly as she had when he cut off his hair? Do read this good and very interesting book to find out.

"I remember the story of a Keralite who went to the USA in the early 1960s and came back for his first visit after 30 years. 'Let's go to visit XYZ,' one of his brothers told him a few days after he got there. 'Sure,' this gentleman said and walked out of the house shirtless and bare-chested, clad only in his mundu. His brother ran after him and expostulated, 'surely you are not going out like this?' Pat came the reply. 'But I've always walked around like this,' It took the brother sometime to convince his American brother that people in Kerala no longer walk around town clad only in a mundu. Similarly, I wonder if Sanghera realises that marriages in India are no longer always arranged by parents and that most Indians have stopped spitting on the floors of their living rooms."

I feel that this book should be prescribed like medicine to all parents in India who wish to have their daughters married off to unknown men of Indian origin living in the UK and the USA. How many such parents are aware of the time-warped lives Britons of south-Asian origin live in? Granted not every British-South-Asian family would be similar to Sanghera’s, but the general descriptions of how traditional and orthodox Indian communities in the UK can be are a must read for Indians in India.

Towards the end of his book, Sanghera has a few good words for Wolverhampton, which he says has changed for the better. There are no similar sentiments towards India. I wish Sanghera would spend a few months in Delhi or Mumbai and see for himself how much India (especially urban India) has changed.

Book Review: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:02:39 EDT

I should confess that I had never read any of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s works while he lived. The flurry of obituaries and articles that followed his death at the age of 89 motivated me to start with his first novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. A little less than 200 pages, this translated work is based on Solzhenitsyn’s own experiences in a Soviet gulag. One Day was originally published in November 1962 in the Soviet literary magazine Novy Mir after receiving approval from Khrushchev and the Communist Party Central Committee who felt that Stalinist excesses had to be exposed. Six years ago, Khrushchev had denounced Stalin as a brutal dictator.

The protagonist, Ivan Denisovich Shukov, is a soldier who had the misfortune to be captured by the Germans and the double misfortune to be able to escape from captivity. One would think an escaped PoW would be welcomed with open arms. At least, in Mikhail Sholokov’s The Fate of a Man, one of my all time favourite short stories, the hero escapes from German captivity and gets, well, a hero’s welcome. Shukov (as Solzhenitsyn’s hero is referred to throughout One Day) is not so lucky. He is suspected of being a German spy and is given a ten year sentence in the gulag. We are told that from 1949 onwards, the standard sentence was raised to twenty five years.

I read this book during the long train commute I have each day to get to my place of work. Nothing could have prepared me for One Day. Sure, like all of you, I too had heard of the horrors of the gulag. But there is something about Solzhenitsyn's matter of fact narration that takes you to the coal face, in a way that melodrama could never have done. As I read One Day, every ten minutes or so I would jerk up and look out of the train window at the green Surrey countryside rushing past in order to assure myself that all was well with my world.

Solzhenitsyn does not try to show the gulag as an unbearable or intolerable place. Rather, he explains how Shukov, a veteran of the place, who has already served eight of his ten years, gets through a typical day in a rather successful manner. Shukov's secret to survival is simple. He gives respect where it is due. He obeys his team leader Tiurin. He works hard, even if the work involves the building of a wall in minus twenty odd degrees using mortar that must be constantly heated to avoid freezing over. He steals when he thinks he will get away with it. He cheats in the mess room to get more food, without damaging the espirit de corps within his work team. However, there was one instance when he indulged in a high risk activity – the smuggling in of a hack saw blade into his camp. If he had been caught with the blade, he would have got 10 days solitary confinement in the cells where the lack of warm food, the dampness and the cold would have ruined his health forever and substantially reduced his chances of surviving his remaining sentence.
Solzhenitsyn digresses from Shukov's story to tell us bits of other stories. The inmates in the camp include writers, an ex-navy captain, a former Hero of the Soviet Union, a man who had served as a liaison officer on a British convoy etc. Just as in Shukov's case, most of them are in the camp for flimsy reasons. For example, the liaison officer received a gift from a British admiral, which gave rise to the very reasonable suspicion that he had betrayed his country.

However, Shukov is not a man who wants to survive at a cost to his family. Many inmates receive food parcels from their homes which help them get by. Shukov has specifically asked his family to not send him any, since his family is not very well off.

Solzhenitsyn shows us time and again how stupid, thoughtless and callous the gulag authorities are. For example, some of the prisoners are shown trying to dig holes in the permafrost using pickaxes, which only produces sparks to fly up. They don’t have the firewood needed to light a fire and thaw the ground. Every time there is a snowstorm, work is suspended and the prisoners are closeted indoors, not out of concern for the men, but to prevent them from escaping.

The camp has inmates from various parts of the USSR and Solzhenitsyn doesn't try very hard to be politically correct. I assume that in this, he reflects the values of his times, though I doubt if things have changed substantially in modern day Russia. There are a few Estonians and Shukov professes to like them. He has never met an Estonian he didn't like. Two of the characters are Letts (Latvians). Shukov likes one of them – Kilgas – a good worker who speaks very good Russian, a man with a good sense of humour who receives two food parcels every month. The other Lett is the one Shukov buys tobacco from. He is a mean one. The fiercest guard in the camp is a Tartar. A Moldavian is shown to be universally hated since he had spied for the Rumanians, a genuine spy, unlike Shukov and others who were falsely accused of spying. There are many Ukranians and Shukov considers them to be different. They speak Russian with an accent, but there is no serious animosity. One of them, Pavlov, is the deputy team leader.

Tsezar is a motley of nationalities (Greek, Gypsy & Jew), a Moscow intellectual who receives 2 food parcels a month. Tsezar is good at greasing palms and has managed to find himself a clerical job, which allows him to avoid doing physical work in the killing cold. Solzhenitsyn makes it clear that Shukov doesn't like him at all, though he is not above doing odd jobs for him in exchange for food or tobacco. What's more, Shukov gives Tsezar good advice once when an unexpected inspection of the camp at night would have caused Tsezar to lose a food parcel he had just received. It is not very clear why Shukov gave that advice. Maybe it was to preserve Shukov, a source of food and odd jobs for Shukov and score a few brownie points with him. Or maybe Shukov did it out of the goodness of his heart.

Book Review: The Sultan in Palermo by Tariq Ali

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:03:04 EDT

Tariq Ali’s fourth novel, The Sultan in Palermo, revolves around the world-renowned cartographer Muhammad al-Idrisi who lived in the twelfth century and served the Norman King of Sicily, Roger II. The Arabs had taken over Sicily in the ninth century from the Byzantine Empire and ruled it for the next two centuries. Under the Arabs, Sicily flourished. Its population burgeoned. Palermo, the main city in Sicily, became a centre of Arab culture on the lines of and almost on par with Baghdad and Cordoba. The Normans, with the support of the Popes, took back Sicily from the Arabs. Roger II’s father Roger I was one of the Kings involved in the re-conquest of Sicily. Known as Rujari to his Arab subjects, the “arabised” Roger II was a very tolerant King who spoke Arabic and maintained a harem. Arabs were allowed to practice their religion and speak their language. Muslim scholars such as Al-Idrisi flourished in his court.

Tariq Ali has done a particularly good job in portraying al-Idrisi’s character, which is as good as his portrayal of Saladin’s character in The Book of Saladin. Al-Idrisi is shown as a brilliant cartographer and physician with a weakness for women. A man with enormous contempt for his wife (who dies towards the end) and his two daughters (for being stupid), he acquires two more wives and a few children in the course of the story. As mentioned in this review published in the Independent, there is a fair amount of bedhopping, some of which involves one of the Sultan’s concubines and an Amir’s wife (who are half-sisters), with the full knowledge of both the Sultan and the Amir. I am not sure how much of this is historically true or even realistic. It seems inconceivable that either Roger II or an Amir would knowingly allow Idrisi to have affairs with their women. Al-Idrisi hates the two daughters born to him through his first wife so much that he is friendly with their husbands even after the husbands have deserted their wives. Idrisi is also shown to neglect his first born son who is mentally challenged.

Ali’s Idrisi does not hesitate to challenge anyone. Ali has Idrisi muttering that the Koran may be wrong in certain respects, when his research findings don’t tally with the Koran’s language. Towards the end of the story, Idrisi realises with regret that his first wife was not so stupid or bad after all (please read the book to find out how).

After Roger II’s death, there are minor revolts by the Arabs and al-Idrisi is shown to be sympathising with and even supporting the rebels. The chief rebel, Al-Farid, the Trusted One, is cast in the mould of Robin Hood. I doubt if such a character actually existed, but what the heck, this is a work of fiction. The story comes to an end with the death of al-Idrisi who outlived Roger II by nine years. In the epilogue of the novel, Ali explains how Roger-II’s grandson slowly extinguished Arab culture in Sicily and expelled all Muslims from Sicily.

As in the other books in his Islam Quintet, Ali’s main character Idrisi analyses the reasons for the decline of Islam, in this case, in Sicily. According to Ali, the first Muslims were willing to innovate. The subsequent waves of puritans who came from the desert were not. More importantly, the Believers were always divided.

There were a few things in this book which I did not like. Just as in the Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree, Ali uses mostly Arab names in this novel. Siquilliya for Sicily, Siracusa for Syracuse, Ifriqiya for North Africa, Balansiya for Valencia, Djirdjent for Agrigento etc. However, Palermo’s Arab name Bal'harm does not find a single mention in this book.

Al-Idrisi was (in real life), not an Arab. He was a Berber born in Ceuta, a city on the North African side of the Strait of Gibraltar and now an autonomous part of Spain. Just as in Moorish Spain, a substantial chunk of the Muslims in Sicily were Berbers and not Arabs. Ali makes no mention of this in this book. Further, Ali has al-Idrisi excelling as cartographer and a physician. The real al-Idrisi was well known as a cartographer, but I couldn’t find any sources praising him as a physician

Ali claims in this novel that, unlike other Arab Sicilians, the people of Qurlun (Arabic for Corleone) are too much tied to their land and other worldly possessions to be willing to revolt against the Normans. Ali has a few choice words of abuse for the people of Qurlun. I am not sure this bit is true. Corleone was a strategic town and was on the frontline of almost all wars fought in Sicily. It was actually known as “Courageous Civitas”. I guess Ali is trying to show that the Corleone (from where so many mafia families have emerged in recent times) always had the seeds of evil in it. But Ali’s version doesn’t ring true.

One of the key characters in the novel is Philip al-Mahdi, the Chief Amir of Roger II, whose death triggers off an Arab revolt against the Normans. Ali shows Philip al-Mahdia to be born a Muslim, sold to a Greek merchant, forcibly converted to Christianity, but continuing to be closet Muslim. Roger II agrees to execute Philip in order to placate a few monks and Ali’s Philip allows himself to be burnt at the stake after a lot of scheming and plotting by Christian Bishops in order to trigger off a revolt by the Muslim population of Sicily. The real Philip of Mahdia was not born a Muslim, though he was actually accused of converting to Islam and was executed by Roger II a year before his death. I think Ali is stretching history a bit too much, especially when he says Philip allowed himself to be burnt at the stake, even though he could have escaped.

Which brings me to my main criticism of this book and Ali’s earlier novels in the Islam Quintet. Ali has stated in an interview that his main objective in writing these stories was to “challenge the myth that Islam is incompatible with the West.” If so, one would expect Ali’s works to be historically accurate. Instead, one finds Ali taking too many liberties with accepted versions of history and not offering justifications or explanations for his deviations. Also, I think that at times Ali flies the banner of secular Islam too high, as alleged in this review by the Hindu.

Book Review: The Prostitutes Of Serruya's Lane And Other Hidden Gibraltarian Histories by M. G. Sanchez

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:36:38 EDT

Gibraltar, located on the southern tip of Spain, is a British Overseas Territory, one of fourteen such territories of the United Kingdom. These include the Bermudas, Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands etc. Until 2002, British Overseas Territories were called British Dependent Territories. Before that, they were called Crown Colonies, which in my opinion is the most appropriate way of describing these territories. For, if you strip away the thin veneer of political correctness which is contained in the phrase British Overseas Territory, these territories, each of them quite far away from the British mainland, are nothing but colonies of the United Kingdom.

Gibraltar was under the control of the Moors for over 750 years, until 1462. It then became a part of Spain, until on 4 August 1704 it was captured by Britain. Ever since then, Gibraltar has been a British naval base and a garrison town. Most of the Spanish population left Gibraltar when it was captured from Spain and the people now living in Gibraltar are a mix of various seventh or eighth generation European (mainly Maltese, Genoese, Portuguese) and North African (mainly Jews) immigrants who are proud of their unique Gibraltarian identity.

Spain has always contested UK's hold over Gibraltar. Recently, the UK has agreed to consider joint sovereignty with Spain. However, the people of Gibraltar (as in the case of the Falkland Islands) prefer to be with the UK. In November 2002 a referendum was held to decide this issue and almost 99% of the people voted to remain with the UK.

M. G. Sanchez is a Gibraltarian academic and author. His latest book, The Prostitutes Of Serruya's Lane And Other Hidden Gibraltarian Histories, is a collection of essays that tell of story of Gibraltar in the nineteenth century. Sanchez's language is matter-of-fact, his attitude unflinching, his tone alternating between stoicism and anger, as he opens practically every curtain in Gibraltar to let the sunlight in.

Sanchez starts with the prostitutes in Serruya's Lane (is there any garrison town which doesn't have a red-light district?). A large chunk of this slim volume is devoted to the collateral damage caused by prostitution, such as venereal diseases and the like. Sanchez then goes on to dissect and examine the prejudice which people in mainland UK had for Gibraltar and its people. Gibraltar has had more than its fair share of smugglers and Sanchez does justice to this interesting profession in which numerous Gibraltarians were at one point involved in.

Sanchez's strength lies in describing all facets of an issue. For example, his description of smuggling revolves around an analysis of how demand and supply gave rise to smuggling. Rather than elaborate on the contents of this book and spoil the fun for future readers, I'll stop here and leave it to you to read it for yourselves.

Sanchez is also the author of a collection of fine short stories – Rock Black: Ten Gibraltarian Stories and Writing the Rock of Gibraltar: An Anthology of Literary Texts, 1720-1890. For the last three years, Sanchez has lived in Mumbai, India (since his partner is a British diplomat posted there).

The Russia-Georgia Conflict - Stoking The Embers Of The Cold War

C R Sridhar — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:18:40 EDT

On 7th August 2008, Friday, Georgia, which became independent of the Soviet Union in 1991 began an offensive on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. Fashioned along the lines of a blitzkrieg, the Georgian military launched a heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. An American witness Joe Mestas who was living in South Ossetia at the time of the military offensive said ‘I thought that since U.S. is supporting Georgia there would be some control over the situation in South Ossetia and that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict. But what is happening there now it’s not just war, but war crimes. George Bush and [Georgian president] Mikhail Saakashvili should answer to the crimes that are being committed – the killing of innocent people, running over by tanks of children and women, throwing grenades into cellars where people are hiding.’¹

The Russian response was swift and bloody. Russia sent tanks and troops into the province and carried out series of air strikes on Georgian military targets. By Saturday the Russian air force pounded the nearby town of Gori. The Russian troops went deep into Georgian territory and the battered Georgian forces had to be pulled back to defend its capital, Tbilisi. The massive show of force by Russia was understandable as South Ossetia has close to 90% of the citizens having Russian citizenship. Moreover, the province broke away from Georgia in the nineties when it declared itself independent. South Ossetia has closely aligned itself with Russia.

No roses for Mr. Putin

The simmering discontent between Georgia and Russia arose over an event, which was called the Rose Revolution of 2003. This was a bloodless coup, which saw the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze. Mikheil Saakashvili who entered the Parliamentary building interrupting a speech of Shevardnadze forcing him to escape with his bodyguards. Eduard Shevardnadze finally stepped down on November 23, 2003 to avoid civil war. The new ruling elites- Mikhail Saakashvili, Nino Burdzhanadze and Zurab Zhvania- took control of power in Georgia.

Mikheil Saakashvili who is now the President of Georgia is a graduate of George Washington University and studied law at Columbia Law School. He is known to support US role in the Caucasus. He has publicly supported Bush in his global commitment to expand democracy and has extolled the virtues of real market economy. This sent alarm bells ringing in the Kremlin as Putin and his political advisors saw the hand of U.S. in the Rose Revolution. The alarm of Kremlin was perhaps justified as the Wall Street reported on November 24, 2003 ‘the three politicians [Saakashvili, Burdzhanadze and Zhvania] are backed by a raft of nongovernmental organizations that have sprung up since the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of the NGOs have been supported by American and other Western foundations, spawning a class of young, English-speaking intellectuals hungry for pro-Western reforms.’²

The relationship between Georgia and Russia also soured because Mikheil Saakashvili lobbied hard for Georgia to become a member of NATO with the active support of U.S. The Russians perceived the situation as potentially dangerous as they saw Georgia as becoming a NATO outpost posing a threat to Russian territorial interests. Vladimir Putin- the Russian President- voiced his strong protests accusing U.S and NATO as gradually encroaching Russian space.

The Politics of Oil

In a detailed article titled ‘Oil intrigue and US Realpolitik heighten tensions in the Caucasus’ the authors say ‘The US-backed coup in Georgia and Washington’s subsequent diplomatic sabre-rattling have nothing to do with the spread of democracy or similar clichés. Georgia, strategically situated between the Black Sea and the oil-rich Caspian, has long been a focus of intrigue and conflict between the great powers. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the goal of weakening Russian influence and achieving US domination of Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus became a central preoccupation of US imperialist policy.’³

The U.S. interest in Georgia lies in its geographical position. As Dr Alexey Muraviev, strategic affairs analyst in his article says ‘the control of Georgia gives access to the oil and gas rich areas of the Caspian Sea and former Soviet Central Asia. It allows firming up control over the Turkish Straits, a critically important shipping point. And further, it reduces Russia and its influence in some critical areas such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.’⁴

Another event of great importance to understand the cold war rivalry surfacing between U.S and Russia is building of the Baku pipeline (BTC), which was completed in May 2005. Costing 3.6 billion dollars, it is one of the most expensive oil projects. The interests in this massive project involves BP. The other partners are Unocal (US) and Turkish Petroleum Inc. The oil is pumped through pipelines and shipped via the Turkish port Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Significantly, Ceyhan is located near to the US air base Incirlik. The pipeline project had top-heavy advisors who held extremely senior positions in the government of US. Some of the important officials - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Cheney- have shaped US strategic oil interests in the region.⁵

The battle lines and emerging power blocs

Since the breaking up of the Soviet Union, the politics of the Caspian region has become complex, volatile and dangerous, as there is scramble for the oil-rich resources of the Caspian from the United States. In this scenario, power blocs have emerged with opposing strategies-‘ On the one side is an alliance of US-Turkey-Azerbaijan and, since the Rose Revolution, Georgia, that small but critical country directly on the pipeline route. Opposed to it, in terms of where the pipeline route carrying the Caspian oil should go, is Russia, which until 1990 held control over the entire Caspian outside the Iran littoral. Today, Russia has cultivated an uneasy but definite alliance with Iran and with Armenia, in opposition to the US group.’⁶ The geopolitical strategy of U.S has been to bring regime changes friendly to US interests in countries (earlier Soviet bloc), which are located in pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea. The scramble for oil by these power blocs would provide flashpoints for conflicts in these regions.

The Georgia-US-Israeli Nexus

The US interest in Georgia is shaped by the scramble for oil in the region. The Western media such as BBC, CNN and other electronic media simplify complex issues pertaining to the present conflict by defining it as big power such as Russia intimidating a small country.

What the mainstream media did not report is the extensive involvement of US-NATO in the planning of the military offensive against South Ossetia which is at the cross roads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes. US has provided extensive military aid to Georgia with transport planes (US) assisting the redeployment of 2000 Georgian forces in Iraq back to the country to fight. It is also believed that US provided logistical support to Georgia to move 11 tons of military cargo. In the past, Israel has also supplied military equipment to Georgia. As Peter Hirschberg reports ‘In recent years, ties have also taken on a military dimension, with military industries in Israel supplying Georgia with some $200 million worth of equipment since 2000. This has included remotely piloted planes, rockets, night-vision equipment, other electronic systems, and training by former senior Israeli officers.’⁷

Israel is also an interested party to get the oil from the Caspian region. ‘What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tip line, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East’⁸

The Seeds of Cold War

The Russian perspective on this issue is best summarized by Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006) ‘[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region’s countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel.’ A fact, which would be resisted by Russia, as she perceives the threat of the encirclement of countries friendly to US. This was made amply clear by the sharp violent response to Georgia’s military attack on South Ossetia.

Even though cease-fire has been declared between Russia and Georgia, there has been an uneasy peace. Is this a lull before the storm? Is the recent conflict in the Caucasus a dress rehearsal for the more serious conflicts to break out between US and Russia? With Russia flush with oil money and flexing its nationalist muscles the future holds the fear of a sharpened cold war. A war that we thought lay buried in the memories of history.

-----------------------
1 This is Genocide: American Witness Says U.S. and Georgia to answer for violence - Russia Today - Monday, Aug 11, 2008.
2 Georgia's "rose revolution"; made in America coup- Barry Grey and Vladimir Volkov, wsws.org
3 Oil intrigue and U.S. Realpolitik- Barry Grey and Vladimir Volkov, wsws.org
4 US plays a shadowy hand in Georgian conflict- Dr Alexey Muraviev, strategic affairs analyst, Crikely.com
5 Colour Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku pipeline-F. William Engdahl-Global Research- June 25,2005.
6 Colour Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku pipeline-F. William Engdahl-Global Research June 25,2005.
7 Israeli Arms Sales to Georgia Raise New Concerns- Peter Hirschberg - anti-war.com
8 War in the Caucasus: Towards a broader Russia-US Military confrontation?-Michel Chossudovsky- Global Research

The Russia-Georgia Conflict - The Bear's Power

Ashish — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:56:13 EDT

The Soviet Union was once a mighty empire, controlling large chunks of land in Europe and Asia, and giving the West a mighty enemy. Then it all fell apart; the individual states (many of them incorporated by force) wanted their freedom, and Boris Yeltsin wanted his own Russia to rule, and so the Soviet empire ended. Then began the decline. Then rose a strongman out of all this, one who had the blood of the all-powerful intelligence agency KGB running through him. On his own he could not do anything; however, he was lucky. Russia had large tracts of oil and gas, and had turned into a large exporter of these, bringing in revenue, and helping regrow the power.

However, in the midst of all this, the world did not stay still. Many of the former Soviet republics did not stay still, moving towards the West (and seemingly away from the clutches of their former all-powerful dictatorial landlord), striking closer relationships with them. At the same time, like any major power (and one that remembers all too well how powerful it is), Russia grew increasingly resentful of this emergence of the West in an area that it treats as its backyard (a close equivalent would be if Mexico suddenly became more hostile to the US and very very friendly towards Russia or China).

This may well seem normal for a powerful country to treat its immediate neighbors as its areas of influence, but not so for the country so dominated. Ask Finland, that has fought wars with Russia in the past over this dominance, and ask Afghanistan that does not like being called as an area of Pakistani influence, as if it has no identity of its own.

So, when Ukraine tried to show itself as more hostile towards Russia, there was a sudden crippling blockade of the oil and gas it gets from Russia; and now Georgia. Ever since President Mikheil Saakashvili came to office and had a campaign of getting back the pro-Russian provinces of South Ossetia and a second separatist area, Abkhazia, Russia has been seething. It already knows that it is much more powerful. The US wants its support in the initiatives against Iran and North Korea, and cannot afford to antagonize Russia. And the Georgian leader gave Vladimir Putin just that chance. He tried to take one of the provinces, South Ossetia back, and met such overwhelming Russian force (without any check by any other party) that Western leaders were worried that Putin may be trying to gain more geographic control inside Georgia.

Right now, things are moving towards a cease-fire, but Russia must have intended this as a show of force to Georgia and others, that they are truly helpless when faced with this great bear.