Analysing India's Political Advertising

 

Zafar Sareshwala: From Critic to Modi Fan

 

How Capitalism Distributes Power - in the second part of video

 

Why Democracy Always Fails

 

Dictatorship? India?

 

Office politics is not optional: learn to play the game or you’ll be its victim

Most of us disapprove of wily work machinations, but experts say ignoring power structures will hold you back writes Miranda Green in The FT

If there is one thing most people seem to hate more than politics, it’s office politics. Back-stabbing, conniving, sucking up and kicking down: being on career-enhancing manoeuvres makes people a target of derision among colleagues. This is often laced with envy if their machinations produce results. 

As the Divine Comedy put it in their 2019 song “Office Politics”: “Press the flesh, do the deal/ Book your place on the hamster wheel”. 

But in recent weeks, I’ve had a rethink, after being embroiled in holiday-period, mid-life job chat with friends and contemporaries. Many feel stymied, overlooked or are bored and miserable in roles they have outgrown. 

As with so much in life, when you reach the end of what the Americans (wonderfully) call the “pity party”, you need some constructive advice. Sometimes empathy is good. But sometimes it’s better to have a more bracing perspective. 

One shocking set of potential solutions (which I share in a spirit of passing on this useful jolt) came from consulting the most recent book by go-to theorist of office politics, Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organisational behaviour at Stanford. 

In The 7 Rules of Power he warns that “people opt out of the quest for power” often because they see bad people seeking it or using it for ill. But they become victims of this decision, missing out on the benefits of playing the game. “A comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of political skill [at work] found it was positively related to job satisfaction, work productivity, career success and personal reputation, and negatively related to physiological strain.” In other words, the consequences of holding back from the fray could be feeling unrecognised and unhappy, watching both your output and health decline — yikes. 

Prof Pfeffer is not one to sugar coat his messages. He has spent a lifetime getting his disciples, at Stanford and elsewhere, to accept what he calls the brutal realities: playing politics is fundamental to getting anywhere at work. Interestingly, resistance to this message is widespread — people prefer what he deems the soothing idea that the light of great work will shine, even under a bushel. 

The Pfeffer method is probably most suitable to corporate life. But there are tips for anyone seeking a route up, or out of an unfulfilling rut. They include making yourself and your achievements as visible as possible, projecting confidence and authority, and making sure you network, network, network: you have to become an invaluable conduit and contact. 

His first piece of advice, however, is to face up to the fact that this stuff is vital: you need to, in his words, “get out of your own way”. Don’t disapprove of people you see engaged in self-promoting stratagems, learn from them. And if your identity depends on belief in, as Pfeffer satirically puts it, “a just world and the ultimate triumph of merit”, you are in danger of sacrificing what you want from your working life. 

Don’t get me wrong. Unlike many others, actual democratic politics has been a life-long obsession and delight to me, but I am not totally sold on the Pfeffer method of mastering the work-based variety. Do not expect a memoir entitled: How I stopped worrying and learned to love office politics. While Pfeffer argues you can’t fight “the behavioural realities of power”, straying too far from your core values will make you feel dreadful. But I am convinced by one thing: hiding from the trade-offs you are already making will send you straight back to that pity party. 

Some prefer — and are better suited to — ploughing their own furrows. It certainly seems a better use of energy than a preoccupation with internal status games. But Pfeffer would probably think this is culpably naive: I suppose it’s your own fault if you haven’t learnt how to at least play the system in order to be left alone to plough that furrow. And by the way, you do need appropriate recognition and reward. Very few can eat or shelter under their ideals. 

Here’s his warning to the mid-life cohort: “The ability to do power becomes more important as your career advances.” If “at a certain level everybody is smart,” you need other ways to make your mark. 

And having to negotiate between your own and other people’s agendas is just part of adult life. This year, it may be time to act strategically to try and secure your place — if not on the hamster wheel, then least somewhere you won’t complain about.

Two Young Indians Debate India

 

Electoral Bonds Made Simple

 

'Canada is a Safe Haven for Indian Fugitives': Shekar Gupta

 

'Opposing Extremist Ideologies use similar tactics to retain power': Understanding Maharashtra Politics

 

Fallacies of Capitalism 14: Capitalism is Synonymous with Democracy

The "capitalism is synonymous with democracy" fallacy assumes a direct and harmonious relationship between capitalism, an economic system based on private ownership and market competition, and democracy, a political system characterised by representative government and citizen participation. However, this fallacy overlooks the potential conflicts that can arise between economic interests and democratic decision-making processes in several ways:

1. Power imbalances: Capitalism can lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations. These entities may exert disproportionate influence over political processes, such as lobbying or campaign financing, which can undermine the principles of equal representation and fair democratic decision-making. The resulting power imbalances can distort policy outcomes and compromise the interests of the broader population.

2. Influence of money in politics: Capitalist systems often allow for the infusion of large sums of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts. This financial influence can create an uneven playing field, where economic elites can exert significant control over political agendas and policy outcomes. Democratic decision-making should ideally be based on the will of the people, but when economic interests heavily influence political processes, the voices and concerns of marginalised or less affluent citizens may be marginalised or ignored.

3. Regulatory capture: In capitalist systems, regulatory agencies are responsible for overseeing various sectors and industries to ensure fair competition and protect public interests. However, there is a risk of regulatory capture, whereby the regulated industries exert significant influence over the regulators. This can result in policies that favour the interests of powerful economic actors rather than promoting the broader welfare or democratic principles. Regulatory capture undermines the accountability and responsiveness of democratic institutions.

4. Inequality and political participation: Capitalism can exacerbate economic inequalities, which, in turn, can influence political participation. When wealth and income disparities are significant, certain groups may have greater resources and access to political power, while others may face barriers to participation. This can undermine the democratic ideal of equal political voice and representation, as marginalised groups or those with limited economic resources may be less able to engage meaningfully in democratic processes.

5. Conflicts of interest: Capitalist economies rely on profit-maximising behaviour, which may run counter to certain democratic goals. For instance, economic actors may prioritise short-term profits over long-term societal or environmental well-being. Democratic decision-making often requires considering broader societal interests, including sustainability, social justice, and the needs of future generations. Conflicts can arise when economic interests clash with democratic principles, potentially undermining the pursuit of collective well-being and the long-term interests of society.

Recognising the potential conflicts between economic interests and democratic decision-making processes is essential for maintaining a healthy balance between capitalism and democracy. It underscores the importance of robust institutions, transparency, campaign finance reform, and mechanisms to mitigate undue influence and power imbalances. By addressing these conflicts, societies can strive for a more equitable and inclusive democratic system that ensures broad representation and safeguards against the dominance of narrow economic interests.

Luck and Politics

Bagehot in The Economist

Monday june 19th was a typical day in British politics insofar as it involved a series of humiliations for the Conservative Party. mps approved a report on Boris Johnson condemning the former prime minister for lying to Parliament over lockdown-busting parties. Rishi Sunak skipped proceedings for a fortunately timed meeting with Sweden’s prime minister. On the same day, the invite emerged for an illegal “Jingle and Mingle” event at the party’s headquarters during the Christmas lockdown of 2020. A video of the event had already circulated, with one staffer overheard saying it was fine “as long as we don’t stream that we’re, like, bending the rules”. Labour, through no efforts of their own, had their reputation comparatively enhanced.

Luck is an overlooked part of politics. It is in the interests of both politicians and those who write about them to pretend it plays little role. Yet, as much as strategy or skill, luck determines success. “Fortune is the mistress of one half of our actions, and yet leaves the control of the other half, or a little less, to ourselves,” wrote Machiavelli in “The Prince” in the 16th century. Some polls give Labour a 20-point lead. Partly this is because, under Sir Keir Starmer, they have jettisoned the baggage of the Jeremy Corbyn-era and painted a picture of unthreatening economic diligence. Mainly it is because they are damned lucky.

If Sir Keir does have a magic lamp, it has been buffed to a blinding sheen. After all, it is not just the behaviour of Mr Johnson that helps Labour. Britain is suffering from a bout of economic pain in a way that particularly hurts middle-class mortgage holders, who are crucial marginal voters. Even the timing helps. Rather than a single hit, the pain will be spread out until 2024, when the general election comes due. Each quarter next year, about 350,000 households will re-mortgage and become, on average, almost £3,000 ($3,830) per year worse off, according to the Resolution Foundation. Labour strategists could barely dream of a more helpful backdrop.

Political problems that once looked intractable for Labour have solved themselves. Scotland was supposed to be a Gordian knot. How could a unionist party such as Labour tempt left-wing voters of the nationalist Scottish National Party (snp)? The police have fixed that. Nicola Sturgeon, the most talented Scottish politician of her generation, found herself arrested and quizzed over an illicit £100,000 camper van and other matters to do with party funds. The snp’s poll rating has collapsed and another 25 seats are set to fall into the Labour leader’s lap thanks to pc McPlod and (at best) erratic book-keeping by the snp.

It is not the first time police have come to Sir Keir’s aid. He promised to quit in 2022 if police fined him for having a curry and beer with campaigners during lockdown-affected local elections in 2021. Labour’s advisers were adamant no rules were broken. But police forces were erratic in dishing out penalties, veering between lax and draconian. It was a risk. Sir Keir gambled and won.

Luck will always play a large role in a first-past-the-post system that generates big changes in electoral outcomes from small shifts in voting. Margins are often tiny. Mr Corbyn came, according to one very optimistic analysis, within 2,227 votes of scraping a majority in the 2017 general election, if they had fallen in the right places. Likewise, in 2021, Labour faced a by-election in Batley and Spen, in Yorkshire. A defeat would almost certainly have triggered a leadership challenge; Labour clung on, narrowly, and so did Sir Keir. If he enters Downing Street in 2024, he will have 323 voters just outside Leeds to thank.

Sir Keir is hardly the first leader to benefit from fortune’s favour. Good ones have always needed it. Sir Tony Blair reshaped Labour and won three general elections. But he only had the job because John Smith, his predecessor, dropped dead at 55. (“He’s fat, he’s 53, he’s had a heart attack and he’s taking on a stress-loaded job” the Sun had previously written, with unkind foresight.) Without the Falklands War in 1982, Margaret Thatcher would have asked for re-election soon afterwards based on a few years of a faltering experiment with monetarism. Formidable political talent is nothing without a dash of luck.

Often the most consequential politicians are the luckiest. Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the most influential politician of the past 20 years. He should also be dead. The former leader of the uk Independence Party was run over in 1985. Then, in 1987, testicular cancer nearly killed him. In 2010, he survived a plane crash after a banner—“Vote for your country—Vote ukip”—became tangled around the plane. Smaller factors also played in Mr Farage’s favour: when he was a member of the European Parliament he was randomly allocated a seat next to the European Commission president, providing a perfect backdrop for viral speeches. (“They handed me the internet on a plate!” chortles Mr Farage.) Britain left the eu, in part, because Mr Farage is lucky.

Stop polishing that lamp, you’ll go blind

Too much good luck can be a bad thing. David Cameron gambled three times on referendums (on the country’s voting system, on Scottish independence and on Brexit). He won two heavily and lost one narrowly. Two out of three ain’t bad, but it is enough to condemn him as one of the worst prime ministers on record. “A Prince who rests wholly on fortune is ruined when she changes,” wrote Machivelli. It was right in 1516; it was right in 2016. Labour would do well to heed the lesson. It sometimes comes across as a party that expects the Conservatives to lose, rather than one thinking how best to win.

Fortune has left Labour in a commanding position. Arguments against a Labour majority rely on hope (perhaps inflation will come down sharply) not expectation. Good luck may power Labour to victory in 2024, but it will not help them govern. The last time Labour replaced the Conservatives, in 1997, the economy was flying. Now, debt is over 100% of gdp. Growth prospects are lacking, while public services are failing. It will be a horrible time to run the country. Bad luck.

The use of fear to persuade Pakistan

 

The Wishful Thinking of Diaspora Pakistanis Reveals A Clandestine Truth About Pakistani Politics

Pakistan is financially, politically, and philosophically bankrupt. What it needs is a new paradigm: a truly people powered government by Arsalan Malik in The Friday Times 

 


In recent months, I have had several conversations with my fellow diaspora Pakistanis in the US about the dumpster fire that is Pakistani politics and economy. To my incredulous amazement, many of them still support the artist formerly known as the “Kaptaan.” Imran Khan continues to have a firm hold on the imagination of these diaspora Pakistanis.

To wit, a very successful, and intelligent Pakistani finance professional told me “IK is the only person who will stand up to the military and save Pakistan from default.” Never mind that IK was a construct of the military in the first place (indeed the overwhelming majority of Pakistani politicians are) and was unable to bring it to heel when he tried during his first unsuccessful term as PM. Pakistanis who think this way although passionate and well meaning, seem to be in-denial of the fact that a large part of the reason we are facing default is because of the fuel subsidies Khan revived a few days before his ouster. Those subsidies further depleted the Treasury at a critical time and effectively tore up the IMF agreement. It made no economic sense and was an act of pure pique to sabotage the subsequent government and curry favor with the masses. This was not the act of a leader who puts his country’s interests before his own. The successive government had to reverse this but the damage was already done. This is the same sort of irrationally misplaced good will that afflicts Trump supporters, who still think he will “drain the swamp” when, in actuality he moved the swamp to DC with him after his election. Just like Trump supporters are convinced he is the answer, many Pakistanis still think that IK will somehow save the Pakistani economy. This is a defensive retreat into fantasy in the face of the unpalatable reality that IK is perhaps even more narcissistic and incompetent than the other inept and feckless fools who have tried and failed to run Pakistan.

Another group of less sophisticated expats think that IK will be successful because “he is not corrupt and is not looking to enrich himself” as opposed to the shamelessly kleptocratic Bhutto/Zardari and Sharif clans. True, IK may not be corrupt but a person is known by the company he keeps. In IK’s case, this consists of the same corrupt, bandwagon careerists in bed with the military who have been a blight on Pakistan’s iniquitous politics ever since its inception. They continued to loot the country in cahoots with the military, under his watch and then abandoned him as soon as the going got tough and he ended up on the wrong side of the military establishment.

However, what both of these Pakistani expat types get right is that if elections were held tomorrow, IK would sweep to victory. He is doubtlessly the most popular politician in the country and has activated and vitalized countless numbers of young people who would not have been otherwise interested in politics. At the same time, he has unwittingly exposed the real puppet masters of Pakistan – its insatiable and pretorian military – and focused the ire of the masses against the top men in khaki behind the curtain for the first time in Pakistan’s history.

IK’s supporters have legitimate grievances against the failed ruling class and establishment elite, and see Imran as their last best hope. This is similar to the effect that Bernie Sanders has had on American millennials and Gen Z. The difference is that Bernie Sanders actually has a progressive, pro-worker, truly populist policy agenda. IK is an inept, incompetent, socially conservative, right-wing populist figure. He is a cult leader, whose track record proves that he cares for his ego much more than he cares for the country. We can be sure that, if accepted back in the fold by the military establishment, instead of confronting it, he will turn out to be even more compliant, because like all narcissists he cares more about power and assuring his own ascendancy and legacy.

Also, unlike Bernie, his politics excludes a class analysis of the problems that afflict Pakistan. Pakistan is at a crossroads. Instead of looking for solutions in another authoritarian strong man and the same old neoliberal policies, the answer to Pakistan’s travails lies in returning power to the working class people of the country, through, for example, the local grassroots organization of truly leftist and socialist political parties like the Mazdoor-Kisaan Party, the Awami Khalq Party, and the Awami Worker’s Party. No one who belongs to the elite that IK belongs to, which includes myself and my friend in finance by the way, can be expected to fix Pakistan.

Pakistan is financially, politically, and philosophically bankrupt. What it needs is a new paradigm: a truly people powered government, led by leaders from the working class, a la Lula in Brazil, that will have the mandate of a super majority of the people to enact progressive policies like raising the taxes on real estate speculation which is the most secure and profitable form of investment for Pakistan’s elites. Such a movement will also institute much needed land reforms to break up antediluvian and anachronistic agricultural monopolies. It will invest in the health and education of the working people of Pakistan instead of F-16s and it will confront the neoliberal institutions that have a stranglehold on Pakistan’s economy by, for example, reversing the disastrous terms of business with the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) which are the central reason for recurring power shortages resulting in an untold number of work days lost, and loss of profitability of private enterprises, and has plunged Pakistan into darkness and creeping de-industrialization.

True change only takes place when millions of working people demand it and when they demand justice. Then, the people at the top have no choice but to respond. In the end, the only force that will save Pakistan are the people of Pakistan, not the military, not the elite, not the businessmen, not the neoliberal economists or a cult of personality but the working-class people of the country. Otherwise, like all Potemkin villages, it will fall apart.

The Chinese are targeting India's greatest strategic vulnerability-- its broken politics

 

Is the Tide Turning due to Rahul Gandhi's Yatra?

 

On Asim Munir Pakistan's new Emperor

 

An MBA becomes PM, when the value of an MBA is questioned

 Stephen Chambers in The FT

Rishi Sunak is the first person of colour to become UK prime minister, the first Hindu and the richest premier in modern times. He is also, significantly, the first to hold an MBA degree. 

Sunak studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford, as so many leading British politicians have. But it is his time at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business — where he met his wife and was drilled in the finer points of competitive advantage and the capital asset pricing model — that sets him apart from his peers. 

Stanford Graduate School of Business sits at the heart of Silicon Valley, where Romanesque architecture, sunshine and social liberalism combine with libertarian and free market ideas and a core belief in the redeeming power of technology. It spans both suit-and-tie corporatism and T-shirt-and-sandal activism. Venture enthusiasm and techno-utopianism make for a heady business school environment. Two years in brutally competitive Palo Alto changes more than how people dress. 

Amid the Rodin sculptures on campus, Sunak will have absorbed Milton Friedman’s doctrine of shareholder primacy, Michael Porter’s “five forces” framework for understanding how industries work, so-called Monte Carlo simulations, the innovator’s dilemma and an emphasis on spreadsheets — all of it flavoured with Silicon Valley’s distinctive “move fast and break things” worldview. He graduated in 2006, the year Twitter was founded. The financial crisis hadn’t happened so MBAs had not yet been blamed for causing it. This was also the founding year of TOMS shoes, which gave away one pair of shoes to a child in need for every pair bought, the very model of the Silicon Valley social enterprise. 

The MBA has arguably been the most influential degree of the last 50 years. It has brought systematic discipline to practices that were previously ad hoc and weakly formalised, and serious analytical rigour to bear on starting, funding, running and advising businesses. It built a bridge between research in disparate disciplines and gave us a framework for talking about companies, competition, innovation and investment. 

But recently MBA influence has shown signs of waning. The traditionally high return on investment for the roughly quarter of a million students enrolled globally on such programmes is facing renewed scrutiny in the face of rising tuition fees, while those running the programmes have started to question their methods. What if shareholders aren’t the only people we should care about? What if markets don’t allocate resources optimally for social justice? What if the firm isn’t the most useful unit of analysis for getting things done? What if political reality isn’t captured or expressed by a spreadsheet? 

What does it mean to have an MBA as prime minister? Sunak’s Stanford education means he can run the numbers and pitch the vision. He can assess the net present value. He understands organisational behaviour and market-segmentation. But will any of this help when the rational expectations of MBA orthodoxy collide with politics and events? 

In his political career to date, Sunak has shown both TOMS shoes and Friedmanite instincts. The UK’s furlough scheme and “eat out to help out”, which he introduced as chancellor under Boris Johnson, were TOMS-ish, almost Keynesian. The austerity measures he is now contemplating suggest the opposite. And MBAs are very good at cutting costs. The economist Daron Acemoglu has suggested that employees in companies run by MBA graduates see their wages fall over a five-year period. Markets and owners like this. Employees probably don’t. 

Having an MBA in charge is reassuring if we think of the nation as a corporation. But critics of these programmes point to overconfidence, ethical lapses and a lack of real analytical or empirical evidence for widely adopted strategies. They bemoan an undue focus on case study learning, a lack of emphasis on softer skills, overreliance on corporate acquisitions rather than productivity improvements and a narrow focus on shareholder value. 

Business school admissions departments often say that their students are either “poets” or “quants”. Poets are usually humanities trained and uncomfortable with spreadsheets and valuation exercises. Quants are highly numerate, often with first degrees in engineering. Poets are comfortable with what Keats called “uncertainties, mysteries [and] doubts”. Quants are good at regression analysis. Poets sing, while quants count. Boris Johnson was a poet with a classics degree. He campaigned in poetry, and tried to govern in poetry as well. The UK’s new prime minister can clearly count, while his campaigning was done almost entirely in prose. But does Sunak’s MBA allow him to sing too?

Pakistan needs a "Deus Ex Machina"*

Ashraf Jehangir Qazi in The Dawn

WHAT is happening to Pakistan? Anyone interested in the question knows the answer. Who is to blame? Opinions differ.

However, there is broad agreement on the cast of culprits: political leaders; political parties; political institutions; non-political institutions; the security and intelligence establishment and its institutions; the civil services; comprehensive corruption; the dysfunctional state of the economy caught in a permanent debt trap and outrageous inequality; complete external dependency and a consequent lack of policy independence; a general lack of education and a scientific outlook; the media contributing to an uninformed, partially informed and misinformed public opinion; the deliberate misuse of religious fervour to obscure the true teachings of our faith; an obsolete social structure preserved by a voracious and unaccountable power structure; a judiciary that demands but does not command universal respect; uncontrollable population growth; irreversible climate change; a forever threat of nuclear annihilation, a security environment that challenges rational resource allocations; palliatives presented as solutions, etc.

We are taught that one should neither hate nor act in anger. This is true as far as persons are concerned. But actions that deliberately undermine the welfare of a whole people can and must be hated. When they threaten the survival of a nation and render its dreams and aspirations impossible they must be confronted by the elemental force of rejection.

If, instead, political observers and commentators couch their opinions in euphemistic and safely coded language they become complicit in the perpetration of a national crime. They convey a pathetic message of resignation, surrender and betrayal. There comes a time when Faiz Ahmad Faiz has to give way to Habib Jalib. Either Quaid-i-Azam was much mistaken or we are all complicit in insulting his memory and murdering his legacy. We prefer, however, to slander the father of our country instead of becoming the citizens it required.

We are today, accordingly, reduced to being spectators of a daily goon or puppet show in the guise of a morality play — without any wit, humour or goodwill. There are no good guys in the unfolding drama of our national tragedy.

The Baloch are killed. Their killers are martyred. When one political character attributes unspeakable and unforgiveable crimes and misdemeanors to his rival we know he speaks the truth. When his rival returns the charges redoubled we know he too speaks the truth. They are of course transparent partners in a single, massive and lethal crime against the people and the country.

So what else is new? What should be new is the realisation that we who are aware and do nothing are just as guilty. If one can live with this realisation so be it. If not, we need to do what we can and without delay. The chances are we won’t. The chances are we have already lost our country. Unless…

Another wasted year of political posturing by rupee multibillionaires representing their victims beckons. While the US contemplates a climate emergency, Pakistan is beset by an existential emergency that commands no contemplation. All the challenges confronting Pakistan will be ignored. Technocratic servants of the elite will continue to spin fairy tales about stabilisation and progress invisible to the eye of the uninitiated. They will be well compensated for dressing their employers in the finery of their analyses and assessments. Other servants or experts will do much the same in their own spheres. The people must learn to eliminate the word ‘sarkar’ from their political dictionary if they are to stand any chance against the forces arrayed against them.

When a country’s ‘leadership’ fails to address fundamental existential issues at home it can have no external policy to speak of. The rest of the world sees this and refuses to take its foreign policy seriously, however well articulated and reasoned it may be. Pakistan has itself become a major stumbling block to the success of its principal foreign policy issue: a principled, peaceful and lasting settlement of the Kashmir dispute with India that is primarily and ascertainably acceptable to the Kashmiri people.

The Kashmiri people cannot defeat India although they have so far heroically denied it the victory it strives for. Pakistan cannot defeat India although its nuclear deterrence capability limits India’s military options. A diplomatic stalemate maximises the suffering of the Kashmiri people. The world is aware of India’s perfidy in Kashmir but is simply not inclined to back a failed or failing Pakistan against the gigantic market and strategic value of what will soon be the world’s most populous country. China, for obvious reasons will continue to back Pakistan against India, while increasingly worried about Pakistan’s inability to learn anything from the amazing experience of its most reliable friend.

The US sees Pakistan as a resentful puppet ruled by dependent elites who will do its bidding even it undermines the confidence of China in Pakistan’s resilience and strategic value.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan backs the Taliban which backs the TTP which perpetrated the massacre of schoolchildren and teachers in the Army Public School on Dec 16, 2014. The army today engages with the TTP, which is essentially a Pakistani branch party of the Afghan Taliban, while refusing to engage with the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement of Manzoor Pashteen which is a Pakistani movement because of its protests against the bombing of Waziristan.

Pakistan has practically no support among the Afghan political intelligentsia, particularly the educated youth who are the future of the country. India has the field to itself.

These absurdities are the direct result of the state of the state in Pakistan. Unless this state of affairs is addressed, foreign policy, indeed all other aspects of national policy, will not be able to develop coherence and credibility. This is all too clear to political observers in Pakistan. But they are by and large easily resigned to the prospect that this state of affairs will not be addressed — and that they will themselves be complicit in this dereliction of duty, citizenship and patriotism. Unless we await a deus ex machina.

* Deus ex Machina - an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel.

The Shiv Sena - It's History & Future