jeemm

The recent hike in global fuel prices forced me to dramatically curtail my driving. It also reminded me of a fascinating lecture I attended sometime early this year by former Mossad Director Dr Uzi Arad,

where he made ’10 discreet remarks on the geo-politics of oil.’ Two paragraphs from that lecture (those wanting the full transcript, please leave your e-mail ids in the comments section below or mail me ramananda@rediffmail.com) struck me as I went through the transcript again.

‘….It has been realised that the Middle East has about 2/3rd of the world's oil reserve. And since the entire industrial world depends upon so much on this part of the world, it has given this area a special degree of interest, in seeing to it that the supply is secure and these countries are stable. Hence political consequences to this reality.’ ’

As mentioned earlier, the cost of oil presently is over $ 50 per barrel. But in fact the cost of production is just $ 2 per barrel, which is about five per cent of its Sale Price. This indicates that this isn't a very competitive market and attests the strength of the OPEC.

’The first part is obvious: the oil consuming nations are naturally interested in the security of the oil producing ones. (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia)

But the second part got me: Oil costs $ 2 per barrel to produce. And we buy it for over $ 60 a barrel?

Why global oil prices are rising

Arad, incidentally, dismissed talks about oil as a weapon, saying that while it may be projected as such, the fact remains that as weapon, it is blunt because ‘with countries becoming more cautious and having stocks of oil, oil, as a weapon is merely a theoretical possibility. But as a pretext or a phoney weapon it continues to exist.’

But here’s what really made me sit up: One of the three tenets of OPEC, according to their website, is ‘To provide an efficient economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations and a fair return on capital to those investing in the petroleum industry.’

I’d be laughing out loud, if only I could do so in the crowded trains I am now forced to travel in.

Posted by ramananda sengupta on 03:15 PM
LinktoComments('1126171568')

2 Comments Comment
Monday, September 05, 2005
Down on the border
Invasion or border skirmish?As we mark the 40th year since the 1965 war with Pakistan, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee raised an old bogey about another war which still rankles in India’s memory: the 1962 war with China.Addressing members of Indian Merchants Chamber on the Role of Private Sector in Defence Preparedness in Mumbai Sunday, he noted that China’s invasion of India in 1962 had forced the country to increase its military preparedness.Remembering a warHe went on to add that 'China has solved border disputes with 10 neighbours except India and Bhutan.'This brought Chinese Consul General Song De Heng, who was present at the function, to his feet.'I cannot agree with the words China invaded India. As a defence minister, you must know the background of the war. You also mentioned border disputes. I don’t know what you mean by mentioning this issue in your speech,'Deheng said.Taken aback, Mukherjee replied that while India ‘‘greatly values its friendship with China’’ there was divergence of opinion on issues concerning Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim.'During the Chinese Prime Minister’s recent visit, we could solve the issue over certain districts in Sikkim through discussion and dialogue,' he said. However, 'What happened in 1962 is factual... prior to the 1962 war, we had only four ordnance factories, after the war we had 32.'Deheng however, insisted that ‘‘the war was in self-defence’’ and took offence with words like 'invasion and aggression.'Mukherjee was right, insofar as the fact that the war, (which, incidentally most Chinese apparently see as a ‘border skirmish’) did force India to rapidly upgrade its defence capabilities. He was also right about the border dispute being a thorn in bilateral relations.Conventional Indian wisdom sees Chinese nuclear and military assistance to Pakistan and its inroads in Myanmar and Bangladesh as an attempt to limit India to a regional power at best. But at a time when India is attempting to mend fences with its giant northern neighbor, does it make sense to rake up the past?
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 09:35 AM
LinktoComments('1125892995')
10 Comments Comment
Friday, September 02, 2005
Steak, anyone? I guess we should have seen it coming.Cows and India have been inextricably linked since time immemorial. We worship – and some of us eat -- cows.Is it any wonder that scientists are now linking mad cow disease to the subcontinent? The essence of the argument in The Lancet seems to be that the disease may have come from feeding British cattle with meal contaminated with human remains infected with a permutation of the disease, reports the Associated Press.It suggests that the infected cattle feed came from the Indian subcontinent, where bodies sometimes are ceremonially thrown into the Ganges river.‘Britain imported hundreds of thousands of tonnes of whole bones, crushed bones and carcass parts to be used for fertiliser and animal feed during the 1960s and 1970s. Nearly half of that came from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, said the scientists, led by Alan Colchester, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Kent in England,‘ the article says.'In India and Pakistan, gathering large bones and carcasses from the land and from rivers has long been an important local trade for peasants,' the scientists wrote. 'Collectors encounter considerable quantities of human as well as animal remains as a result of religious customs.'Two quick questions come to mind.One, why did the British –and apparently other ‘educated’ western nations, including the US -- feed cows, known to be staunch vegetarians, with bones, human or otherwise? And then have the cheek to call the poor animals mad?And two, are cows in the subcontinent fed a similar diet? Steak, anyone?
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 10:06 PM
LinktoComments('1125678874')
6 Comments Comment

Truth hurtsI guess we are finally growing up.When Pakistan’s Navy chief proudly proclaimed that Washington, in its wisdom, was providing ‘eight P-3C Orion long-range maritime patrol aircraft free of cost to Pakistan,’ there were none of the usual anguished cries emanating from New Delhi.Instead, there was a stoic, but significant silence.Two other headlines caught my eye at the same time that I was reading about this ‘gift,’ which according to Admiral Shahid Karimullah will ‘boost Pakistan's ability to carry out long distance surveillance as well as fire Harpoon missiles at enemy targets..’Nine infiltrators gunned down in Kashmir, said one.To learn 'fence crossing', enrol in PoK camps, said the other.The first described how yet another group of infiltrators from across the border was ambushed and gunned down by Indian security forces. The other explained how ‘special training camps have been set up in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to train militants to cut three-tier fencing and use plastic ladders to cross over into Jammu and Kashmir along the India-Pakistan border.’I guess they forgot about the motion sensors and other electronic equipment which form the second line of defence along the border.But I digress.By not responding to the news about American military benevolence towards Pakistan, New Delhi seems to finally following its own repeated appeals to the West to ‘de-hyphenate’ the two nations.And I suspect that can only be a good thing.As for the peace process, I think Islamabad will finally have to veer around and admit that the war is not really over Kashmir, but over water.'India, Pak war over water likely' I don’t suppose that will make Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, really very popular with its so-called mujahideen, who attack innocents and children in Kashmir in the name of 'freedom.'But then, truth hurts.
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 03:30 PM
LinktoComments('1125654208')
4 Comments Comment
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Power to the people?The irony of it all. On the day the Delhi government decided to roll back its 10 per cent hike in power rates following immense pressure from well-connected citizens, a colleague of mine was electrified when she received a bill for a whopping Rs 12,000.After investigations revealed that the entire neighborhood had not somehow managed to connect to her power meter, she went to to the power board office, only to be told that she had to pay up the bill before she could even lodge a protest. That, apparently, is the law. And the law, as we know, can be royal pain in the neck. ( Some people have an even lower opinion of it, but we shall ignore them for the time being). I recall raving and ranting -–in vain — in Calcutta many moons ago when we were slammed with a similar bill, (those were the days of 6 hour power cuts) and a similar response. To add insult to injury, when it was proved that the state board’s bill was wrong, I was told that the money would not be refunded, but ‘adjusted’ against future bills. So first they rape you, and then they cite the law to rape you again.I think it’s time (the well connected citizens mentioned above please note) to change the laws. I think if the power company overcharges you, you should be entitled to free power for the rest of your life. C’mon…if they can give it free to the farmers, what’s wrong with us tax-paying urbanites?
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 07:07 PM
LinktoComments('1125494091')
9 Comments Comment
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Dawood who?
So Dawood Ibrahim is not in Pakistan. Ibrahim, a goon from Mumbai, was in the news recently when his daughter married the son of Pakistani cricketer Javed Miandad. And of course, when Indian authorities demanded his extradition from Pakistan to face trial for the Mumbai blasts of 1993.My brave friend Amir Mir of Lahore, who wrote about Dawood’s antics in Pakistan, (this link has a rather virulent exchange on it’s message board) is now being hounded by Musharraf’s goons, to the extent that no one is willing to hire him in Pakistan.Amir also exposed the links between jehadis and Pakistani intelligence agencies in his book The True Face of Jehadis.Apparently, the harassment started at Musharraf’s behest.Of course Dawood is not in Pakistan.But that’s because he’s changed his name to Ibrahim Anis, or something similar.Remember the stories about Pakistan not proliferating nuclear weapons? Not harboring terrorists?Then came the 'ooops..I didn't do it..the father of our nuclear program did!'And 'Sorry!!!..I didn't know they were terrorists..I thought they were freedom fighters!' That apparently came after those very 'freedom fighters' apparently put a price on Musharraf's head.I guess the next thing you’ll hear is that Dawood’s ('ooops, we didn't realise he was here!' ) extradition cannot be negotiated until the ‘core issue’ of Kashmir is resolved.
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 03:36 PM
LinktoComments('1125394941')
11 Comments Comment
Monday, August 29, 2005
That S word again
A recent column of mine provoked more responses than this blog has.
In it, I had argued that India cannot lay claim to being secular until the government stayed absolutely and completely out of all religious matters, and that reservations should be limited to education and based strictly on merit.
I had also mentioned that I had problems with religions that glorified Sati or promoted the burqa, because both were anti-women.
As expected, I was assailed by people who thought I was denigrating Hindus, attacking Muslims, or condemning the so-called lower castes to further deprivations.
Yet as my friend Claude Arpi pointed out, we profess to be a secular nation while refusing to define the word officially.
‘The most surprising is that nobody has challenged in court the fact that the word 'secular' is not defined in the Constitution. How can you introduce an undefined concept into a country's Constitution??? That is Bharat!’ he says.
See the columns by Arvind Lavakare or Rajeev Srinivasan, and the BBC debate on the subject soon after the Gujarat riots.
Today, one cannot mention the word in India without it provoking some section of society or another.
Would someone care to explain why and how such a simple word has become so loaded?
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 09:21 AM
LinktoComments('1125287092')
14 Comments Comment
Friday, August 26, 2005
Yolanda, an ode to
A lady—at least I assume she’s one—called Yolanda made me rethink my whole outlook towards India’s policy towards Pakistan.
After accusing me (see comments under the chuckle post) of having something personal against our western neighbor, she goes on to assert that at a time when India and Pakistan are talking peace, I had no business to run down the process.
Have I become so cynical, so conditioned by right-wing rhetoric that I failed to see a good thing going? Do I really hate Pakistan?
Thankfully, an hour or three of intense soul-searching made me conclude that the answer to both questions was an unequivocal no.
The peace talks The road to peace
Having covered this beat for over a decade now, I can proudly proclaim that I have more friends and professional colleagues in Pakistan than the average Indian.
But as the cliché goes, when it comes to foreign policy, there are no permanent friends, only permanent national interests.
So while it is in our national interests to seek peace with Pakistan, it is also in our interests to count the cost.
To me, the supposed bonhomie that prevails at the moment between the two nations is somewhat forced.
Yes, the ceasefire prevails on the border. But we have our army chief assuring us that the infiltration of terrorists from across the border has been going up, and that too despite the fencing and other sophisticated devices meant to stem it.
The way Islamabad has been consistently refusing to delink Kashmir from the process, despite our government delinking the end of terrorism from the peace talks, is perhaps an indication of where things are headed.
So Yolanda, while I am flattered that you think that my views on the peace process will actually impact it, negatively or positively, I think I will continue to question and count the cost of every move.
Because I don’t want my India to be shortchanged in the process.
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 11:49 PM
LinktoComments('1125079798')
5 Comments Comment

Senile at last
What troubles India’s relationship with Afghanistan?
Pakistan does.
I have just been accused by a reader below of having a personal grudge against Pakistan.
So let me instead point to foreign secretary Shyam Saran’s comments carried by The Associated Press this morning.
And for those still unconvinced, let me quote—selectively -- from a report in the Financial Times, London, again carried this morning.
‘Much of the Pakistani establishment, which agreed only reluctantly to back the US war against the Taliban regime, still believes Afghanistan remains Islamabad's natural sphere of influence. Many in the Pakistan military and intelligence services worry not only that Afghanistan could be used by India as part of an encircling strategy - it has not gone unnoticed that Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, will visit Kabul next week to lay the foundation stone for the new national parliament building - and also to foment Pashtun nationalism in two Pakistani provinces.
‘The Pakistanis are concerned at the presence of Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar, a short jump away from Pakistan, and fear the Indians might use [President Hamid] Karzai's Pashtun nationalist discourse to revive a movement that aims to dismember the Pakistan's Baluchistan and North-West Frontier provinces. Pakistan has belatedly discovered since the presidential election that there is a strongly anti-Pakistan discourse in the Karzai cabinet.'
QED.--x—I must be really senile.
I had often wondered what prevented India from initiating a regional security caucus along the lines of NATO.
Imagine a rapid reaction force comprising Chinese, Pakistani, Nepali, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Bhutanese and Myanmarese soldiers, with a rotating leadership. With the common mandate that any attack on a member would be seen as an attack on the entire grouping.
Such a grouping would not only help cement military ties in Asia, but perhaps also foster amity and friendships at other levels, I thought.
It was only when I read the NATO admission criteria that I realized how naïve and foolish I was.
One, democracy. Two, civilian control over the military. Three, a non-aggressive foreign policy. And finally, a commitment to contribute towards the common defence.
Now how many of the nations I just mentioned fulfil even one of those criteria?
Can anyone suggest conditions that would fit our reality?
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 05:35 PM
LinktoComments('1125057665')
2 Comments Comment
Thursday, August 25, 2005
No chuckling, please
After years of strident denials, our friend Pervez Musharraf has finally admitted what most of us knew all along. Pakistan did sell nuclear centrifuges to N Norea.
Of course, Musharraf wants to pin the blame on the maverick nuclear scientist and ‘the father’ of Pakistan’s nuclear program, AQ Khan, and not Pakistan as a country.
Pakistan's nuclear Bazaar
Khan, after his presidential pardon, has been kept under so-called house arrest and denied access to foreign interrogators keen on knowing the extent of his perfidy.
But funnier still is Musharraf’s assertion that unlike India’s Brahmos, which was jojntly developed with Russia, Pakistan’s recently tested Babur was “completely indigenous.”
So much for those comic strips showing puzzled Pakistani missile engineers scratching their heads because the instruction manual for assembling the missile was in Chinese.
If that hasn’t made you fall off your chair, here’s another chuckle sent out by the neighborhood strongman.
According to him: “There is no infiltration whatsoever taking place (in Kashmir) I will be raising the issue of alleged cross-border infiltration with the Indian Prime Minister."
So I guess all those satellite pictures showing terrorist camps have been digitally mastered by New Delhi. I guess all the terrorists that being apprehended by the Indian Army along the border with Pakistan are actually coming from…errr…Mongolia?
Frankly, I suspect all Musharraf can do is appeal to Manmohan Singh to stick to the deal — reportedly agreed to by India --that it would not let ‘minor’ acts of terror derail the peace process.
But then, Pakistan too had agreed to tone down that nauseating song about Kashmir being the core issue. Instead, Musharraf, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and other ministers have been constantly proclaiming in public that trade and other ties with India were totally dependent on Kashmir being resolved first.
Posted by ramananda sengupta on 10:33 AM
LinktoComments('1124945909')
9 Comments Comment