Imperial India

"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push"

- Joker, in the movie The Dark Knight

Indeed, all it's taken for madness to be unleashed in J&K was nothing more than a little push. The act of giving 40 hectares of land for temporary use was going to cause demographic change. Jammu protested, and then Kashmiris tried to go to Muzaffarabad to sell their wares.

And in all this, bleeding hearts have come out of the woodwork arguing for "azadi". Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar is one of these bleeding hearts who believes that India is doing to Kashmir what "Great" Britain did to India.

Indian "intellectuals" have got to be the most masochistic people on the planet. They hardly lose any opportunity to indulge in self-flagellation. Unfortunately, many Indians do not know the facts of the Kashmir issue, and Aiyar being a "respected" Sunday columnist, is being taken seriously by people. Let's have a look at his claims.

As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will.

There are a lot of people who do not wish be ruled by the govt of India. I too am one of them. I don't see why I should pay taxes for money that ends up being exchanged to buy votes in a confidence motion. And a lot of other people would agree. If we get together, can we ask for independence from India as well?

The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.

Well, Aiyar too ignores a very potent fact about both Junagadh and Kashmir. It is true that the Nawab of Junagadh chose Pakistan. However, two states under his suzeraintity, Mangrol and Babariawad, acceeded to India. Junagadh attacked them, thereby attacking India. India had all the right in the world to intervene. Even after that, India agreed to a plebiscite which was almost unanimously in favor of accession to India.

Coming to Kashmir, India was not against a plebiscite. It is a common propaganda by Pakistan and the liberals that we were. But a plebiscite has pre-requisites, like everything else. The pre-requisites were specified in UN Security Council Resoution 47 [full text here] and and the very first was that Pakistan would withdraw its military from all of J&K, and the Pathan tribesmen (who had invaded Kashmir to begin with and caused Hari Singh's accession to India) and remove all non-Kashmiris from J&K.

Pakistan neither did nor committed to, any of these. So when the UN-prescribed conditions for a plebiscite have not been met, how is it hypocritical to not go for a plebiscite?

Even India's entry into Kashmir wasn't a forced one, unlike the British entry into India. India did not invade a sovereign territory, the forces moved in after Hari Singh acceeded to India. The Pathans invaded Kashmir on 22 Oct 1947 and were well on their way to Srinagar. Hari Singh asked the Indian govt to intervene. But India could not legally do so unless Kashmir acceeded to India. He did that, and that's when India came in.

UN Resolution 47 clearly clubbed the Pakistan and the Pathan "tribesmen" recognizing that Pakistan was behind the Pathan invaders. So the accession of Kashmir to India was due to the invasion precipitated by Pakistan. How is this in any way similar to what the British did?

In these 60 years, we've had that bugbear of the Right called Article 370, which among other things forbids non-Kashmiris from buying land there. The vice versa is not forbidden. This is in direct contradiction to every occupied territory in history, whether it's Tibet, British India or, indeed, "Azad" Kashmir. Occupying powers, like China in Tibet, try to change demographics, which is something India hasn't done. How is this reminiscent to British rule except in deluded fantasy?

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.

Well, at least at the end of an article consisting of nothing but hideous exaggeration and self-flagellation, Aiyar has the good sense to inject some perspective. Yet masochistic tendencies can't be resisted for long, evidently. That's why Indian rule is not "classical" colonialism, whatever that means.

In the end, he roots for that eternal chimera: plebiscite. A plebiscite was possible in 1948, and if Pakistan had played along things would probably have been different. But plebiscite is not an indefinitely valid promise - after generations have passed, after Pakistan has altered the demographics of PoK, after the Kashmiri Pandits have been hounded out and Aksai Chin gifted to China, there is no more plebiscite possible.

Yet, the Aiyars of the world continue to mislead people into self-flagellation. Talking about the British Raj is an emotional ploy guaranteed to succeed in sending most Indians into a catharsis of shame, and it works because most Indians haven't read Resolution 47. We're lucky intellectuals like these weren't in power during Bhindranwale's revolt, else Punjab would have been a different country by now.

The Cult of Self-Pity

In the wake of the Amarnath agitation, a lot of people have raised supposedly poignant questions about India's democracy and commitment to secularism. Many of them belong to the Arundhati Roy category of leftist "intellectuals" who have a soft corner for anything Pakistani.

So it comes as a surprise (at least to me) when Shabana Azmi joins the brigade blasting Indian secularism in this interview with Karan Thapar. [Full interview here]

Now I'm not a great fan of secularism as practiced in India, but no matter how screwed-up it is, I don't see how it is against Muslims.

Credit where it is due. Azmi is without doubt the most intelligent and sensible Muslim voice in the media. I'd say Azmi is a far better Indian than all the gung-ho media patriots to whom Indian-ness is synonymous with saffron. She's not a puppet of the Mullahs. But the favorite hobby of the Mullahs - self-pity - isn't something she's entirely immune to.

It is her view, that Indian Muslims aren't treated well because - hold your breath,

I can’t get a house in Mumbai. I wanted to buy a flat and it wasn’t given to me because I am a Muslim.

Now that's interesting, because she apparently owns four houses in Juhu and a house in Khandala. She was rejected one flat somewhere and she concluded it was because she was Muslim? What about the other four houses she bought - why hasn't she mentioned them, is it because it's not ideologically convenient to do so?

[Times of India carried out a survey to verify Azmi's claims and this is what they found]

But let's get beyond whether Azmi's claims are true or not and look at whether they would be valid even if true, because even the Sachar report mentions that Muslims don't easily get flats on rent. There are many perfectly valid reasons why flats are denied. I have rented a flat; I know.

My ex-landlord rented us the flat on condition that we wouldn't cook or eat non-veg in the house. That being the case, it is easily imaginable that he would deny anyone who he knew would have to eat non-veg at home. Even many house owners who don't mind non-veg would mind beef, and therefore deny the house. Such people have no real problem with the tenants being Muslim as they do with the fact that it means beef might be eaten in the house.

Such concerns are not unjustified. It's the landlord who owns the house and it is his choice of parameters that should prevail. He's not committing a crime by denying the house. If tomorrow a Muslim denies me a house because I enjoy mocking Mohammad and Allah, it would be entirely justified. And bear in mind, those who say idol-worship is a sin and idols are false gods are doing the very same to the Hindus - another valid reason for denying a house.

But this house comment was probably the weakest link in her interview, and picking on it isn't really nice. So let's move on to another gem from the interview.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, I want to ask you a critical question as a former MP. Let’s talk a little bit more focussed about Indian Muslims. They are amongst the poorest, least educated and worst represented communities in India. Has Indian politics been unfair to the Indian Muslim?

Shabana Azmi: (After a thoughtful pause) Yes.

This is where things get really murky. Azmi believes Indian politics has been unfair to the Indian Muslim. I really wonder where that comes from. Which Indian politician or party is actually against Muslims getting an education or getting jobs? Forget the INC and Left, even the BJP doesn't oppose it - all they oppose is reservations.

Muslim bodies do not want a Uniform Civil Code, and so it has become a touchstone of Indian secularism that UCC is not secular. The whole definition of secularism has been twisted by the politicians and the media to suit the Muslims. This doesn't seem to be unfair to the Muslims.

Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India because it "hurt Muslim sentiments." Taslima Nasrin was disgraced and not-so-subtly forced to leave the country by the government. (Interestingly, MF Husain's paintings weren't banned). I don't support the shutting up of Rushdie, Nasrin or MFH, but its too glaring that Rushdie and Nasrin were both hounded out by the govt to please Muslims while MFH was not, and again that is not unfair to Muslims either.

In Shah Bano's case Rajiv Gandhi got the law changed to please Muslims, and again that is not unfair Muslims either.

And in the most recent Amarnath controversy, we had 40 hectares of land denied for temporary structures because a demographic change would take place there. I leave you to figure out what the demographic change is, but it doesn't seem to be unfair to Muslims either. But when the VHP talks of demographic change elsewhere in India, our secular intelligentsia and media are quick to pounce upon them.

So where and how exactly is politics being unfair to Muslims? All these indicate simply that what Muslims demand, the govt does. The last thing you can cry about this is that it is being "unfair".

The only exception is Gujarat and Babri Masjid. Heinous as they are, the fact that the culprits are not brought to book is simply because you can't touch politicians of any party in India. This fact, at least, is independent of Muslims and Hindus.

Yes, it is true that Muslims are under-represented. But as the recent movie Aamir asks, who has stopped them from doing anything? Which jobs are Muslims by law unqualified to apply for?

But Azmi does hit the nail on the head finally

Karan Thapar: But they do not get it because the politician do not think of that?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, that and the fact that the community is allowing itself to listen to the fundamentalists, who are not actually their leaders.

That's the whole point. Azmi needs to ask why is it that the fundamentalists, and not people like her, are seen as the leaders. Better still, why are there any leaders on a community level at all. There are no leaders of the community for Hinduism, Sikhism or Christianity, who enjoy any amount of comparable clout. The afro-haired Sai Baba is an exception, but he has as many detractors among Hindus as followers. No one sees him as a spokesman of Hindus.

Yes, its true that Muslims need to stop seeing themselves, and the whole world, through the religious prism. There is no worldwide conspiracy against Muslims. People are too busy getting their work done and making money to have an agenda of exterminating Muslims. Even Narendra Modi, after the 2002 riots, has focussed more on development than religion, because he realises that religious hatred won't keep him in power forever.

George Bush, Narendra Modi, LK Advani and Ali Sina are not the biggest enemies of Muslims. Self-pity is.

World record browsers: lessons for Opera

[This post is less about software than it is about the business and appeal of software]

Firefox, the world's second most popular browser, released its third avatar this week, and decided to have some pizzazz to go along with it. The world record (for the maximum number of software downloads in 24 hours) was bound to be achieved, since the record had never been set before. But Mozilla (the makers of the browser) more than achieved their target figure of 5 million, in just around half the time. They eventually hovered around 8 million by the end of the 24 hour deadline.

Of course, the fact that Adobe Flash player accounts for 12 million downloads per day does make it that record a little less unprecedented. But the fact that a browser that was largely unknown just four years back is now posing a legitimate challenge to Big Brother's (you know who that is) bloated browser, is indeed impressive.

Predictably though, Firefox's attempt at the world record did peeve a lot of Opera fans. This is truly the dark horse of the browser wars. I'm regarded by many as an unabashed Firefox fan, and I do earn the label by virtue of the fact that I was motivating many friends to help set the record. Yet the one thing I do agree is that Opera has indeed been an extremely impressive browser.

Simply put, most of the innovations you see that have changed browsing in the last 8 years or so, were Opera inventions. Tabbed browsing, for which a lot of people wrongly give credit to Firefox, were introduced by Opera in 2000. Firefox got it only in 2001. Of course, Big Brother introduced them only in 2006 (which was its first browser version since 2001) and had the temerity to pretend like it was their idea. Adding the search bar at the top of the browser, in the toolbar, was an Opera idea. It was also the first browser to block pop-up ads, again something that Firefox gets credit for inventing.

Even today, Opera offers inbuilt features that leave Firefox way behind. For example, a torrent download client. An ability to save sessions, which is something even Firefox 3 does not have.

The truth is, Firefox never invented many of the features that they are praised for, they just popularized them. And that, for many in the Opera community believe that Firefox has simply been playing catch-up and perhaps even stealing Opera's thunder. On most forums, a praise of Firefox is guaranteed to generate at least one comment on Opera's superiority.

The trouble is that a lot of this bitterness is unjustified. Though Opera and Firefox are two good browsers, browser choice is quite personal and not everyone might like Opera or Firefox. I'd say that Firefox has been a godsend for Opera. After the demise of Netscape, Firefox was the first browser to give any serious competition to Big Brother. Without Firefox, Big Brother would have virtually owned the internet and filled it with proprietary code. With its well-earned reputation of being a shark, Big Brother would have either bought out or stomped all over Opera.

Firefox has done a favor to not only its own users and Opera's who need to thank the makers of the browser, but also the users of Big Brother's bloated browser. Without Firefox, that browser would never have innovated. Even though it is abomination of a browser, at least its users have something more advanced than a stone-age non-tabbed browser.

Like I said, browser choice is quite personal. Yet, there has to be a reason why the same features didn't get Opera landslides of users while they did for Firefox. Why did Firefox become more successful despite being the less innovative browser?

The answer, in my view, is usability, simplicity and customisability. Firefox has long been the browser with the largest add-on or extension community. You can probably get a Firefox extension that will make you a sandwich. Now a lot of Opera users speak out at this and say most of Firefox's extensions, and then some, are already available in Opera. Does Firefox have a torrent downloader, they ask.

And that is exactly where Opera lost the plot.

Most people browsing on the net aren't really interested in all the extra features you have. For example, the torrent client. I certainly do use torrents to download Linux distros and would need a torrent client, but most people I know wouldn't know what a torrent was, let alone wanting a client. And even though I want a client, I wouldn't consider it a significant bonus to have it in my browser. It's not too much work for me to go download a dedicated client like Azureus which gives me more control and more info about my torrents than Opera. Certainly, the fact that Opera features a torrent client would hardly be a consideration for me to download it.

Another add-on in Firefox is the stupendously popular (among web designers) Firebug. I use it quite regularly, and I think its the best add-on I've ever used. In fact, its one of the finest pieces of software anywhere that I've used. But would I be very thrilled if they included Firebug in Firefox 4 by default? Nope. Because again, it doesn't take much to install it anyway. Yet, this is exactly what Opera have done in their latest version 9.5. They've added a new feature called Dragonfly which looks pretty similar to Firebug. And that is one of their biggest mistakes.

Why? For the same reason that RGV Ki Aag was a mistake. When you try to imitate a legend, a cult, you better have something that is at least 95% as good as the original if you want to just avoid the brickbats. Dragonfly is not as bad as Aag, but it doesn't have one of the most important capabilities that made Firebug a legend: CSS editing. To boot, its also clunkier to use. Result? People are going to compare it with Firebug, and since it doesn't come up to scratch, they're going to trash it anyway.

Will features like Dragonfly help Opera? I think not. Because most users aren't interested in things like Dragonfly/Firebug, and those who are, would not mind downloading a specialized and possibly better add-on. This is true for most of the extra features that exist in Opera but not in Firefox. People don't really mind downloading an add-on - if anything, it gives them a feeling of control and makes them feel like its their personal browser.

So what has Firefox done right? Most of the things that matter to users, in my view. A very important attribuete for a browser is to have a look consistent with the OS. Though no one can look entirely like Big Brother's browser, I've found that Firefox adopts the look of its environment to quite a large extent. Opera, though, has an entirely unique look and feel. The dialog boxes, the menus, all look entirely different from the OS you use. It's beyond just the looks - its also in the the interaction with the user.

Back when Big Brother was not so big, and was actually lagging in the spreadsheet market behind Lotus 1-2-3, they made a decision that would be one of their best designs decisions at that time. Senior people at Big Inc. were not impressed by the "battleship style" A1, B1, C3 notations of Lotus 1-2-3. They preferred the L1C1 format. They finally decided to include the A1, B1 naming and have L1C1 format as an option. The result? People using Lotus 1-2-3 did not find it hard to migrate to Big Inc's spreadsheet. By not making it harder for Lotus users to make a shift, Big Inc. just increased their chances of breaking the stranglehold of 1-2-3.

There is a lesson for Opera in this - it's not the features that are paramount. It is how you allow users to access those features. If you want to open a link in a new tab, Shift-Click is no less illogical than Ctrl-Click. But Ctrl-Click has become the de facto standard today. Like it or not, that is the fact. It's like, in India, people drive on the left side of the road, and so buy right-hand drive cars. There is nothing more logical about right-hand drives than there is about left-hand drives, but if someone introduces a left-hand drive in India, it won't do as well as a right-hand drive.

A very good example of where Opera (and all other browsers, including Mr Big's) lost out is the humble Find, or Ctrl-F.

This is how Opera reacts when you try to find some text.

See? You need to type the whole search word, in this case "Lenovo". There may be no word starting with "Len" in the whole page, but you wouldn't know unless you typed the whole search word, clicked "Find" and were told it doesn't exist.



Now this is how Firefox deals with it.

You fire Ctrl-F, and a bar appears at the bottom for you to type the search word. It searches as you type. So if there is no word starting with "Len" in the page, you won't need to waste your time typing the whole word. The browser will inform you immediately that there is no such word.

As one commenter on a site said, Ctrl-F alone is enough to put paid to all claims by Mr Big and Opera. That's exaggeration, but it has a point. The thing most users require won't be torrent downloaders or Dragonflies. What they need is instant accessibility to your features. This functonality alone goes a long way to show that Opera have faltered in trying to be a technically centred browser while entirely ignoring the ease of use. Incidentally, this is also the mistake Linux distros have made, a mistake that distros like Ubuntu are slowly trying to correct.

All that I've said may look like small niggles, not major problems. But I feel it is these small problems that hold Opera back.

Firefox understood this. They mimick the OS look - their latest versions go one step further and customise themselves to look very much like a "native" app. They also try to mimick the shortcuts and the interface of Big Brother's browser. And yet in that, they end up providing most of the features that even though Opera provided earlier, could not effectively use to pump up its popularity. Which is why Firefox introduces features later but makes it easier to use them.

I'm considered a Firefox fan, but I do wish for Opera to understand this and do really well. Because the last thing I want is for Firefox developers to sit on their laurels. Big Brother provides a very pathetic browser that millions use only because it is bundled with their equally bloated and slow OS. Big Bro is indeed the biggest and most fierce opponent to Firefox. But it is Opera that blazes the trail for all others to follow.

Without Firefox, the internet would be in Big Brother's clutches, in other words, dead. Without Opera, innovation would certainly slow down. Just as Firefox's success benefited Big Bro's users, Opera's success too is important for Firefox users.

Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal

Warning: Long Post

I recently got a forwarded article by Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash, on the 6th Pay Commission and the raw deal it gives to the forces. Arun Prakash was the Chief of the Navy from July 2004 to Oct 2006. I felt the article quite sincere and well-presented.

This is the content of the letter.

The country-wide demonstrations by ex-Servicemen (ESM) on 26th April and 7th May 08 to protest against the 6th Pay Commission report, were, by all accounts, conducted in a dignified and orderly manner; and that is exactly how it should have been. Now one hears some talk of a "hunger strike" by ESM, but it is my fervent hope that this will not come to pass.

I have a nagging feeling that by these uncharacteristic and extraordinary gestures we, the ESM, have diminished ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen. One can just visualize people who have never had the privilege of wearing uniform or of serving the nation's tricolour, smugly saying to themselves: "We always knew that their attitude of soldierly discipline and fortitude was only a facade. Deep down they are just like any of us."

I am aware that these remark are likely to upset many of our Veterans who, despite advancing years, are going to great lengths to make a dramatic gesture on behalf of their comrades-in- arms. To them, let me just say that my criticism is directed, not so much at their actions, As at the insensitive and callous system which has driven them, in Extremis, to such an unfortunate step.

An Ungrateful Nation?

In civilized nations the world over, the soldier, sailor and airman –and more so the Veteran – is an object of spontaneous respect, affection, admiration and the highest public esteem. These sentiments are made manifest by the people and the government of a grateful nation, in countless ways, in thought word and deed. There are monuments celebrating victories, statues of military heroes, war memorials for those who fell on the field of battle, avenues and squares named after soldiers and concessions for Servicemen in every sphere. Above all, Servicemen receive warm respect, affection and consideration from the general public as well as the media. None of this exists in India today.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that in cities like London, Paris, Washington or Moscow the dismal spectacle of Veterans reduced to "demonstrating" in public to ask for their dues, would have wrought agony in their countrymen. The citizens of New Delhi, God bless them, chose to ignore this "cry from the heart" of old warriors. The media, otherwise so intrusive and inquisitive, and so proud of their "independence" almost completely blacked out this significant gesture by the Veterans. The one TV channel which planned to air a related programme chickened out at the last minute. We can only speculate about the reasons for the media's sudden coyness.

From Major Som Nath Sharma who died fighting the Pakistani tribals in Badgam in 1947, to Captain Vikram Batra who laid down his life in the icy wastes of Kargil in 1999 there is a long Roll of Honour which lists the heroes and battle-casualties of the Indian Armed Forces. Just reading about their exploits of valour and self-sacrifice is enough to give one goose pimples. It is the inspiration provided by such brave men which motivates our Armed Forces to great heights of dedication and commitment to the motherland. But does anyone else in the country remember their sacrifice? Or care?

Not even a decade has passed since Tiger Hill and Tololing were won back by our soldiers in the face of intense enemy opposition at a horrific cost in lives. But our citizens do not have the time to even light a candle in memory of those who fell in Kargil, or a hundred other battles, because their adulation seems to be reserved exclusively for cricketers, cine stars and politicians. One often wonders if patriotic young soldiers should be shedding blood for the safety and well being of a society as ungrateful as ours?

"Izzat-O-Iqbal" ?

Let us not be fooled by the razzmatazz that economists are feeding us about India's 9% GDP growth, or get carried away by the fabulous salaries offered by MNCs to young IIT and IIM graduates. As Indians, let us instead firmly bear in mind that 400-500 million of our brothers and sisters still survive on less than 40 rupees a day. I personally think that within the means available to the nation, the Armed Forces, and most of the ESM are paid enough. I say this without prejudice to the perfectly justified protest of the Armed Forces against the insidious manner in which the IAS has been steadily propelling itself upward to their detriment.

Really, it is not the money that bothers us. What the Serviceman and the Veteran find inexplicable and galling is something altogether different. They wonder why there has been a steady and continuing erosion in the soldier's position and status in society while the responsibilities, hardships and hazards of soldiering have grown over the years.

Apart from their crucial role in defending the nation against every threat and calamity, the Armed Forces are making a vital contribution to the country's social fabric. It is they who have promoted the ideals of integrity, discipline, professionalism and excellence, sadly lacking in every other walk of life. In the midst of prevailing chaos, the Armed Forces have remained an embodiment of order and discipline, and have faithfully upheld India's secular and democratic traditions. There just isn't any group, organization or set of individuals which has sustained the integrity, security and stability of the Indian state, with the steadfastness and loyalty demonstrated by the Indian Armed Forces.

Is it then surprising if the Soldier agonizes over the fact that in spite of his huge contribution to the nation, his Izzat has been Deliberately denuded by vested interests, and Iqbal denied to him by His countrymen?

I do not claim to have answers to the Soldier's dilemma, but I think that the issues involved have assumed such importance that they need to be examined in some depth. Let me place before the reader, four factors which I think have contributed to the steady and ongoing erosion of the soldier's image, and the degradation of his status in Indian society, with consequential effects.

Political Antipathy

Mahatma Gandhi's firm adherence to the noble principle of non-violence throughout India's independence struggle has no parallel in history. He was a great man with profound values, but misinterpretation of his unique vision led to the emergence of two surreal perceptions amongst India's political leadership.

For one they were convinced that since a non-violent India would have No enemies, the armed forces would become redundant after independence. Their second conviction was that the Indian Army was a mercenary force which had been used as a tool by the British to suppress the freedom movement, and deserved to be shown its place. They were utterly wrong on both counts, and such myths need to be demolished, because a man in uniform can today sense the cognitive lack of empathy, if not antipathy, to his cause in the in the political establishment of all shades.

Major General KM Cariappa (later the first Indian Commander-in- chief) called on Gandhiji in December 1947 and sought his advice on how he should put across the concept of ahimsa to his soldiers whose dharma was to fight for the nation. The Mahatma pondered over the question and replied: "I am still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it to you one day." A month later he fell to an assassin's bullet, and Cariappa never received an answer. But by then the first of our illusions had already been shattered in October 1947, when Pakistani hordes came pouring into Baramulla and it was only the Indian Army's gallantry which saved the Valley.

The politicians were right that the British Indian Army, true to its salt, had served the King-Emperor loyally in both World Wars. But after the string of early British defeats in WW II, Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) in Singapore, Germany and Italy were confronted with the most awesome moral dilemma that a soldier can ever face; a choice between the oath they had given to the King and the chance to fight for freedom of the motherland, being offered by Netaji Subhash Bose.

After agonizing over this veritable dharma sankat and fully recognizing the terrible consequences of either option, many Indian officers and jawans decided for their motherland, with the result that:

• 3000 Indian PoWs were formed into the Legion Freies Indien or Free Indian Legion as a unit of the German Wehrmacht.
• A unit named the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan was formed out of Indian PoWs in Italy.
• 40,000 out of 45,000 PoWs in Singapore joined the Azad Hind Fauj or INA as it was commonly known.
  

The story of these expatriate Indian warriors is a romantic but forgotten chapter in India's freedom struggle. Suffice it to say that the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) formed in Singapore by Bose in 1943 declared war on the British Empire, and the INA units fought a bitter campaign against them in Burma with "Dilli Chalo" as their inspiring slogan.

In early 1946, ratings of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, and the insurrection spread right across the country, with units of the RIAF, Army Signal Corps and EME joining their naval comrades in revolt. These events not only inspired and galvanized the freedom movement in India, but also struck fear into British hearts. General Wavell, the C-in-C admitted in a secret report: "It is no use shutting one's eye to the fact that any Indian soldier worth his salt is a Nationalist…"

Disciplined Services never dwell on mutinies, regardless of the cause, and that is why these events rarely find mention in our Armed Forces, But the powerful impact on the British Sarkar of these acts of great moral courage, must not be disparaged, belittled or forgotten. So anyone who says that the Indian soldier did not contribute to India's freedom movement is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the truth.

The phase immediately post-Independence too, was extremely difficult for our fledgling nation. To forget the sterling role played by the Armed Forces during the violence and turbulence of partition, and in integrating the recalcitrant princely states would be an act of rank ingratitude. Over the years, as our glaring strategic naiveté repeatedly led to adventurism by our neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999, it was invariably the gallantry and patriotism of the Armed Forces which saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour.

The Bureaucracy Strikes

From many post-Independence historical accounts it appears that the politician possibly felt not only ill at ease with the soldier, but also disdained the "military intellect". This was an ideal situation for the civil servants to exploit to the hilt.

Although the British had devised a workable interim organizational structure for the divided Indian armed forces, it fell to the bureaucracy to work out the nuts and bolts, and to implement it. Showing the Armed Forces "their place" was simple for the mandarins of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Possibly holding out the spectre of a military coup to the gullible politician, and deliberately misinterpreting the principle of "civilian control", they created a structure which suited them ideally, and brought the Armed Forces under bureaucratic control.

In the UK the Navy, Army and Air Force were then run respectively by The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Each of these were ministries, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank designated by convention as the "Secretary of State for…" and often referred to as just "Secretary". In India the ICS created a unique structure with a "Ministry of Defence" composed of a number of Departments, manned exclusively by itinerant civilian generalists, and headed by a bureaucrat of Secretary rank. External to the MoD and subordinate to the Department of Defence they created three "Attached Offices" one each for the Army, Navy and Air Force HQs.

So at one fell swoop, the bureaucracy had:

• Placed the Service HQs well outside the Government of India, whom they could only approach through the MoD.
• Effectively subordinated the Service Chiefs to decision-making at the lowest rungs of the MoD, since every file "submitted" by the Service HQ had to be routed bottom-upwards in the MoD, starting at Under-Secretary level.
• Kept the Service Chiefs and the Defence Minister safely distanced from each other.
• The political establishment of the day was probably informed that the affairs of the Services were being run by a Secretary, "just like in the UK" and they must have been relieved to have the bureaucracy manage complex defence matters for them. The military leadership of the time was probably too naïve and inexperienced to even realize the iniquity of the system imposed on them. The feeble noises that we have made thereafter, have naturally fallen on the deaf ears of the IAS bureaucracy; successor service to the "heaven born" ICS.

No one seems to have pointed out the fact that in the best and oldest democracies of the world, "civilian control" over the Armed Forces is best exercised by the simple expedient of having the head of the Armed Forces (be it a CDS, Chairman Joint Chiefs or Chef d'Etat Majeur) as the right hand of the President or the Prime Minister, and charged with rendering advice on strategic/military matters.

The Damage Inflicted by Media

Possibly the greatest damage to the public image of the Armed Forces as well as to their self-esteem has been inflicted by the Indian media. This predatory beast finds, in the Armed Forces, instant gratification and tremendous payback for very little effort. They see an institution, and a set of people who set for themselves, extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and when accused of misdemeanor, react with pain and anguish. What can be more satisfying for the slavering media hounds?

That their uniformed victim is bound and gagged, and unable to respond, is even better for them because he can then be maligned with impunity for the sake of mindless sensationalism. Regrettably, many of the young media-persons are neither well informed about the Armed Forces, nor do they undertake serious study of the subject.

It is for this reason that one rarely sees serious, well-researched and thought provoking articles on defence matters. On the other hand it appears that every trivial issue relating to the Armed Forces has to be either a sensational "scam", "cover-up" or "serious embarrassment" , otherwise it is perhaps not considered news-worthy by the editors. The hostile attitude of the media towards the only institution in the country which undertakes quick investigation and fixation of accountability, and metes out swift justice is inexplicable.

Today any disgruntled person, vested interest or even agent of a foreign power can entice the India media with the promise of a "defence scandal", and they will happily proceed to malign the Armed Forces. Neither the good name and reputation of its leadership, nor morale of the rank and file of the Armed Forces, nor indeed any concern for the truth are matters of slightest concern for the irresponsible journalists or their arrogant editors.

Having done their best to denigrate the nation's Armed Forces in the public eye, the media will then report with great glee, the number of unfilled vacancies in National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. Need the Armed Forces look any further? The enemy is within.

The Inner Discord

Such is the power of Jointmanship, that whenever the Chairman COSC has occasion to use the phrase, "the three Chiefs are of the view…" whether in writing or verbally, all obstacles in the MoD and elsewhere tended to melt away. Unfortunately, there are not too many instances when this phrase can actually be used.

Disagreements between the Chiefs on professional issues will take place, and can be resolved in the COSC room, but it is discord among the three Services more than any other factor that is exploited to the fullest by the political establishment and the bureaucracy, and which has led to the devaluation which we lament today. On any difficult issue taken up by the Armed Forces the attempt by the MoD will be to strike separate bargains with the Services and defuse the issue.

So if the Services keep sliding down the Warrant of Precedence, or one rank one pay is denied to ESM, or the War Memorial is kept in limbo, the Services have only their own disunity to blame.

This is a subject on which volumes could be written to the delight of our detractors, and therefore need not be discussed here. In the context under discussion, suffice it to say that a sea change can come about, if the Service Chiefs, placing the larger interests of the Armed Forces above all other considerations, jointly request the government to take forward the process of integration to implement the following at the earliest:

A full time Chairman COSC who can devote 100% of his time to common issues affecting the three Services, and then spend as much time as Required in pursuing them with the Government.

Actual integration of the Service HQ with the MoD (the current term "Integrated HQ of MoD" is a complete charade), so that civilian and Uniformed functionaries can be deployed interchangeably in the Ministry.

These are by no means magic mantras and will neither end discord nor bring harmony into the Services overnight. But they are the first steps to ensure that the Armed Forces speak with one voice and thus protect themselves against exploitation.

The 6th Pay Commission

I come finally to the burning issue of the day, the 6th Pay Commission, because the Internet is rife with disinformation today.

Setting out at great length, the historical and contemporary reasons for his request, on 12th April 2006 the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri (RM), seeking his "…personal intervention for the appointment of a Service Officer as a constituted member of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, likely to be announced shortly." The letter went on to remind the RM that, "…while the first two Pay Commissions were dedicated exclusively to the Armed Forces, from the third CPC onwards, the emoluments of the Armed Forces became just one more issue to be examine, but a lack of Service representation was perhaps one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed by the Services post 5th CPC award."

Four weeks later, on 16th June 2006, the Chairman followed up this Letter with a reminder, forwarding the names of three serving and two retired officers as possible candidates, with the request that, 'the RM may like to have the panel vetted by the MoD in order to select the best qualified candidate" to serve on the 6th Pay Commission.

During frequent discussions that took place in the three months that remained to him as RM, the Minister did convey to the Chiefs that he was experiencing difficulties in convincing his cabinet colleagues regarding this issue, but expressed optimism that he would find a way for the CPC to receive a direct input from the Services.

It is a tradition in the MoD not to respond to any communication from the Service Chiefs in writing, and therefore the Service HQs will have no record of what transpired within the MoD. However, a letter from the Chairman COSC has to be placed on file and discussed at length between the bureaucracy before a recommendation is made to the Minister. At this juncture, only a request to the MoD under the RTI can bring out the record on file, as to what the MoD recommended and why this request was denied.

The fact however remains that for the sixth time in succession, the Armed Forces remained unrepresented on a Pay Commission. The resulting unhappiness amongst the Services and the ESM was a foregone
conclusion.

Conclusion

Bitterly recounting poetic verse about soldiers "slighted" or "ignored" by an ungrateful nation is not going to stir many consciences in India. Also one cannot help having serious reservations About public protests through the medium of marches, dharnas or hunger-strikes by ESM. Whether they have the desired impact or not (many states imposed Section 144 in affected towns) such displays of "trade unionism" will erase the last distinction between the proud ethos of the Armed Forces/ESM and the rest; both in our own minds as well as in the minds of our countrymen.

It is rightly said that there is nothing easier than for Veterans, free of any responsibility, to render advice to their serving comrades From the safety and security of retirement. Therefore, having drawn attention to the factors which need to be tackled by the Services with resolve and unity, I shall refrain from adding anything further.

Except to quote a few lines from the autobiography of General Lord Ismay, in the hope that they will be read by those at the helm of the nation: "A country may have powerful armed forces, led by brilliant commanders; it may have statesmen of great competence; it may have immense wealth; it may have industries which are most efficiently run; but unless the statesmen and soldiers at the summit work together in a spirit of mutual esteem, the essential coordination will be lacking, and there is bound to be deadly waste of blood and treasure."

General Ismay should know; he was Churchill's Chief of Staff, confidante and alter ego right through World War II.

** "Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal" is the hybrid Sanskrit-Persian post-Independence motto of the Regiment of Artillery, which means: "Honour and Esteem Everywhere".

Review: The 3 mistakes of my life

Chetan Bhagat, who the New York Times believes is India's best selling English novelist today, has released his third book, "The 3 Mistakes of My Life".

If Chetan Bhagat is India's best selling English novelist, I really wonder what other books Indians are reading, and for some reason it doesn't give me much to cheer about.

Now let's leave that aside and come to the book itself. First off, calling anything a spoiler in a CB book is an insult to the word spoiler because frankly, there is very little unpredictable in his books. But for the convenience of those who would not like me to "spoil the story", I'm putting the customary disclaimer.

** Mild spoilers begin **

The subtitle would have you believe that it is "A story about business, cricket and religion". Interesting combination, I thought as I picked up the book. Three hours and 258 pages later, I'm a bit wiser.

This story, to put it in a nutshell (and the space of a nutshell is all that is required to hold this story) is about three good friends and the girlfriend of the protagonist. Now, where have we heard that before? Did I just hear a voice saying "Five Point Someone"?

Now for the friends themselves. Loser-boy Alok from FPS turns into loser-boy Omi. The "hero" of the story, Govind is Hari Ver 2.0. And coincidence of coincidences, cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ryan, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents, becomes cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ish, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents. The last one had me flummoxed, because last time I heard, "Ish" was that annoying word Ash liked to use in that movie lemon, Devdas.

Just in case people started wondering if Bhagat had done a direct Ctrl-C Ctrl-V from FPS, the author pulls out the biggest innovative surprise of his career - namely, the girlfriend Neha, daughter of Cherian becomes the girlfriend Vidya, sister of Ish. Another innovation, loser-boy Alok, who had the slightly redeeming quality of being good with bookish knowledge, now loses that too in the transfomation to Omi, transferring it to Govind.

** Mild spoilers end **

Omi, Govind (the protagonist) and Ish are three 20-somethings in Ahmedabad, trying to start a business of their own. Govind, the guy who loves business and anything to do with numbers, is the mastermind behind the operation to start a cricket shop. Ish happens to be an ex-district level cricket player, which lends him an "expert advisor" status to the kids visiting the shop. Omi, an idiot (Govind's words) chips in with his only contribution - his family owns the temple in whose premises the shop opens. You can read the official synopsis here

So in case you were wondering where the tagline of "business, cricket and religion" came in, its because they run a cricket shop cum coaching business in temple premises.

When the tagline says "religion" and is set in Gujarat, you know its going to mention the riots. Indeed, the riots play in important part in the novel. But they are presented with such naivete that you begin to wonder whether CB has even done a cursory scanning of the newspapers.

Tackling a subject like the communal divide in India is not easy. All the more reason to take it seriously and not trivialise it like CB seems to have done. The characters involved in the religious turmoil are as unidimensional as it is possible to be.

The most ridiculous part is when he refers to a "secular party" and "communal party." OK, I know there can be legal issues when referring to actual parties in fiction, but calling them like this is so simplistic it makes me cringe. You can always give parties names or symbols. Of course, CB is nothing if not mind-numbingly simplistic. So we get a dose of the same old BJP-is-evil-Congress-is-angelic story that is repeated ad nauseam in the media.

Somewhere, CB does realise he is getting too one-sided and gives what he thinks is a more centrist view, but its obvious that he is out of his depth when discussing religion and politics, the same way he was out of his depth when dishing out his homemade (and undercooked) philosophy in his last outing, ON@TCC.

When FPS came out, people were quite impressed with the story and with a certain freshness that CB brought to the table. After his second novel, that gigantic lemon called One Night @ the Call Centre, perhaps CB thought that he better move to safer territory and try to redo the FPS formula.

The trouble is, the FPS formula worked because FPS was a college story. It would have worked for any college story or for a story of 20-somethings with rich dads. But not for middle-class 20-somethings who work two jobs to make ends meet. Just because a bikini-clad "size-zero" (I suppose it goes well with her IQ) Kareena Kapoor became the talk of the town, doesn't mean clothing Nirupa Roy in those clothes would have worked. Same problem here.

Maybe that's why the bindaas humor, which was the greatest strength of FPS, is missing here. It just doesn't go very well with the context. When he does indulge in it though, the jokes seem like they're getting tired of being told over and over again.

There is a serious problem of writers block when 4 years after his debut, an author publishes a book that seems entirely like a plagiarised version of his first novel. Indeed, if it didn't have CB's name on it, I would have thought it was a cheap imitation, much like Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag was to Sholay.

Chetan Bhagat, with this novel has made the second biggest mistake of his life (ON@TCC being the first). Perhaps he should leave aside the serious stuff like philosophy and really go back to the basics of the FPS formula.

Back to the drawing board, boy.

Flag Lapel Issues

I'm not very well-versed with the proposed policies of the three remaining individual candidates in the running for the Democratic and Republican nominations for the US Presidential elections, but I have been more than a bit impressed by one candidate - Barack Obama. Or as his detractors would prefer, Barack Hussein Obama.
`
I don't agree with all that he does, and behind his message of hope and change he could possibly be just another politician. But one quality that has really caught my attention is how Obama has managed to bring people face to face with their own prejudices.

One of his now lesser-talked-about stances is his insistence on not wearing the flag lapel. These little pins, painted in the colors of the American flag, have become almost a mandatory fashion accessory for presidential candidates and politicians to showcase their patriotism. Obama, though differs, claiming that flag lapels have become empty symbolism and a substitute for true patriotism.

Obama's view makes sense. Patriotism is not as simple as wearing a pin on your jacket. Wearing or not wearing a pin proves nothing about one's patriotism. Wearing a pin is an easy thing to do - real patriotism is far tougher.

Why am I mentioning all this here? Because I feel we Indians too have our own flag lapel issues, giving greater importance to mere symbols than actual achievements. Patriotism is coming to be judged, even in this country on such hollow grounds.

Case in point: NR Narayana Murthy. The Infosys icon and poster boy of India Inc was accused of having played an instrumental version of the national anthem at a function which the then President APJ Abdul Kalam was attending. This was done, as Murthy later explained, to prevent an embarrassment to some foreign delegates who were also present.

Nothing very condemnable about it. Its easy to see where NRN is coming from - I've faced such a situation myself. In my college in Chennai, they used to end functions, with an ode to Tamil Nadu, known as the Tamil Thaivazhthu (not sure if that is the right spelling). The tune of the song was fairly melodius; not knowing the language, I can't comment upon its lyrics and their poetic value. And also, not knowing the language also meant that every time the song was sung, to be surrounded by people singing it with gusto felt a bit weird and uncomfortable. I can understand therefore why a foreigner would feel similarly about the Jana Gana Mana, though he may appreciate the musical quality. In light of all that, what Murthy did is not only all right, it is also a fine gesture of goodwill.

But predictably, our highly charged and "patriotic" leaders stepped in, aghast at Murthy's egregious "insult" to the national anthem. I've personally attended different functions of the navy, including two where the Governor of the state and the Chief of the Army Staff were presiding. And on all occassions without fail I have heard the instrumental version being played. It is definitely not an insult to the anthem to play it instru.

Let's leave that aside though, and ask the bigger question: does a man like Murthy need to prove his patriotism? That too, to politicians who are responsible for the rut we find ourselves in today? Murthy and his associates helped create an industry that brings revenue to this country, and provides jobs to large numbers engineering and science graduates. He's helped change the image of India from a land of snake charmers to a land of software engineers. Yes, even this image is flawed since it neglects the troubles of the farming sector, but it does not change the contribution that Murthy has made to this country and its economy.

Yet Murthy had a case slapped against him by the Karnataka police, and was made to apologise for something that never deserved an apology. Why did this need for symbolism trump the far bigger evidence of patriotism, the elephant in the room, so to speak?

The same thing happened with Sachin Tendulkar, who had a complaint lodged against him for cutting a cake in the colours of the Indian flag. That's right. Sachin Tendulkar, acknowledged as one of our greatest cricketers ever, the man who saved the Indian team the blushes on so many occassions, the man whose heroics won the Man of the Series in the ICC World Cup 2003, is a traitor, as our hyper-patriots would have us believe.

Its happened with Sania Mirza too. The case against her is actually non-existent. The photo with her feet near the flag is easily identified as a photo trick. I can produce the same effect, and I'm no photographer.

Interesingly, all the people who rushed in to condemn Murthy, Sachin and Sania have no qualms walking the streets on the 16th of August and 27th of January each year, when tricolors form a nice carpet on the roads. I have never seen a single one of these gung-ho patriots pick up even a single flag lying on the road. Does anyone then have the right to question the patriotism of people who have made significan achievements in their fields and put India on the map in those fields?

And that's where Obama's statements come in.

"I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals," Obama said.

I don't know how sincere or patriotic Obama is, but that captures the essence of patriotism better than any of our media patriots.

Flag lapel issues exist everywhere, even in our own backyard. And we need to reject such superficial claims of patriotism and see what people have actually done to claim themselves as patriotic, or brand others as unpatriotic.

Reviews: The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns

I had heard a lot of good things about two novels published by a new Afghan author, and decided to try them out. When I began with the first novel, I expected a kind of quasi-documentary on Afghan history. As it turns out, I was wrong.

First things first. Khaled Hosseini, the author of the two novels is, as mentioned, an Afghan, settled in the US and is also a member of the UN refugee agency. His two novels are set in Afghanistan, and they tell two quite different stories in a breathtakingly powerful manner. The first novel is not a new one; but I got around to reading it only recently.

The Kite Runner is Hosseini's first novel. Beginning in the 1970s, it tells the story of two young boys, the narrator Amir, and his friend Hassan. They are nigh inseparable, the thickest of friends as you would suspect – but not quite. Hassan is not just a friend of Amir – he is also the son of Amir's servant. And a Hazara, a race that is considered a lower caste. For these reasons, Amir never really admits that Hassan is indeed his friend. Nor does he ever stand up for Hassan whenever other Pashtun kids jeer at his race.

The book's name comes from the kite-flying competition (something the Taliban later banned). Amir struggles to gain acceptance in the eyes of his strict father, who he knows admires Hassan more. Amir is no sportsman, though he is a gifted teller of stories and a poet, but his father appreciates neither. The only avenue left to gain his father's favor is to win the annual kite-flying competition. The competition is a game of skill, requiring participants to cut opponents' kites and be the last man standing. The kite runner is a boy who chases fallen kites and tries to catch them before other kite runners do. Hassan is renowned as one of the best kite runners, and when Amir finally wins the kite competition, it is Hassan who retrieves his last opponent's kite.

But Amir's cowardice culminates in an incident that will haunt him for the rest of his life. It is the beginning of what, for him, is a nagging feeling of guilt that demands redemption.

One of Hosseini's many gifts is the ability to seamlessly weave in real events with the events of his story, giving you the perspective of how those events altered the lives of real people in Afghanistan.

When the Russians invade, Amir and his father, who are among Kabul's elite, escape Afghanistan to land up in the US, where, years later, Amir becomes a famous writer. Yet the ghosts of the past continue to haunt him until one day in 2001, he receives a call that will send him back into the cauldron that Afghanistan has become thanks to the efforts of the Soviets, the Mujahideen and the Taliban.

It is to the author's credit that he does not make the Afghanistan trip look like an adventure. Instead, he focuses on showing a nation that has crumbled, been pummeled by history. No one has been left unscathed and unscarred by the years of battles is what Hosseni tries to say, and he succeeds at it.

The novel is dedicated to the children of Afghanistan. And the sheer terror that the Taliban has inspired is again shown very well. But the best part, the most gripping, is the depiction of the friendship between Amir and Hassan in the first half of the book.

The Kite Runner was a novel that I had difficulty believing was a first attempt. Hosseini deftly manages to put in enough pathos, history and tragedy without making it look forced for the most part. The one minor gripe I had with the book is that at some places, the flow wasn't too smooth, especially Amir's life in America. But perhaps that could be justified to show the contrast with life in Afghanistan.

I thought The Kite Runner was powerful stuff. It was indeed a very engaging story, told with every ounce of sensitivity and quite touching. But as good as it is, The Kite Runner is greatly overshadowed by the shining brilliance Hosseini's second attempt, A Thousand Splendid Suns.

As the cover suggests, this is a novel about the women of Afghanistan. It begins with the story of 15 year old Mariam, who is a harami, a bastard daughter of a rich man and his servant. The word, for obvious reasons, is one she hates, but it is the word that all around her use to describe her. Staying near the town of Herat with her epileptic mother, she longs to join the family of her father.

Tragedy strikes and her mother dies. Mariam's father, who never wanted her, is forced to take her into his household. This arrangement doesn't last for long though, and Mariam is hurriedly married of to Rashed, a man thirty years her senior. And an abusive husband to boot.

After moving to Kabul with Rasheed, life quickly goes downhill for her, and at one point you think it just can't get worse. That is when Hosseini shows that the word "worse" has a different meaning for women in Afghanistan.

Because Laila, a neighbor of theirs, and a girl almost twenty years younger than Mariam is about to undergo a tragedy far worse than even Mariam. Laila is the direct opposite of Mariam. She is a literate girl, with a father whose ideas would be considered very progressive. He strongly believes in getting her an education and later a job – these were days when women could work in Afghanistan. With him, and her boyfriend Tariq, she visits the Bamiyan Buddhas, the same that the Taliban would later destroy.

It's too good to last though. As the war with the Soviets begins, Tariq and his family move to Pakistan, leaving Laila with her family. And her family do not stay long either. They are killed in a blast, of which she is the lone survivor. In these circumstances, Rasheed takes her in, and she is pressganged into marrying him as his second wife.

Predictably, this does not please Mariam, and a cold war begins. On this blog, it may sound the stuff of our dreary TV serials. But that impression couldn't be further from the truth, as you realize when you go further. The ordeal and hardships just get worse with the onset of the Communists, the Mujahideen, the warlords and finally, the Taliban. There was a real progression in barbarity in these successive regimes is used to full effect to show how it influences the lives of these two women.

The barbarity of the regimes is paralleled by the barbarity of Rasheed, which also increases in a similar progression. The women who began as adversaries soon find themselves befriending each other in a world where they have no other friends and no other options.

The novel begins on a slow note, but once the author has shown the contrasts between the two women's individual lives, and brought them together, the story simply becomes more heart wrenching with every chapter. Some points in the novel deserve special mention: the meeting that Laila has with Zaman, an orphanage director and one of the “few good men” left in Afghanistan; Mariam's interactions with Laila's children; Mariam's decision at the end of the book and Laila's reaction to it; and of course the ending itself, which I will not spoil.

While Laila's ordeal seems the harsher of the two, Mariam's role most closely mirrors of Hassan's in the previous novel, and her character simply wins all sympathies by the heartbreaking end.

The events may sometimes seem improbable – its often too barbaric that it may seem artificial. But many Afghan women have experiences that are arguably just as dramatic as as the one presented by Hosseini. Certainly, the barbarities that Laila and Mariam are subjected to, both at home and outside, are not something we've not heard, but stringing them together into one story that is more shattering and devastating than what we are normally used to. And while that may look unreal, we only need to read the Taliban's decrees to know that it was chillingly real.

The novel is not without its share of flaws – some parts in the beginning of Mariam's story are a bit melodramatic and Bollywood-ish, and the epilogue seems a bit too stretched, though a fervent message of hope redeems the final pages.

But in essence, Hosseni's second novel is gripping, extremely powerful and deeply touching. There have been very few novels I've come across that have been as moving as A Thousand Splendid Suns. It is indeed one of the most powerful and honest novels I've ever read.

Both the novels bring you face to face with a country which has been utterly destroyed, ruined and shattered, like the peace of mind of Amir and the lives of Mariam and Laila. But just as there is redemption for Amir in The Kite Runner and a new life for the women in A Thousand Splendid Suns, the novels raise a desperate hope that Afghanistan and its people will never have to again undergo what they have undergone these last thirty years.