Federal woes

Successive national elections have seen the power of a strong central government wither away such that the idea of a strong, one-party central government seems inconceivable today. The decline in the fortune of national parties has been to the gain of regional satraps who, today, rule over many states as their fiefdoms. Mulayam and family in UP, Karunanidhi and clan in Tamil Nadu, the Abdullahs in J&K, the Chautalas of Haryana and the Gowda father-son duo of Karnataka- other than the Hindi heartland states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, hardly any state in India can today boast of a strong presence of the national parties- Congress, BJP and the communists to a certain extent.

The rise of regional parties was inevitable, given the sheer diversity of the populace that inhabits the country, and probably it is good in a way, since it keeps dictatorial tendencies à la Emergency in check. But, the lack of strong political consensus in the country, in the form of electorate voting decisively for one or the other party or combination has now begun to take its toll on the strength of the central government. A strong central government is what the makers of the constitution had in mind when they drafted the Indian constitution. Accordingly, India practices a faux-federalism in which most of the power resides with the centre, even though there is a  strong semblance of devolution of powers to states. With national parties losing their popularity, all elections since 1996 have seen governments of the largest national party being propped up by regional parties. Things have come to such a pass now, that central government is unable to enforce its writ lest it chooses to anger its regional allies, and ends up losing power at the centre as well. Take the case of Durga Nagpal for instance. The moment Sonia Gandhi spoke in support of the suspended IAS officer, Samajwadi Party announced its opposition to the crucial Food Security Bill. Things came to such a pass that one of the SP leaders asked the Centre to withdraw all its IAS officers if it was so worried. All this, even when the whole world knows that Durga Nagpal is being victimized for taking on the strong sand mafia. 

India has been weakest when the Centre has been weak. The invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni, Abdali,  Nader Shah and the British, took place when India was at best a patchwork of territories, lacking a strong leadership. If the predictions for the next elections are correct, India will again end up without a strong, credible central government, something that does not bode well for the country. India-the superpower of 21st century, most definitely needs an able and an effective central government.

Language woes

In 1947, religion was identified as the most fundamental unit of nationalism in the sub continent. Proponents of this theory claimed that since Hindus and Muslims belonged to separate religions, they belonged to different nations. Accordingly, India was partitioned into a Hindu majority India, flanked on the east and west by Muslim majority Pakistan. In 1971, Muslim majority East Pakistan claimed that it was not religion, but language that was the most fundamental social identifier in the sub continent. Accordingly, Bangladesh was born. Agreeing with the same logic, Lankan Tamils fought decades of bloody and destructive battles with Lankan Sinhalese.

 In India too, in spite of the initial aversion of national leaders such as Nehru and Patel, language was identified as the primary differentiator between Indians and the State reorganization bill of 1956 gave a formal go-ahead for states based on linguistic homogeneity. This principle of language based states has served India well so far-Punjabi (sikh) nationalism was tackled by creation of Punjabi suba, Marathi nationalism by creation of Maharashtra, Gujarati nationalism by creation of Gujarat and so on and so forth. Proponents of this linguistic theory of self-identification feel that Balkanization of India was prevented largely by acceptance of regional aspirations in the form of creation of states based on linguistic homogeneity. Even in the sub continent for that matter, reinstatement of Sindh as a province tackled the demand for Sindhudesh and creation of autonomous Tamil zone silenced in guns in Lanka for some time. 

India, however has chosen to sacrifice that principle as a government counting its days attempts to pander to vote bank politics. The decision of the UPA government to create a second Telugu state in the form of Telangana, in spite of strong opposition within Andhra is nothing but a despicable attempt at holding on to power in the next elections. The demand for Telangana is not new, it has persisted for several decades now. The demand for a separate state for the Telugu speaking, former Nizam's territories stems not from some regional aspirations but from a perceived discrimination in a united Andhra. Instead of seeking to safeguard rights of the people and addressing their grievances, the Central government has chosen to give assent to Telangana. Strong objections such as similar demands from other regions in the country, threat of naxalism, sharing of resources were all overlooked for the short term aim of electoral politics. Such is the state of affairs in the land of Gandhi today!

Such political short sightedness is not new to the Congress. After all, the Congress did create Bhindranwale to counter the growing clout of the Akalis in Punjab. Everyone now knows what a disaster that turned out to be for the country. By creating Telangana, Congress government has sent out a clear message- Agitate and get what you want. The cycle of violence will now resume in Bodoland and Gorkhaland. Petty politicians will form parties demanding Vidarbha, Saurashtra, Tulu Nadu, Kongu Nadu, Bundelkhand, Harit Pradesh, Mahakoshal and what not. Probably, one day in the future, surely under a Congress government, every residential colony will be designated as a state!

The solution to lopsided development is not creation of smaller states. Jharkhand is a sad example of what all can go wrong even in smaller states. The solution to meeting people's aspirations is commitment to common good, probity in public life and ethics- all of which our politicians lack today! Creation of Telangana, while surely meeting the aspirations of a few, will go down as one of the most disastrous decisions taken by the Congress government, now clearly, in its death throes.

Lal Salaam!

Leftist ideologues waste no time in raving and ranting about the grave injustices perpetrated by the state in undeveloped tribal homelands that drive people to take up arms to challenge the might of the state and assert their rights on what is rightfully theirs. Right wingers view the maoist problem as a menace to national security and demand that the state impose itself in totality to establish control over brigand infested lawless areas. Caught in the battle of ideologies are the dispossessed tribals, security men and occasionally a convoy of politicians. The result is a blood bath, heightened media attention, flurry of activities by state agencies before the usual stupor sets in. Nothing changes and this cycle gets repeated endlessly.

Naxalism evokes strong reactions. Dispossessed and forgotten people raising their voices and railing against the state and its institutions is fine by me, but terror is where line gets drawn. If citizens (even though they perceive themselves as denizens) take up arms against the state, the state is fully justified in deploying all the resources available with it to convince these people to set their arms aside. Negotiations and developmental work is a part of the solution but breaking the morale of terrorists is another critical part. 

Maoism, socialist revolution, guerrilla warfare are all strategies of yore. They thrived in the post-colonial era where they represented a kind of 'breaking free of the past' ritual. Modern democratic societies allow innumerable ways of expressing dissent, one way is to debate things out in the assembly, another is to fast a la Irom Sharmila, another is to protest a la Kejriwal & co. Democracy always delivers, it may not deliver on time, but it always delivers!  Violence of the kind witnessed in Darbha Valley last month only serves to taint genuine causes with the tag of terror. Who talks about the plight of the landless tribals when the news item is that of a burning, smoldering vehicle carrying CRPF personnel, or the bloodied remains of Mahendra Karma or a grievously injured VC Shukla?

Maoists pride themselves on following Mao's teachings. But what did Mao leave behind? Misery and impoverishment of billions of Chinese. Che Guevara's legendary guerrilla tactics did not change the lives of ordinary Latin American peasants. Stalin murdered millions in the name of ideology, but where does his empire lie today? Extreme left wing ideology is a failed ideology, there is no instance in the world wherein it has delivered the utopia it promised. The State must help these wayward revolutionaries realize the follies of their ways, persuade them and if all fails, impose its power to establish order- The likes of Darbha are too stinging a slap on the face of the state and its institutions, the guilty must be brought to account. Order and peace must prevail at all costs.

Namonia

In 1966, the Syndicate had put Indira Gandhi on the throne, assuming she would be easy to control from behind the scenes. Within 3 years, Lohia's Gungi Gudiya had staged a coup of sorts by splitting the Grand Old party and claiming it for herself, effectively, ending the might of the Syndicate that had sought to rule behind the scenes. They say Modi is quite like Mrs. Gandhi in terms of determination and courage. They also say that he has her dictatorial instincts. Does it mean that history will repeat itself?

Advani seems to be facilitating just that. He brought back Modi from certain political annihilation in the 2002 Goa BJP national executive. 11 years later, he feels he has created a Frankenstein. His sudden and uncalled for resignation has thrown the party into chaos. Senior leaders are begging Advani to stay back. But the 'Lauh Purush' of yore is now a senile old man. He cannot read, or rather does not want to read the writing on the wall. The country wants change, and for once, it wants to do away old, aging leaders who have failed to move on with time. Advani needs to realize that he no longer has a constituency of his own, his rath days are now a part of a generation gone by. His exit may trigger an exodus of BJP leaders in the short run, but in the long run, it will encourage the likes of Modi to further entrench themselves into the organization and make themselves indispensable to the party. Already, there are reports of Modi-fied supporters asking Advani to be extended all courtesy but no compromise.

Modi has arrived on the centre-stage of Indian politics. You may love him or hate him, but he is the most popular leader in the country. Advani may pitch for Shivraj Singh Chouhan or even Raman Singh, but good as these leaders are as administrators, they do not enjoy even an ounce of popularity when compared to Modi. He has proven his capability repeatedly in winning Gujarat for the BJP and changing Gujarat's face through progress and development. He deserves to be rewarded. The voice of lakhs of BJP supporters must be respected and must overrule the antics of a petulant old man, who is driven solely by his lust for power.

India needs Modi solely because he has a proven track record of delivering on his promises. He has proven himself to be an able administrator and a strong decision maker. Detractors may choose to rave and rant about Godhra, but then sadly, that is the reality of Indian politics. Rajiv Gandhi stayed on as Prime Minister even when Sikhs were being butchered in the national capital! The country desperately needs to be freed from the UPA brand of politics and the BJP must present itself as a credible alternative under a capable leader- and NaMo most certainly is that leader!

The A-war

In 1979, as Soviet Tanks rolled into Afghanistan, the might of the Capitalist West united under the leadership of US to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Union's Vietnam. With every passing year, the US and its allies, notably Saudi Arabia pumped in money to create the Frankenstein's monster they called Mujaheddin. With every Soviet helicopter downed and Soviet soldier killed, the Mujaheddin gained prestige and power. The Soviets pumped money and resources, but they were no match for the Afghans, indoctrinated against the godless Communists in Pakistani refugee camps. Then, Gorbachev came to power and winds of change started blowing across the Soviet Union. Afghanistan suddenly became a black hole from which the Soviets desperately wanted to extricate themselves. The Geneva accords were hastily concluded and the last Soviet soldier walked out of Afganistan in 1989, bringing the war to an abrupt end. 

The war came to an end, but the suffering continued. Afghanistan found itself with millions of armed zealots who wanted to preach the word of Allah at gunpoint. Within Afghanistan, they fought government and each other, but they felt stifled, as if their wings had been cut. In the meanwhile, the Soviet behemoth collapsed and the façade of unity that had bound the so-called 'Unbreakable Union of the free republics' fell apart. The Armenians and Azerbaijanis were at each other's throats and the Muslim Caucasus was on fire. At about the same time, Yugoslavia imploded with Serbs, Croats and Bosnians ravaging each other. The Mujaheddin suddenly found themselves a job. Much like the Iranian revolution had spread political Islam in the Middle East, the Mujaheddin sought to promote their brand of Salafi, Saudi-style Islam to the newly liberated Muslim territories of the past. Bands of Mujaheddins swooped into Bosnia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Uzbekistan and even far away Somalia to create a Grand Islamic Emirate, a la Caliphate of the Islamic Golden period. Backed by their financiers in Saudi Arabia and their mentors in Pakistan, the Mujaheddins proliferated their ideas to unemployed and disenchanted Muslim youth in Europe, Asia and Africa, creating terrorists who ultimately struck at the heart of America on 9/11. From Kashmir to Kent, radicalized youth made terrorism a very live and real threat.

The US invaded Afghanistan to avenge for the 9/11 attacks within 12 years of Soviet withdrawal. The tables had now turned. Friends had become implacable foes. For more than a decade now, US and its NATO allies have propped up the Karzai regime, much like the Soviet backed regimes of Karmal and Najibullah. Obama now says that the Afghans must take control of their destiny. He wants the allies out of Afghanistan by next year, leaving behind a weak, venal and inefficient administration that will probably collapse within months of US withdrawal, if the Taliban choose to attack. With Afghanistan once again in the hands of the Taliban, history will repeat itself. An entire swathe of territory from South Asia to Europe will be destabilized. More blood will be spilled in the streets of Grozny, Srinagar, Mogadishu, even London and Paris and probably even Islamabad and Riyadh.

The Americans must not repeat the mistake made by Soviets a quarter of century ago. Afghanistan must be stabilized as a modern, prosperous and strong nation capable of looking after its own interests and handling its treacherous southern neighbor. A failed Afghanistan, once again, will be too costly a proposition for the world. 

Whither Marx?

Yesterday would have been Marx's 130th birthday. For a man whose ideas drastically changed the world as we know it, the occasion was a muted affair. Ever since popular movements toppled the so-called Marxist regimes in the late 80s and early 90s, Marxism has become a much maligned term. For neo-liberals, Marxism is the philosophy that gave rise to totalitarian dictatorships that butchered the voices of free people and tried to stamp out their conscience. Marxism, for them, is the evil that spawned murderous movements such as Stalinism and Maoism that claimed millions of lives in the name of building an equal society. For left-leaning intellectuals, Marxism is nothing less than the word of God. It showed that poor could take power and break out of the shackles of poverty and superstition that they had been confined to by the rich and the men of God.

Marx's theory was simple yet inspiring. He talked about giving power to the dispossessed, to those at the bottom of the social hierarchy and to those who toiled. He thundered that the workers of the world have nothing to lose but their chains, creating a wave of consciousness among the powerless that culminated in epoch making events such as the Bolshevik and the Chinese revolutions that shocked the old world. He questioned the hold of religion on people's life and asked people to shun a God that had deprived them so and do all it takes to rise up and take power. He inveighed against the petty national interests and was one of the first 'internationalists'. At the end of it all, Marx wanted a classless world, where all would be equal, all resources would be shared and all needs would be met… "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", such that over a period of time, a true stateless society would evolve.

So, where is Marxism today. Critics argue that the shrieks of the victims of Marxism from Soviet Union to Cambodia to Cuba to Angola amply demonstrate the ills of Marxism. Marxists claim that these were all disguised Marxist states, widely at odds with what Marx propounded. The burgeoning bureaucracy of the Communist states, for instance was diametrically opposite to what Marx had proposed. Similarly, the replacement of the old aristocratic ruling classes, with the Communist nomenklatura is not something that Marx would have appreciated. Yet, in many areas such as general economics and welfare, these states toed the Marxist line. Centralization of means of production, abolition of private property, right to education, work etc. were areas in which the so-called Communist states were pioneers.

Probably, Marxism was much too idealistic to be sustainable. Probably, as long as man exists, there will be exploitation and oppression. But the very fact is that Marx's ideas inspired millions of people across the globe to rise up, throw off the yoke of tyranny and challenge their fates to create an equal society for themselves meant that the ideals of Marxism could fire the imagination of people. Even though Marx is long gone and his ideas are being discredited today, the impact that he has had on the Capitalist world cannot be challenged. The emergence of rabidly fanatic communist cadres, hell bent on the destruction of status quo forced the ruling classes to accept the concept of equality of masses and led ultimately to the emergence of social-democratic ideologies which offered a mid way between the exploitative policies of Capitalism and the revolutionary Marxist ideology.

The spectre of Communism no longer haunts the world today, but the call that galvanized millions in the last century, continues to inspire the downtrodden even today.... "Workers of the world..... Unite!"

Hammer & the tickle-II

The second part of the post on Soviet era jokes... Enjoy!

1. “What is the difference between the capitalist and the socialist trade?”

A.  “Capitalist trade means everything is to be sold.Socialist trade means everything is to be bought.”

2. “What shall we do if suddenly we feel a desire to work?”

A. “Just rest for a while on a sofa. It will pass.”

3. “What is the easiest way to explain the meaning of the word ‘communism’?”

A.“By means of fists.”

4. “What to do if vodka interferes with the job?”

A. “Get off the job.”

5. “Why Lenin wore regular shoes, but Stalin wore boots?”

A.“At Lenin's time, Russia was still only ankle-high in shit.”

6. “Can a son of a General become a Marshal?”
A. “No, because every Marshal also has a son.”

7. “What is an exchange of opinions?”

A.“When you walk into your boss's office with your opinion and walk out with his.”

8. “What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR?” Both guarantee freedom of speech.”

A. “Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.”

9. Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?

A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

10. “What is permitted and what is prohibited?”

A. “In England, what is permitted, is permitted, and what is prohibited, is prohibited.

      In America everything is permitted except for what is prohibited.

      In Germany everything is prohibited except for what is permitted.

      In France everything is permitted, even what is prohibited.

      In the USSR everything is prohibited, even what is permitted."

11.“Why Solzhenitsyn, Brodsky, Bukovsky, and other dissidents have been exiled from the country?”

A. “Don't you know that the best products are always selected for export?”

12. Yuri Gagarin’s daughter answers the phone.‘No, mummy and daddy are out,’ she says.‘Daddy’s orbiting the earth, and he’ll be back tonight at 7 o’clock.  But mummy’s gone shopping for groceries, so who knows when she’ll be home.’

13. "What is chaos?"

A. "We do not comment on national economics."

14. "Is it true that the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky committed suicide?"

A. "Yes, it is true, and even the record of his very last words is preserved: ´Don't shoot, comrades.´"

15. "Is there censorship of the press and radio in the Soviet Union?"

A."In principle no, but it is unfortunately not possible to go into this question in any detail at the present time."

16. "What will be the results of the next elections?"

A. "Nobody can tell.Somebody has stolen yesterday the exact results of the next elections from the office of the Central Committee of the USSR."

17. "When Nixon visited Moscow, he and Khrushchev had a race around the Kremlin. Nixon came the first. How should our media report on that?"

A: As follows: In the international running competition the General Secretary of the Communist Party took the honorable second place, while President Nixon came in next to last.

18.  What's the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?

A: The capitalist fairy tale starts out; "once upon a time there was....", The Marxist fairy tale starts out; "some day there will be...."

19. "Is it true that the Soviet Union is the most progressive country in the world?"

A: Of course! The life was already better yesterday than it's going to be tomorrow!

20. Khrushchev visited a pig farm and was photographed there. In a newspaper's office, a discussion is under way what should be the caption under the picture. "Comrade Khrushchev among pigs," "Comrade Khrushchev and pigs," "Pigs around comrade Khrushchev,"—all is rejected. Finally the editor makes the decision. The caption is "The third from left - comrade Khrushchev.

Foreign policy woes

The issue of whether or not there was a genocide of Tamils in Lanka has been in the news for several days now. On one hand, you have inflamed passions baying for blood to avenge the murder of Tamils in Lanka, On the other, you have supposedly saner voices advocating caution and pragmatism to handle the situation to ensure that justice gets delivered in Lanka. Between the two, is caught our Central government, tottering from one crisis to another, with no vision and maimed by indecision.

The problem  with a hetereogenous nation like ours is that ethnic groups inevitably spill across political borders. There is no difference between a Hindu Bengali in Bangladesh and a Hindu Bengali in PoschimBongo, similarly, there is no difference between a Lankan Tamil and an Indian Tamil. But the stand taken by the government historically has been that India's citizens are her own. Citizens of neighbours, irrespective of their cultural or religious affiliations are not necessarily India's concern. The only exeption to this was when India championed the cause of  Independent Bangladesh- that might have also been guided by other strategic reasons. Had India bothered to take care of the minorities of its neighbours (Neighbours' minorities inevitably make up India's major communities), Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh would not have been decimated to its current levels.

In the absence of a possibility of a population exchange (similar to the one done between Turkey & Greece in the 30s), It is best that India continues to follow the principle of no meddling in neighbour's affairs. It will do us good to guide and encourage neighbours, using our soft power to get the results that we want. Strong diplomatic actions, e.g. boycotting Lanka might only prove counter-productive by pushing Lanka into China's arms. India must use all the diplomacy at its disposal to put pressure on Lanka to implement a just and lasting solution to alleviate the sufferings of its Tamils. 

But why only talk of Lanka to understand the precarious state of affairs of our Foreign policy? On one hand, you have an incensed nation demanding strong action against Pakistan for beheading an Indian soldier in Indian territory and on the other hand, you have the Foreign Minister of India hosting the visiting Pak PM for lunch. In Maldives too, India just barely managed to get away with a diplomatic crisis, when an erstwhile PM sought refuge in the Indian embassy in Male. Look at Nepal, once a dedicated ally, now resting in China's secure arms. Glance towards Bangladesh, where PM's visit and India's image was dented by Mamta Di's refusal to accept a Central government proposal on Teesta water sharing.

Foreign policy of a regional and aspiring global power like India cannot be an instrument of domestic politics. Foreign policy must be guided by the our strategic objectives and not by narrow political interests. India's weight in International politics can not be squandered away to cater to votebank politics. India must emulate the example of China and use its power and influence to meet strategic aims and win allies. India deserves a government that can build a coherent and pragmatic foreign policy that will do us good!

Old Friends

What happens when you bump into an old friend with whom you have not kept up for long? I mean aside from the feeling of joy and pleasant surprise, It is just another meeting with someone you know, isn't it? You've moved on, as has the other person... And other than the "How are you", and "I heard that" and "Good for you", there isn't much to talk about... especially about the present...

But then suddenly you delve into history... And then the conversation flows... It is suddenly all about the "You remember when" and "That was so foolish" and "You have not changed one bit"... Its almost like the past comes back to the present and that chapter of your life, in which your old friend had a role to play opens up again... Its almost like the past never ended... There was just a comma and a really long pause after that comma that the powers that be chose to fill up now...

I somehow always feel that the present dissolves into nothingness when confronted with good memories of the past... The past returns in all its glory, with all its adventures, the silly incidents, the unbelievable fun... The present, with whatever joys and great achievements just fades into the background, when suddenly, you realize it is time to go... The present returns just as quickly as it had disappeared and the past seems so long ago once again...

That is how it is with old friends... You lose contact and get lost in your own life... But then one day, when you meet, it is like the past never ended... And a wonderful feeling it is...

A spring of hopes... An autumn of despair

                                             
Arab Spring has been replaced by dark and cold winter... It may be too early to start penning down obituaries for the Arab spring, but the representative movement that enthused  the masses from Tunisia to Bahrain is definitely breathing its last. Political Islam has thwarted the growth of truly representative democracies that the masses in many Arab countries were yearning for. All that is left in its wake is the Civil War in Syria, the mass repression in Bahrain and the usurpation of power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Dissent has once again been stifled and the reactionary forces have triumphed in crushing the will of the people.

Iran offers an interesting lesson in history on how political Islam hijacks the voice of the masses. The late 70s was a turbulent period in Iran. The Shah's hold on the nation was weakening. Universally despised for his un-Islamic lifestyle, his autocratic rule and his inability to connect with the impoverished masses, the sun was setting on the Shah's rule in Iran. And so, when protests broke out in Teheran and Esfahan and other cities in Iran, no observer of Iranian affairs was truly surprised. Those protests were mass protests as well, guided by a plethora of organizations whose loyalities lay with Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Democrats and even Islamists. The Shah's rule, everyone expected, would be replaced by a liberal democratic structure with Islam at its heart. But then, Ayatollah Khomeini arrived and with a series of steps that created a Shia version of political Islam, succeeded in excluding all except the Islamists from the political scene. Thus was born the world's first Islamic Republic. And this Islamic republic endures still.

Bangladesh today offers another end of the spectrum. The Arab spring, so to speak has finally washed ashore in Bangladesh. The masses are out on the street, protesting against the betrayal of ideals that had led to the formation of Bangladesh. They are demanding that the ideals that had created Bangladesh- Secularism and Nationalism be reinstated and that the traitors of the Mukti Juddho be brought to trial and justice be done to the millions who lost their lives at the hands of the Pakistan military supported Razkars. They demand true democracy, one that is driven by the masses, not by the fringe Islamist elements in the society. Once again, the reactionary forces, represented by the Jamaat ul Islami are vehemently opposing this mass movement, with the oft-repeated cry of Islam in danger. The government finds itself, precariously placed. It released the forces that protest at Shahbag, but it is weak-kneed when it comes to taking the Islamist forces head on. It is yet to be seen whether the will of the protestors will trump the might of the Islamists.

Political Islam has yet to yield any positive results for the masses. From Afghanistan to Libya, the fields are littered with the bodies of those who were devoured by the so-called Islamic regimes. The attempts of reactionary Mullahs to create a society centered on 7th century Arabia is anachronistic and designed for failure. The time has come for the leaders of the Muslim world to open their eyes to an inclusive and representative structure which guarantees the liberty of the masses. Till such time, every spring will wane into an autumn and disappear into a dark and cold winter.