The Economist - Banyan: Vale of tears

Banyan

Vale of tears

In Kashmir freedom is much farther than a stone’s-throw away

Aug 26th 2010

OWAIS hardly looks like a serious danger to the security of India. Slender and frail, he says he is 17 but seems younger as he basks shyly in the praise of the men gathered in a garden in Srinagar, summer capital of Indian-ruled Kashmir. But he is proud to show off the scars and stitch-marks that cover his belly. He has just emerged from hospital, lucky to be alive. He took a bullet in an anti-Indian protest on August 2nd in Kupwara, some 90km (56 miles) away. His uncle died that day, one of more than 60 people, mostly young, killed in a wave of unrest that began on June 11th. Owais and those like him have presented the Indian government with a new and perhaps insoluble Kashmir crisis.

They are self-proclaimed “stone-pelters”, named after their weapon of choice. Well-organised—on Facebook, to a large extent—the pelters emerge at short notice to throw stones at police stations and other targets, and get shot at. In response to their protests much of the Kashmir valley that surrounds Srinagar has been shut down—both byhartals, or strikes, called by separatist leaders, and by government-imposed curfews. On most days, Srinagar is a ghost town of shuttered shops and empty streets. Paramilitaries point their rifles out from bunkers or lounge on street corners, idly tapping their lathis (heavy batons) on their padded legs. On the one or two designated “shopping days” each week, the traffic is gridlocked.

Setting the hartal “calendar” is Syed Ali Shah Geelani, an 81-year-old separatist leader. It is in his garden that Owais waits. When the old man emerges, he kisses the boy on both cheeks and the forehead, hugs him tight, and poses for a photograph with him. Mr Geelani seems a strange icon for a movement of teen-aged Facebookers. Few share his Islamist pro-Pakistan ideology. And many still seem to be ignoring his edict to give up throwing stones and stick to peaceful protest. But, unlike other political leaders, Mr Geelani has never wavered in his refusal to compromise with Indian rule. Sheer, cussed consistency has earned him a pivotal role. So have India’s past tactics to divide its opponents. More moderate separatists, who have engaged in “dialogue” with India, have had nothing to show for it, and ended discredited and compromised. This seems less clever than it did at the time. Now Mr Geelani ignores a call for talks from India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

Read the full article at -- http://www.economist.com/node/16888893

The Economist - China and India : Contest of the Century

China and India

Contest of the century

As China and India rise in tandem, their relationship will shape world politics. Shame they do not get on better

Aug 19th 2010

A HUNDRED years ago it was perhaps already possible to discern the rising powers whose interaction and competition would shape the 20th century. The sun that shone on the British empire had passed midday. Vigorous new forces were flexing their muscles on the global stage, notably America, Japan and Germany. Their emergence brought undreamed-of prosperity; but also carnage on a scale hitherto unimaginable.

Now digest the main historical event of this week: China has officially become the world’s second-biggest economy, overtaking Japan. In the West this has prompted concerns about China overtaking the United States sooner than previously thought. But stand back a little farther, apply a more Asian perspective, and China’s longer-term contest is with that other recovering economic behemoth: India. These two Asian giants, which until 1800 used to make up half the world economy, are not, like Japan and Germany, mere nation states. In terms of size and population, each is a continent—and for all the glittering growth rates, a poor one.

Not destiny, but still pretty important

So caveats abound. Yet as the years roll forward, the chances are that it will increasingly come down once again to the two Asian giants facing each other over a disputed border (see article). How China and India manage their own relationship will determine whether similar mistakes to those that scarred the 20th century disfigure this one.This is uncharted territory that should be seen in terms of decades, not years. Demography is not destiny. Nor for that matter are long-range economic forecasts from investment banks. Two decades ago Japan was seen as the main rival to America. Countries as huge and complicated as China can underachieve or collapse under their own contradictions. In the short term its other foreign relationships may matter more, even in Asia: there may, for instance, be a greater risk of conflict between rising China and an ageing but still powerful Japan. Western powers still wield considerable influence.

Read the full article at -- http://www.economist.com/node/16846256