The Mecca delcaration

There was news for much to think about for the wider geopolitical community last week. A so called "Muslim NATO" took shape with joint declaration between the Saudis, Türkiye and Pakistanis. A clause which is important in the declaration is that which alludes to attack on any of the three is deemed to be attacked on all three - a reference to Article 5 of the NATO declaration. This has caused flurry of reactions primarily in the social network community about its repercussion in India and how it should counter it. Many of the so called (armchair) critics are already uttering failure laments on India's approach - while the official statement is about "Monitoring the developments".

Well for once if we just rewind back a year ago during Operation Sindhoor, it was Türkiye which was supplying drones to Pakistan, and hence technically it has already supported Pakistan when it was attacked. Saudi and Pakistan have had close contacts throughout their history with Pakistan relying on Saudi funds during times of war with India and also during the Nuclear related embargos - when it had to rely on discounted Saudi oil and supplies. "We don't need to when we already have Pakistan ", was the sly response not long ago, from de facto ruler MBS when asked about Saudi's Nuclear Plans. Pak had also provided troops and trained Saudi army for counter terrorism when the first Islamic anti-terrorist force was set up under General Rahil Sharif with headquarters in Saudi.  So effectively these three were already together in different circumstances. So, what happened now? Why the need for the declaration?

With the ongoing Iran conflict and US increasingly hard-pressed on negotiation terms with depleting weapon reserves to prolong the war, the middle east is looking for a regional security alignment. Also, with US focussing on consolidating the western hemisphere and higher alertness towards Asia-pacific with China in scope it wants its so-called partners to be self-reliant. Saudis are weary of this and are cognizant about threat emanating from likes of Houthi's in addition to an Iranian situation. Turkey, with its vocal criticisms about Israel also sees it as a threat once Israel is busy dismantling its existing neighbouring threats. Hence the missing piece in the puzzle became the armed forces which may be required to fight a hybrid war if need arises. And this is where Pakistan comes into the equation. A trisection of Saudi finance, Turkish drones and Pakistan's forces and weapons. So, the genesis of the pact are the Western Asia disturbances in light of the US's ambiguous stance in the region despite it being belligerent on Iran. 

For India, which won't mind attacking Pakistan again in case of any misadventures, it knows for real that Türkiye is not in its side and whatever actions which can happen may be in the economic front where India holds a trade surplus. Saudi will be the real deal for India though. Saudi relies on exports to India with India being the second largest trade partner with over 40 billion dollars in total with Saudi holding significant edge on trade surplus. Saudi also has huge expatriate population of Indians. During Operation Sindhoor, Saudi in fact engaged diplomatically with both the countries and urged to settle the conflict using peaceful means. Assuming there are further situations like Operation Sindhoor, India has to work out a policy focussing on the Saudi.

The biggest beneficiary will be Pakistan who will need funds to enhance its weapons stock with the latest Chinese developed inventory. And in a way it will also benefit China who will get a slice in the pie by selling its latest advanced weaponry to Pakistan who had been always short of funds. So, India has to monitor this development more closely and re assess it defence investments and policy accordingly. 

Still if one looks at the declaration, it knows way describes in what form or way the partis will support each other in case of attack. Like there is no specifics of a scenario where say India responds with a limited conflict or attack in Pakistan due to a terrorist attack vis a vis a conventional war. Overall, by design it looks like the declaration is for deterrence and counterbalancing the waning influence of the US in the region.

Odyssey - a reflection

Rather came back with a sullen feeling after watching Nolan's latest Odyssey. I had often liked the sense of realism and believability in his movies like the Dark Knight Series sans those where science fiction was obvious - but even in those, like Inception and Interstellar, there was a feeling of director's execution with some sense of reality i.e. things looked real as it would happen in a technologically advanced setting. The original odyssey with its outlandish mythology made me feel that how would Nolan impose his sense of realism in an adaption which involved mythical creatures and situations. 

Hence after watching the movie, immediately felt the story was somewhat disjointed in its depiction of situations. The part in Ithaca with Penelope, Telemachus and the suitors was in a contemporary power set up (Contemporary to the movie storyline). Also, when Menelaus narrates to Telemachus in Crete the story of Trojan war is also very well made particularly the believable actions set piece of storming of Troy. One part which felt totally disjointed was when Odysseus narrates to Calypso his ordeal which includes fantasy elements about his encounter of Cyclops, Sirens, the dead and Cersi. 

But that was exactly the framing which Nolan also wanted. It can be noted that specially the part where Odysseus is narrating to Calypso, he is actually being induced into amnesia by the latter. The lotus plant is causing him to be drugged which may have used as ploy by the director to put all the fantasy elements in this particular framing and sequence where Odysseus is trying to remember what had happened. Though he seems very lucid when he is trying to remember his wife and son. And when it is revealed that he is hallucinating about Athena all this while, the entire thing finally makes sense. It's like a true master of craft not disappointing his ardent followers when actually the craft is being created in a new untouched dimension altogether which till date would have been tough to associate with Nolan. And there have been such breadcrumbs left in movies like Inception, Memento, Interstellar where the lead characters don't seem to have sense of reality while having a very defined sense about their loves ones or family.

And also, there are wider narratives of Greed, geopolitics, subjugation of society, the classic duplicity of putting a person in pretext of launching war for economic reasons (Helen being just an excuse to control trade routes going via Troy). This may have parallels in today's word where personalities (read Venezuela, Iran) are placed as reason to carry out armed operations. Also, this also lays out bare the controversy of a black actress playing Helen, where Nolan subtly conveys that a person's race, appearance, creed is insignificant when there are greater machinations in play to create and prolong conflict for vested reasons. There is also a self-reflection lesson to today's great powers, when Odysseues says that they have been the sea people, all this while threatening or invading innocent islanders, sowing fear and insecurity in their mind. 

Not sure if Nolan himself is aware of the subtilities or made this movie by "incepting" these disguised pointers, but definitely his movies don't dawn upon you till once has reflected it well which was quiet sure when one seems to think that why on the earth will a Director known for his modernistic-psychological-ponderous flavor to his movies, is suddenly going to veer into the ancient mythos.

On "Dabang" Brahmanism

 An interesting conversation between Sajan Kumar and Abjeet Bharti around caste reservation where the issue of Brahmanism also came. It has been observed that casteism or perceived casteism is a factor of caste assertiveness rather than assumed domination of a caste group. The brahmin population in South or say Konkan Maharashtra is relative a lesser significant number as compared to brahmin population in North. Historically the brahmin population in Tamil Nadu has been in single digits with current numbers around 3 % and yet they are seen as tormentors. In North brahmins are in significant number with more than 10 % in Uttar Pradesh. But the UP brahmins were always "Dabang" or assertive with their clout seen in politics, religious movements and even in crime.

The Tamil brahmins always had two types - one being barrister brahmins and other being farmer brahmins. Many say that the hypothetical arrogance of the former (read the Egmore, Mylapore clique) may have had some impression of the local society at large to make the TamBrams look viler than other. In fact, the so-called rich barrister brahmins painted a picture of apologist for all unverified caste oppression and veered towards the left whereas lot of poor and marginally weaker brahmin community suffered and migrated to the North for jobs post the Progressive movement took shape. It is also interesting to note that one of the key figures of the anti-brahmin movement in south, "Periyar" fomented his brahmin hate after his experience in Kashi, the bastion of the "dabang" north Indian brahmins.

So, in essence it was easy to make the meek, non-assertive, non-confrontational but presumably arrogant "Tamil brahmin" the fall guy for all caste related problems in south particularly Tamil Nadu while the so called "Dabang" Brahmins of North who some level of cohesion could still wield some clout while facing the wrath of anti-cattiest forces.