Close to self-destruction!

Pic for only representational purpose.

Raju Korti
The increasing sectarian violence in Iraq, signaling the return of insurgency is a clear indication that the strife-torn country is headed to a point of no return -- with or without the US of A.
The embers of the post-Saddam regime refuse to die down looking to the vicious battle between the radicals, the ISIS and the Iraqi government. The ISIS is an offshoot of the global terror network of the al Qaeda that fought with the Syrian regime late last year. After the infighting, it reinvented itself as a splinter group called Levant ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).
The imploding situation in Iraq is much more complex than the popular perception that a proxy war is being played out on the uneasy turf between the country's Sunni Muslim minority and the Shia majority. The pitch is queered by the presence of Sunnis on either side of the hostility, some preferring to be neutral. There are several insurgent groups that do not swear allegiance to the ISIS and the Kurds -- basically non-Arab Sunni Muslims -- who enjoy some kind of an autonomy in the north-eastern fringes. While Sunnis and Shias slug it out, it is the Kurds who might actually gain mileage from the ongoing conflict.
The Sunnis, as is the case elsewhere in the world, have different grievances some of which are genuine and some not so. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri-al-Maliki is being perceived as disproportionately unkind to the Sunnis -- to the extent that the latter are being persecuted and hounded. There is no transparency in the prosecution.
Reports emanating from the country say that to counter "rising insurgency", the government rode roughshod to arrest a large number of people. The trials, if at all they were held, were suspect and nobody knows what happened to the under-trials. Cases of Iraqis languishing in prisons for years without a trial are common. Sometimes they're tortured; sometimes people, especially Sunnis, have to pay ransoms to get their family members out of prisons even if they didn't do anything wrong. And all this at the cost of a Shia nexus.
The Sunnis haven't exactly helped the cause with their patently flawed perception that they are a demographic majority. They have carried forward this considered view which was popularized during the Saddam rule -- that Sunni Arabs are the plurality and Sunni Arabs plus Kurds are a majority.
The issue boils down to a lopsided balance between the "suffering" Sunnis and "persecuting" Shias an offshoot of which is the de-Baathification (read de-Saddamisation) of the government being taken too far.
Among the three major players -- the insurgents, those inclined to political process and those who propose political process but are aligned with the incumbent PM -- the majority Sunnis at the grassroots level believe in a political process. These are countered by those willing for the ballot but not opposed to insurgency either. The ISIS is the extreme radical while there is another group that swears by Saddam and is itching to install a Jihadist Caliphate run by a centralized Sunni dictatorship. Although not in majority, it is the battle-scarred ISIS, having spent years fighting in Iraq and Syria, that is muddying the waters.
The insurgents can hope to win only if they get the Shias to cede. The mainstream Sunnis are a divided house as against a motivated Shias but that still doesn't mean the latter can exterminate the rebellion. It is a checks and balances scene. Even if the Sunnis get to establish control in some regions by ousting the Shias, those won't be the ones to give them any advantage -- financially or geographically. Most of the oil is in the Kurdish controlled area.
The irony is a Sunni state, if it ever becomes a possibility, would only be looking at starvation with practically no economy. A win-lose situation! On the other hand, the present crisis is a godsend for the Kurds. They can extract their pound of flesh from Baghdad or alternately they could declare independence. A win-win situation!
While the Iraqi PM is himself on a uncertain pitch, the Shias, in all probability, will indulge in a massive exercise of sectarian cleansing and that's a bad augury for the Sunnis. The Kurds will benefit, Iran will benefit, and the Shias will suffer but not as much. The Sunnis have a Hobson's choice -- either get cleansed or survive and hurtle into socio-economic doom.
Strange bedfellows have emerged from this conflict. So desperate is the situation that old and arch enemies Washington and Tehran are mulling to deal with the violent sweep.

For AK, the purge begins at home

Raju Korti
It is tough to be Arvind Kejriwal these days. The man who stirred the conscience of the nation not long ago is now witnessing to his chagrin that the ground from under his feet has slipped so quickly and how. Looking at the shambles in which the Aam Aadmi Party finds itself in -- a situation of its own making --  it appears that the outfit needs to pull out a rabbit from its hat to undo the damage done in the wake of a series of rapidly unfolding events after AK quit as the chief minister of Delhi in a huff.
For major part, AK cannot shirk his responsibility as a leader. It is now obvious that he presided over a team of self-serving people who had no clue in hell what the party actually wanted to do or where it was headed. In the process, he frittered away the advantage with a chain of self-goals. In the kind of politics practiced in this country, a cavalier approach to leadership and governance is not particularly advisable. In the run up to the phenomenon he so painstakingly tried to create, it didn't occur to AK's wisdom that being a good bureaucrat is one thing and being a political leader is quite another. A good politician knows when to beat a tactical retreat, but AK kept compounding his errors with more errors. Take for instance his obdurate stand in seeking bail in the defamation case against Nitin Gadkari and then doing a somersault to bow to the dictates of the circumstances. A cursory look at the way AAP and its exuberant leadership has meandered in the recent months, is an eloquent commentary on the political inexperience which was sought to be made up with a peremptory outlook in dealing with party matters.
Internal bickering is a malady with all parties without exception. Like the proverbial goldfish, AK had no place to hide given that his every move was scanned and scrutinized. Although this may sound like a hindsight, AK messed up his chance with power. Thereafter, the party slid into a downhill so much so that it has a huge job on its hands to extricate itself from the morass. The sordid story was complete when rats started deserting the sinking ship, Shazia Ilmi and other disgruntled souls showing amply that they had stuck around only to extract their pound of flesh. AK himself seemed ill-equipped to stem the rot. The fall was as swift as the rise was meteoric.
To begin with, AK must learn to handle people and situations with restraint. Dharnas and campaigns cannot be the resorts of those in the saddle. You cannot fault people if their perception of AAP is that of a party that doesn't know whether it is in power or out of it. The electoral result is not just about one man capturing the imagination of the nation. If success is the Heads, failure is the Tails of the same coin. The AAP story begs the question: What went so terribly wrong for a party that seemed to be riding a crest a few months ago and is now threatened with the prospect of sinking without a trace? Lack of political acumen, inadequate man-management skills, one flip flop after another or sheer over-enthusiasm and over-confidence?
But all is not lost for AK. His attempts to reach out to dissidents and revamp the party apparatus in a doldrums, though late in the day, is a necessary step. If AK has indeed learnt from his lessons, the "Mission Vistaar" that he talks about to induct new faces post restructuring, should not be an exercise in political expediency. As he pointed out after the AAP convention, "differences in a democratic party was quite normal and I hope AAP will emerge stronger." The irony is all political leaders poke fun at the internal dissensions in rival parties but sanctimoniously proclaim that in their own party it is a healthy and democratic process where each individual can express his/her own views. It is this spirit that makes AK play down his rift with Yogendra Yadav and make an utterly stock statement like "He is my elder brother. He has the right to scold me. I take his suggestions seriously. I am a human and when I make mistakes, elder brothers like Yogendra Yadav point it out to me."
It is worth pondering if the banner of revolt raised by Yadav and Shazia would have been taken in so kindly to if the AAP were to replicate its Delhi success story demolished by a ham-handed approach. There is a familiar bluster in the allegation made by Yadav that AK was being consumed by "personality cult" and Shazia's claim that the "coterie that had surrounded him (AK) was running the party by proxy."
Instead of gloating about the four wins in a state fractionally divided between radical and so called moderate Akalis, in spite of a Modi Wave and drawing the people's attention to Congress' utter rout, he must expend his energies in putting his own house in order. That, in the circumstances that obtain, is a huge ask. He should not forget that the likes of Shazia quit for not being given the ticket of her choice and actually call their bluff. He should consider their exit as a natural purge in the party.
His time starts now!

Wake up call for Congress

Raju Korti
By all accounts the Congress, traditionally fed on lackeys and doormats, is refusing to learn lessons from its shattering electoral rout.
Even after being reduced to a hopeless situation, it not only continues to repose faith in Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi’s unimaginative leadership but is intent on quelling voices of dissent.
In the Congress culture, there are no democratic processes. It is institutionalized by the “First Family” and its trusted coterie. So it is with a sense of guilt that the nation must appreciate what Mahatma Gandhi had said after India attained independence – The Congress has served its purpose as a campaign. It should be dissolved now that the mission has been accomplished.
There is a world of difference between Indira and Sonia’s leadership. The former was a deft political player who effectively marginalized all opposition within and outside the party and it was only when she carried her autocratic ways into the dark hour of the Emergency that people gave her the boot. However, she was wily enough to realize her sins of commissions and omissions and bounced back thanks also to the then ruling Janata government thrown into a disarray because of its internal bickering. Sonia does not come from the same hardboiled school. Rahul has inherited the same political naïveté.
Little wonder then that rumblings are now being heard in the party that has thrived on sycophancy and the purported charisma of one family. Their labored response to the anger simmering in the party shows both Sonia and Rahul are ill-equipped to come out with any quick-fixes.
Regulation speak is another of Congress hallmarks, although other political parties too are no exception. It wasn’t surprising therefore that its parliamentary party (CPP) smugly accepted – in as much words – that the Gandhis remain its only rudders and those who question their authority should be shown their place.
But this time round, the party will not find it easy to brush dissent under the carpet. The disgruntlement is so deep-seated and widespread that even the fear of expulsion has not stopped the partymen from being vocal. Not that the sailing in the Congress used to be smooth before but the partymen not reconciled to be out of power, stuck around. Obviously, the notion that when Congress wins it is Gandhi charisma and when it loses it is collective failure, is taking a beating.
A day after the Congress suspended senior party leader from Kerala, T H Mustafa for calling Rahul a “joker,”  Rajasthan leader Bhanwar Lal Sharma trained his guns on the Gandhis. Sharma did which no other Congressmen dared to say before. He said time had come for the party to think beyond Rahul and Priyanka Vadra. He has since been suspended.
Discontent is palpable among the party cadres for what appears to be Sonia’s indiscretion in abdicating her authority to son Rahul who in turn delegated his authority to non-players – a case of remedy being worse than the disease.
There also appear to be strong reservations about Sonia’s credentials as a proactive leader. The fact that she ruled the country by proxy through an educated puppet hasn’t gone down well with party ranks who are clueless about how they should brace up to this unprecedented debacle.
One hopes earnestly that this clear division in the Congress over Sonia and Rahul’s future roles is a harbinger for more transparency. The semblance of conscience that Sonia and Rahul showed after the party’s loss should be effectively mobilized if they at all want to take the Modi challenge head on. The trouble is both find themselves on the crossroads. The party is still to recover from the shock. In fact, there is a deep-seated fear with the party down to its lowest tally, it will not be in any position to take advantage of the anti-incumbency against the Modi Government when it does set in.
The question is will the party heed to the wake up call.