For UP’s Dalits, the sole leader

Despite rampant crimes against Dalits during BSP rule, Mayawati retains their loyalty

First, they tried to strangle her. Then, the five of them took turns to rape her. When they were done, they realised that she recognised them. So, they poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The charred body of this 35-year-old mother of three was found by her family inside their home in Etah, in Uttar Pradesh.

Barely 30 kms away, that same day, two men raped a 14-year-old girl inside her house in Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh.

The night before, policemen allegedly raped a 38-year-old woman they had arrested for stealing a cell phone, while they were escorting her to the police station in Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh.

The day before that, two men gouged out the eyes of a 14-year-old girl they were raping because she had dared to resist them. They left her bleeding in the fields of Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh.

That same day, an 18-year-old girl was raped at gun point when she was on her way home in Basti district of Uttar Pradesh.

Only 24 hours before that a 16-year old was found dead in the sugarcane fields. She had been raped for three days before she was murdered in Gonda in Uttar Pradesh.

At the same time, a 20-year-old was being raped in a hotel after she was picked up two days ago from the railway station in Kanpur.

These horrific incidents that took place in the second weekend of June last year shook the nation and put Uttar Pradesh under the scanner. It was the State’s weekend of shame but was, nevertheless, a reflection of all that had gone so horribly wrong under the stewardship of then Chief Minister Mayawati.

This is in spite of the fact that Ms Mayawati herself is a Dalit, who heads a predominantly Dalit party and gains much of her political strength from the Dalit community. Yet, throughout her  regime, Dalits continued to face all kinds of atrocities. Dalit women, particularly, found themselves to be further marginalised. As abduction, rape, torture and murder of Dalit women became a matter of routine, the women found themselves retreating further into their shrinking social space. Already, placed at the bottom of the social ladder by virtue of their gender and caste, it is hard to imagine that these women could have been subjected to any worse a social situation but that was exactly what happened.

Uttar Pradesh is home to about 35 million Dalits who make up approximately 20 per  cent of the total population. Dalit women make up about 45 per cent of that number and yet they have no position or protection in society.

With Ms Mayawati at the helm, they had hoped that much of that would change. After all, she too was a Dalit ki beti — she was one of them, and surely, she would take care of her and the the rest of them. She would provide them with equal opportunities and equal pay, with safe streets and schools and rapist-free fields and homes; she would overturn the goonda reign unleashed by her predecessors and maybe someday, more women like them would also find their place in the corridors of power in Lucknow, if not in New Delhi. With Ms Mawayati at the helm, the possibilities for these women were endless — or, so they thought.

Yet, by the end of Ms Mayawati’s tenure, those dreams had been shattered. The State has registered the highest number of cases of abduction of women and it also has the maximum number of cases of violence against women. It is second in line with regard to the rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. In fact, when it comes to crimes against SCs and STs in general, Uttar Pradesh tops the list.

For all practical purpose, Ms Mayawati had proven to be only marginally better than her predecessors with the Dalit community enjoying only a few tangible benefits.

The promised rations cards, pensions papers and BPL cards hadn’t really materialised while widespread corruption in Government was taking its toll on the voters as well. The Assembly elections of February and March were then the ideal platform for the Dalits to vote Ms Mayawati out, and perhaps be wooed by a rival political faction.

Yet, this was far from the case. Instead, the Dalits — both men and women — came out in full strength to vote for their leader. While the rest of the country baulked at Ms Mayawati’s narcissistic display of political strength when she built giant statues of herself and her mentor across the State, the Dalits saw in them a physical manifestation of Dalit aspiration. The alarming increase in her personal wealth and assets may have been widely criticised as proof of the large-scale corruption she is known to endorse and encourage but for the Dalit community it served as a potent reminder of Dalit power.

Ms Mayawati may have failed to deliver on many of her promises, even as a woman she may have done little  to protect other women, yet she had something right. She may not have brought electricity to Dalit villages, or schools and canals but she had allowed them a new found respect and position in society that they had not enjoyed in centuries.

They say that in Uttar Pradesh, the voters don’t caste their vote but vote their caste. This is more than true in the relationship that the Dalit community shares with Ms Mayawati. Never mind everything else that has happened.

(.This article appeared in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on March 23, 2012)

Don’t spare terror-sponsoring states

Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau says democracies should jointly fight terror

As the Arab Spring turns cold and bitter, threatening to break the fragile peace that has somehow held together the vast and disparate region of West Asia, Israel has watched its position turn precarious in this past year. With its peace treaty with Egypt under threat, the crucial Sinai pipeline repeatedly bombed and sworn enemy Iran on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb, these are uncertain times for the Jewish nation.

But, for a country that has fought at least six major wars for its survival and is surrounded by adversaries, Israel remains more than prepared and vigilant to handle any future crisis. In an exclusive interview to The Pioneer, Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau explains how his country is preparing to face the challenges that lie ahead.

With elections bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power, in post-Mubarak Egypt, the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which Mr Landau rightly describes as the “cornerstone for stability and future peace in West Asia”, now hangs in balance. Only late last week, at least two senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political wing now heads the Egyptian Parliament, threatened to “review” the treaty with Israel if the US cuts aid to Egypt. On his part, Mr Landau insists that Israel “will do whatever is possible to continue with the peace agreement and use it as a base to develop other peace agreements in the area,” but expresses deep concerns at the manner which events are unfolding across Arabia.

Mr Landau remarks, “However, and I hate to say ‘however’, when I look around West Asia, I see this huge span of territory from the Atlantic in the west to the Persian Gulf and beyond in the east convulsing in an earthquake which is bringing down regimes that until now had been stable, such as the ones in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and even Yemen.” He points to the “terrible undercurrents” in Syria and elsewhere and notes that “under the guise of democracy and free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamist elements are making their way to the helm of affairs.”

This is a matter of great concern especially since “the more civil parts of society that came to the streets in order to have a free and more democratic country find themselves pushed to the back.” Mr Landau’s comparison of the anti-Government protests in West Asia with the Iranian revolution of 1978 that brought the radical regime of Ayatollah Khomeini to power is interesting.

Those still in doubt must take note of the fact that the Sinai pipeline which runs through Egypt and delivers gas to Israel as well as Jordan was bombed for the 12th time in this past year — on February 5. Since the protests in West Asia began, gas supplies to Israel had come to a halt. They were renewed only in January. “We are doing whatever we possibly can to renew the flow,” Mr Landau says, emphasising that the natural gas agreement with Egypt is perhaps the most important economic agreement between the two countries. But at the same time, he adds, Israel is also looking to “offset this lack of natural gas by other sources of energy.” Unfortunately, his options — coal and heavy oil — are limited, more expensive and bad for the environment.

Luckily for Israel, new offshore gas fields have been found and Mr Landau believes that there is enough to meet the country’s needs for the next 50 to 60 years, if not more. Additionally, Israel is also developing and diversifying its own sources of energy. “In a worst case scenario, if something happens to hamper natural gas supply for certain period of time, we have others ways to sustain ourselves,” says Mr Landau. Then, as an after thought, he adds, “Please note, I am coming from, as it is described in the Bible, the land of milk and honey. But, it doesn’t say anything about natural gas, or energy.”

Yet, in this context, energy security is perhaps everybody’s greatest concern. Especially with the ongoing global standoff with Iran, West Asia’s energy equations with the rest of the world will possibly have to be re-formulated. This, however, Mr Landau does not see as a problem. He reasons that “Iran’s many enemies including Saudi Arabia might actually be more than eager to offset the losses incurred by those previously buying Iranian oil with their own oil. It simply needs time to adjust to a system.”

The oil sanctions against Iran that have been recently imposed by the US and the European Union have had a crippling effect on that country’s economy although is still unclear if they will actually prevent Tehran from pursuing its controversial enrichment programme. Mr Landau agrees, “I am not sure if the sanctions will work,” he says, but adds, “They should be stepped to make clear to the Iranian Government that no one is prepared to see a nuclear Iran.”

If Mr Landau strikes a pragmatic posture here, he is equally clear in his mind that his country will not hesitate to take affirmative action if such a need arises. He insists that Iran is a “major exporter of terrorism” and that it is linked to various terror organisations such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Al Qaeda.

After all, if Iran goes nuclear, it will only set in motion another nuclear arms race, with Saudi Arabia immediately looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Given the latter’s vast financial resources and close ties with Pakistan, the development will have worrying consequences for India. Moreover, as Mr Landau asks, “What kind of world is this going to be? Remember, you are not speaking of responsible regimes. You are speaking of those who couldn’t care any less.”

So how does the world deal with such rogue regimes that terrorise the world? To that, Mr Landau counters, “Why does terror exist? Because it works; because terrorists see that they can go ahead and have some benefits.”

He adds, “Only if terrorists and terror-sponsoring states are met head on, and shown that terror will never pay, will this mindless violence stop. I think this really should be the policy of every free country.”

It is but natural for the conversation, while on terror, should veer towards the recent attacks on Israeli embassy cars in New Delhi and Tbilisi — and towards the alleged role of Iran in the attacks. When asked how Israel responds to such attacks, Mr Landau points out that his country has been under attack ever since it came into existence. There have been wars, terror attacks, bombings and more at regular intervals. “But we continue our day to day routine, giving up nothing.” This, he says, is as much a challenge as successfully combating terrorists in the battlefield and elsewhere is.

With India facing much of the same challenges as Israel, Mr Landau hopes that this country too will be able to fight terror without compromising on its core principles of equality, liberty, freedom and democracy. “We both live in difficult neighbourhoods and yet we maintain our democracies. Our Parliaments are still functioning,” he remarks. This in itself should form the basis of a strong relationship between India and Israel.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 23, 2012.)

Nothing honourable about this delay

Despite receiving suggestions on how to check ‘honour killings’, the UPA has failed to act

Every year, women across the country are sacrificed in the name of family honour. A young woman is believed to be the repository of her family’s social values, and any perceived violation of the same — a love affair with one who belongs to a lower caste or another religion or even the allegation of unfaithfulness in marriage — is reason enough for cold-blooded premeditated murder. Hence, fathers have killed their daughters, brothers have murdered their sisters and entire villages have watched while one of their own has been beaten, thrashed, strangled, tortured, stoned, hanged or shot to death.

For all of India’s stellar economic credentials and its census statistics showing a marked improvement in literacy and education, several parts of the country are yet to emerge from their regressive mindsets that chain their society to the middle ages. The situation is made worse by the murderous role of the khappanchayats who often officiate over such killings and thus endow them with a sense of legitimacy even though they themselves have no legal standing. Entire communities have shown little remorse in having participated in honour killings.

And as if that was not enough, it now seems like more are joining the dark side with reports of honour killings now emerging even from the southern States. In November 2011, an entire village in Karnataka’s Mandya district stood quietly as 22 year old Suvarna was beaten to death by members of her immediate family for falling in love with a Dalit boy, who too was tortured before he was allowed to escape with his life. Add to this the constant stream of reports that have routinely come out of the northern States, particularly, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, especially in the last  two years, and there is no denying that the scourge of honour killings today is a pan-Indian issue.

Yet, the Union Government has done precious little to tackle the menace. It has gone through the motions of constituting task forces and expert panels — there is a working group under the Planning Commission and a Group of Ministers led by Union Minister for Finance Pranab Mukherjee assigned to deal with the issue — but that’s been the end of it. Take for instance, the Government’s panel headed by the Women and Child Development Secretary. Earlier this month, it recommended that a separate law be promulgated to exclusively deal with the issue of honour killings. But nobody has cared to respond. This is, of course, not entirely surprising, given that the Government had earlier effectively ignored the draft of the Prevention of Crimes in the Name of ‘Honour’ and Tradition Bill, 2010, piloted by former Minister for Women and Child Development Girija Vyas.

Ms Vyas’s Bill is a fairly broad-ranging one that brings under its purview all kinds of harassment that couples who seek to marry without the approval of their immediate family or society may face, such as threats of economic sanctions and social ostracisation, physical attacks and public support to such threats and actions. It also gives significant credence to even verbal complaints lodged by couples, with punishment of those convicted ranging from one to 10 years of imprisonment.

However, in one of its more contentious clauses, the Bill suggests an amendment to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to put the burden of proof on the accused instead of the accuser. This is in reversal of the universally accepted principle of criminal justice that  an accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. It is perhaps for this clause  why the Bill has been all but dumped for good.

Yet, India’s anti-dowry laws already allow for such an exception. Indeed, it is pertinent to note that it was only after the Government amended Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code  to bring about anti-dowry laws, that it has gradually seeped into the country’s social conscience that dowry deaths are a crime and there is no sanction, definitely no legal sanction, for such acts. Of course, the laws have not wholly obliterated every instance of dowry death but at least, they have contained the menace to some extent. A law against honour killings could have a similar impact.

Indeed, the Bill also calls for an introduction of a fifth clause to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which defines murder. This would make honour killings a distinct offence and anybody who participates in it, including community members supporting the khap panchayat diktat and not just those who actually carry out the murder, could be held responsible — similar to laws regarding Sati.

But, in early January, the Law Commission of India rejected all proposals to amend Section 300 on the ground that the current laws are adequate enough to deal with all sorts of killings, honourable or otherwise. It also warned against adding to unnecessary legalese and overturning established principles of jurisprudence.

Instead, the commission has presented its own Bill. The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011, proposes that no person or group of persons shall assemble with an “intention to deliberate on, or condemn any marriage, not prohibited by law, on the basis that such marriage has dishonoured the caste or community tradition or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming part of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.” This effectively makes illegal khappanchayats that meet to interfere in legally valid marriages. Additionally, it also charges all those present at such assemblies with non-bailable offences, a two-year jail term and a fine of up to Rs 30,000.

These are only a few instances of concrete recommendations that have come in from various quarters but the Government remains blissfully oblivious to them. It is perhaps because the khaps are a politically powerful lot and their influence extends across various political parties.

The Supreme Court had said back in May 2011 that honour killings are the rarest of rare crimes and perpetrators deserve nothing less than the death sentence.

It noted, “In our opinion, honour killings, for whatever reasons, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.”

Is anybody listening?

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 16, 2012.)

Turbulence in Indian Ocean

Coup rocks political stability in Maldives as Islamists gain strength

"Be vigilant of what not only might happen in the Indian peninsula, in the islands but also of what may happen in the wider Indian Ocean,” then President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed had warned cadet officers at the Sri Lanka Military Academy on December 27, 2011. His words rang true on Tuesday when mutinous factions within the police and the Army joined hands to remove him, the country’s first democratically elected President, from power.

Since Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening, he has been held by the military at an undisclosed location, reportedly against his will, while his former Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, has positioned himself at the helm of affairs. He is expected to preside over a national unity Government until the end of the ongoing presidential term in 2013 after which general election are supposed to be held, although how free or fair they will be is anybody’s guess.

Maldives is a young democracy, barely four years old. The past three decades it was under the autocratic rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under his reign, Mr Nasheed, a journalist by profession emerged as the country’s best known dissident. A staunch rights activist and champion of democracy and civil liberties, he tirelessly campaigned to end dictatorial rule in Maldives. His activism led to his being imprisoned 16 times; he even spent eight months in solitary confinement undergoing immense physical and mental torture. Eventually, his campaign brought global attention to Mr Gayoom’s abusive regime. Growing international pressure ultimately forced the Maldivian strongman to allow free and fair elections in 2008, in sharp contrast to the electoral shams he had overseen over the past decades.

Mr Nasheed emerged victorious in the 2008 general election and took office on November 11 with a huge popular mandate. From day one, he was committed to taking his fight against autocracy to its logical conclusion by establishing a strong democratic framework in his country. But his transition from activist to President, no matter how well-meaning, was far from smooth. Mr Gayoom was gone but his party was still active and elements from the old regime remained deeply entrenched in the system — be it in Parliament, within the police or the Army — and fighting them off proved impossible.

Along with the Islamists, the old guard was determined to thwart the Nasheed Government’s every effort to reform and restructure the country’s socio-political institutions, and sadly, it seems to have succeeded. The situation was made worse in part by the fact that Mr Nasheed despite his popularity and goodwill, did not have a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, known as Majlis. He was, therefore, heavily dependent on the Opposition to pass any major reform or legislation. And while he did have the support of some Opposition parties at the start of his tenure, much of that eroded in the course of the next few years as Mr Nasheed embarked on a political campaign to weed out all elements of the old regime.

But given the kind of influence still wielded by Mr Gayoom and his supporters, this was a strategic mistake. With the Opposition becoming ever more critical of his rule, Mr Nasheed found it impossible to conduct even the daily business of governance. In recent times, the Majlis was in a complete deadlock as the Opposition refused to let it function. The most obvious fall out of such a political logjam was the corrosion of popular support. A governance deficit meant the prices of essential commodities soared while unemployment too was on the rise. Add to this the Islamists’ slander campaign against Mr Nasheed, and his presidency was ripe for a coup.

Indeed, for months before Tuesday’s virtual coup, the Islamists had been out on the streets attacking Mr Nasheed’s religious views and policies, such as his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Unfortunately, the former President failed to bring these rabble-rousers under control as he dawdled between appeasement and punishment. For instance, the Government first gave in to the Islamists’ demand to ban spas across the country in December 2011, but overturned the decision at a later date.

The final straw, of course, came with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the criminal court. Like many other members of the judiciary who are believed to be in Mr Gayoom’s pockets, Justice Abdulla Mohamed had refused to prosecute members of the old regime and had been stalling cases of graft and rights abuses brought against them. His political bias was vitiating the system and making it impossible for Mr Nasheed to deliver on his promise of an independent judiciary. However, the judge’s arrest led to a constitutional crisis which prompted the Supreme Court to step in and order his release.

But as the Government ignored the order, Mr Nasheed’s critics were quick to  accuse him of browbeating his opponents much like his predecessor. But the fact remains that he had been pushed to the wall and had to retaliate.

As the controversy raged on, the past three weeks saw street protests break out throughout the densely populated capital of Male. On Monday, the headquarters of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party came under attack and overnight, vandals captured the offices of the state television broadcaster MNBC. They also renamed it TV Maldives, as it was called during Mr Gayoom’s regime. The situation deteriorated on Tuesday when soldiers fired rubber bullets at revolting police officers and other demonstrators who had laid siege to the Maldives National Defence Force headquarters in Republic Square.

With the possibility of large-scale violence looming and the military holding a gun to his head, Mr Nasheed was faced with a choice to either crack down on the protesters or leave office. Ever the rights activist, Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening saying that, “It will be better for the country, if I resign. I don’t want to run the country with an iron fist”. His departure speech is a testimony to the kind of leader he aspired to be and only serves to underline what a tremendous blow this has been to Maldives’ infant democracy. Thankfully, he seems determined to fight back as his call to President Waheed on Wednesday to resign stands proof.

Mr Nasheed had once said that Maldives has shown the world that, “You don’t have to bomb a Muslim country for regime change.” And indeed, the Indian Ocean archipelago could have been an apt precursor to the Arab Spring. That the old guard is gaining power in Maldives at a time when Islamist-back Governments are taking over across Arabia is perhaps a telling comment.

Nonetheless, it is still too early to comment on how the recent developments in Maldives will eventually play out. On its part, India whose relations with Maldives go back a long time, will do well to ensure that its neighbour’s democratic credentials are upheld and that the Islamists who have already reared their ugly head are not allowed to run amock.

India had come out in Mr Gayoom’s support back in 1988 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sent out military support to buttress the Maldivian dictator’s faltering regime. New Delhi should have stood by Mr Nasheed in his hour of crisis.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 09, 2012.)

America reinvents policies to meet new challenges

By scripting the most dramatic shift in its foreign and defence policies since the end of the Cold War, the US prepares to confront a new world order 

When US  President Barack Obama said in a recent interview that, “I made a commitment to change the trajectory of American foreign policy …and I think we have accomplished those principal goals,” his statement was lot more true than popularly acknowledged. Indeed, the new set of ‘defence strategies’ unveiled by his Administration earlier this month marks the most significant shift in US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

In the two decades since, Washing-ton, DC has actively played the role of a global hegemon that has maintained an absolute military superiority over the rest of the world, further strengthened by its economic prowess. Indeed, even after the threat of a communist take-over had been effectively eliminated by the late eighties, the US military was only nominally downsized from its War time proportions.

In the first half of the post-Cold War era, the continued maintenance of such a mammoth defence structure was justified by military engagements in Europe (think of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ of the US-led Nato forces in the Balkan Wars) and in West Asia (a successful Gulf War saw the containment of a belligerent Saddam Hussein). Then, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there emerged a new enemy in the form of Al Qaeda and its network ofjihadi groups. It was, and still is, a stateless, shadowy entity that has nevertheless been portrayed as an evil superpower, somehow akin to communist Russia or Nazi Germany, to once again rationalise the presence of a vast American military. Indeed, as the first US troops landed in Afghanistan, neo-conservatives even declared that this would be the fourth World War (the third being the Cold War), or the ‘Long War’.

A decade later, Mr Obama has now declared that war to be over. Osama bin Laden is dead (although the threat of global jihadists remains, but that is another story), US engagement in Afghanistan is winding down, and for all practical purposes, there are no longer any American boots in Iraq.

But that is not all — the past 10 years have also witnessed the sagging of America’s economic strength. Weighed down by a mounting national debt, the US economy which is yet to fully recover from the global financial meltdown of 2007-2008, can no longer afford a gigantic military — and definitely not one that had supposedly been prepped to fight two wars at the same time. Besides, the possibility of a traditional land war is almost obsolete in a nuclear and globalised 21st century.

It is against this backdrop that the new policy, which seeks to trim the US military and renounce the bipartisan consensus achieved post-1989, must be understood. From performing the traditional role of a hegemon fighting ‘nation-building wars’, Mr Obama’s new doctrine focuses America’s attention on balancing power equations among emerging nations such as India and China in the Asia-Pacific region.

This will be done through a network of regional allies on the front-stage, in diplomatic terms, and through sophisticated secret surveillance, un-manned drones and CIA-style special operations in the back-stage, in military terms. A preview of this kind of warfare is already available in the manner in which the US is carrying out counter-insurgency operations in the AfPak region.

Also, compare this to the far more boots (and weapons) intensive approach of traditional warfare and it naturally explains the smaller, leaner, more agile but technologically advanced military that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked about at the release of this strategic document at the Pentagon. Finally, the new strategy also fits in with the narrative of fiscal discipline and domestic cost-cutting that has become an American imperative since the economic downturn.

Grounded in realism, the new policy is a classic example of realpolitik and marks a definite break from the quest for imperial hegemony of the neo-conservative years of former President George Bush and his deputy Dick Cheney who foolishly led US troops into an expensive and ineffective ground battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the new policy is not without flaws. For instance, if the Obama Administration hopes to contain China’s imperialist tendencies — and make no mistake that that is exactly what the new strategy is all about — then simply positioning ships across the Asia-Pacific from Japan to South Korea and even in far away Australia will not serve any purpose. If anything, this unnecessarily aggressive posturing of the US can only serve to provoke an already jittery China.

Ultimately, Mr Obama’s policy is a reflection of his people’s mood. Americans are tired of foreign wars and now simply want their boys to come back home and not in a body casket, please. There may have been a time when a John F Kennedy could have captured the nation’s imagination by promising that his country would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” But those days of a zealous commitment to Americana or the rhetoric of freedom and liberty that surrounds it are long gone. Think of how quickly popular support waned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though far more American soldiers died in the Vietnam and Korea. No one really bought the fourth World War logic, and they are no less glad that it is now over.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on January 26, 2012).