IS CHINA WINNING THE ‘QUANTUM RACE’ AGAINST THE US?

Although science often appears hostile to the irrational and the fantastic, it paradoxically manifests the stuff of fairy tales into reality. In fact, when it comes to quantum mechanics (the physics of subatomic particles), the scientific gobbledegook often appears more bizarre than the sophistry of the magic arts.

The space inside

Thus quantum physicists posit that we live in an 11-dimensional reality (c.f. the superstring theory) but are consciously aware of only three dimensions — length, breadth and height; that our universe is part of a multi-verse and we may have many more of our own selves living out separate lives in different universes simultaneously (Michio Kaku); that the future has the ability to change the past (John Wheeler’s ‘Double-Slit Experiment’ in 1978); that space-time could be folded and warped into tiny tunnels or wormholes (Einstein-Rosen bridge); that atoms know when they are being watched and can alter behaviour (The Observer Effect  and the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle); that two subatomic particles may be so connected (‘Quantum Entanglement’) to each other that change in one particle might affect corresponding change in the other at a speed faster than that of light even across vast distances between them.

China takes lead

Interestingly, this last claim of quantum entanglement, which Einstein detested as “spooky behaviour at a distance” (for it defied his theory that nothing travels faster than light), was successfully experimented by China in June last year, when it declared that its satellite ‘Micius’ communicated with its ground station through the aforementioned “entangled quantum particles”.

The news of this Chinese advancement sent shockwaves across the Western world, with Pentagon acknowledging it as a “notable” advance. “I read that on a Sunday and went, ‘oh sh-t,’” said Gregory S. Clark, a mathematician and chief executive of Symantec Corp., a global cybersecurity company with headquarters in Mountain View, California. If China is able to refine this ‘hackproof’ technology, Clark said “the whole world changes”. This development alone is said to give China a lead in cryptography as well as cybersecurity, surveillance and communications.

Then in early September last year, China set up its first ‘commercial’ quantum network providing telephone and data communication services in its province of Shandong, which is expected to be soon connected to a non-commercial Beijing-Shanghai quantum network. Later that month, Chinese Academy of Sciences held a video conference (“an intercontinental quantum call”) with Austrian scientists using quantum communication over a distance of 7,600kms. It also announced it would build the world’s biggest quantum research facility, (a $10 billion center in Hefei city) to produce a working quantum computer that could break through any computer security codes within seconds. On the heels of this news, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba announced it would invest $15 billion in R&D projects associated with quantum computing, to develop the futuristic ‘Internet of Things’, artificial intelligence, etc. It must be noted here that China has already built the world’s fastest supercomputer, the SunwayTaihu Light, and is said to be ahead of Western giants - Google, IBM and Microsoft - in quantum computing.

Quantum computing

The edge quantum computing (which is still in its very nascent form) has over classical computing comes in terms of both the speed and processing of information. Whereas classical computers use a ‘bit’ or a single piece of information that exists only in two states ‘1’ or ‘0’, the unpredictability of subatomic particles allows a quantum computer to store information in more than just ‘1’ or ‘0’ (called a quantum bit or qubit), as information can exist in any superposition of these values, in being both ‘1’ and ‘0’ at the same time. This makes quantum computing thousand times faster and more capable of processing zillion probabilities simultaneously.

Thus, the principles of quantum computing may be likened to the ambivalent solution Ibn Arabi found as a precocious mystic in the famous ‘yes-no’ answer he gave to the great philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes) on their first meeting. “Yes-No! Between the yes and the no, spirits take wing from their matter and necks are separated from their bodies”.

Although commercial possibilities of quantum computing extend from the mapping of the genome, oil exploration, cancer detection and handling of air traffic, its military applications promise to be much more significant and enormous.

The quantum race

Any country which makes the first significant breakthrough in quantum computing could break any enemy encryption including all its classified information, activate its computer operated weaponry, build navigation systems that cannot be jammed and develop artificial intelligence in war fighting — making the fiction of Hollywood flicks like ‘Terminator’ and ‘The Matrix’ a distinct possibility.

In the 1960s, Soviet Union inaugurated the ‘space race’ against its superpower rival the United States when it sent the first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin to space. The 21^st century might similarly witness the rise of a quantum race between China and the West, which could advance the creation of artificial intelligence that physicist Stephen Hawking fears could be the “worst event” in civilization.

Arthur Herman, who heads the technology and defense program at the Hudson Institute, is already urging the US government to increase funding into quantum research. “We need a Manhattan Project-style funding focus in order for a national quantum initiative to succeed,” Herman says in reference to America’s World War II program that produced the first nuclear weapon.

AFTER HARD, SOFT AND SMART, IT’S SHARP POWER

The verbiage of the still evolving discipline of international relations grows thicker and more prolix by the day, making it ever more difficult for its exponents to keep pace with new ideas. It was in the early 90s when American political scientist Joseph Nye introduced the concept of ‘soft power’ and by the time US government started acknowledging its importance in mid-2000s, the Harvard professor introduced another concept ‘smart power’ as an extension of his earlier theoretical premise.

Power to influence

In recent months, a new term has caught the fancy of American political experts ­­- ‘sharp power’. The coinage has not only been bandied as a legitimate concept in international relations, it is claimed that it is fast making redundant the post-Cold War terminologies of ‘hard’ power’, ‘soft power’ and ‘smart power’.  Calling for a rethink of ‘soft power’, a report by the National Endowment for Democracy published last December argues: “the conceptual vocabulary that has been used since the Cold War’s end no longer seems adequate to the contemporary situation.”

To the less sanguine, ‘sharp power’ may be a hybrid of ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’ or a sub-set of one of them. However, to its detractors the newly minted term is not a legitimate political concept but a mere instrument of information warfare launched by ‘motivated’ Western academia against the rise of China and Russia as influential ‘soft powers’.

The concept of ‘sharp power’ was first introduced in a paper ‘The Meaning of Sharp Power: How Authoritarian States Project Influence’ by Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig that was published in the noted US magazine on international relations Foreign Affairs on 16 November 2017. It was abstracted from their then upcoming report in International Forum for Democratic Studies titled: ‘Soft Power to Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence in the Democratic World’.

The paper expounds Nye’s definition of hard power and soft power in order to then elucidate the concept of sharp power. It states that Nye conceived hard power as based on coercion, and largely being the function of a country’s military or economic might through threat or payment. In contrast, soft power was “based on attraction, arising from the positive appeal of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies—as well as from a vibrant, independent civil society”. Thus, soft power covers diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, economic reconstruction and development, as well as cultural influence like art, literature, music, cinema, design, fashion, and even food. 

In addition, smart power is the careful calibration of hard power and soft power to achieve political objectives against a target country or bloc, and refers to “an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand one's influence and establish legitimacy of one's action.”

New coinage

However, in recent months some Western political scientists have come up with the prevalence of a different power dynamic in the sphere of international relations, which they describe as ‘sharp power’. According to these academicians, ‘authoritarian states’ like Russia and China employ techniques of influence that may not be considered either ‘hard’ in an openly coercive sense or ‘soft’ as they are neither benign nor persuasive in their methods. In fact, far from using attraction and persuasion their attempt is supposed to cause distraction and manipulation. An article in the magazine The Economist recently defined “sharp power” by its reliance on “subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship.”

According to the proponents of this new concept some countries “pierce, penetrate, or perforate the political and information environments in the targeted countries,” and thus their method of influence is neither ‘soft’ or hard’ but ‘sharp’. These political scientists particularly blame China and Russia for using ‘sharp power’ to promote their national interests in the international sphere.

The argument here is that authoritarian states exploit freedoms in the Western world to covertly propagate their partisan and illiberal views. The proponents of ‘sharp power’ openly blame Russia and China for having opened media outlets and global television channels to manipulate news or establish educational or cultural centres abroad to “monopolize ideas, suppress alternative narratives, and exploit partner institutions.” It is also alleged that certain countries influence important politicians in the Western world or give election donations to political parties in order to effect change in a country’s leadership and policies.

Sharp and invasive

Interestingly, this theory of ‘sharp power’ comes in the wake of ongoing investigations by the FBI (US’ domestic intelligence agency) into charges that a top Russian banker having links with the Kremlin illegally moved money to fund President Trump’s election campaign in 2016. In Australia, Labor senator Sam Dastyari quit his country’s senate after reports that he had received money from a billionaire with ties to the Chinese government. The senator was known to have contradicted his country’s official position on the territorial dispute with China over the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, Germany’s spy agency has also accused China of contacting about 10,000 German citizens through social media, which includes legislators and civil servants, in the hope of ‘gleaning information and recruiting sources.’ It alleges that China has been using the LinkedIn business network to ensnare politicians and government officials, by having people posing as recruiters and think-tankers and offering free trips.

 Western press reports also talk about China “grooming up-and-coming politicians from Britain, especially those with business links to the country”. In fact, Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand has gone to the extent of calling the use of ‘sharp power’ by China and Russia as the “new global battle”.

War of words

For its part, China has called the entire argument about its alleged ‘sharp power’ as “irresponsible and paranoid”. It attributes such allegations as a sign of anxiety among major powers towards the country’s growing international influence. As for Joseph Nye, the political pundit claims that one of the great dangers of sharp power is that democracies might be tempted to imitate sharp power tools of authoritarian regimes and lose their openness and soft power, which he deems as vital assets.

However, there are cynics who contend that the so-called sharp power tools and information warfare techniques are not the inventions or the exclusive preserve of China or Russia and have been used by secret services (particularly, espionage and manipulation) of various countries including democracies for a very long time.

Western Liberalism in Crisis: The Need for Introspection

From being Fukuyama’s celebrated ‘end of history’ in 1989 to facing its most serious challenge since World War II, Western liberalism is no longer the undisputed political panacea it was once viewed as. With the rise of so-called ‘anti-liberal, nationalist’ governments and movements sweeping across the US and Europe, the much vaunted liberal international order today faces an ideological challenge.

A recent study by Stanford University Professor Larry Diamond found the steady erosion of liberal polity between the years 2000 and 2016, with democracies breaking down in 27 countries and authoritarian regimes becoming even less responsive to their citizens. A white paper issued by The World Economic Forum in 2016 confirmed this trend, wherein “the liberal world order is being challenged by powerful authoritarian movements and anti-liberal fundamentalists.” The Brexit vote and the emergence of Donald Trump as the US president in 2016 has further alarmed self-styled proponents of liberalism, for as John Mearsheimer puts it “Trump ran against every element of liberal hegemonic agenda and still got elected”.

Several reasons have been bandied for the rising public disaffection with the globalist liberal ideal. Many blame the emergence of the problem to the neo-liberal assertion in the 1990s that the benefits of free market dynamics would cumulatively help resolve even complex socio-political issues. However, it turned out that unbridled capitalism led to huge income disparities across the globe, a phony debt-driven consumerist culture and the rise of a corporate elite (the infamous one percent of society) prone to corrupting the democratic body politic with motivated campaign donations, business lobbies and pressure groups. The impoverishment of the middle classes in the West that form the bedrock of many liberal democracies, systemic anomalies caused by dangerous speculative instruments in finance, introduction of new technologies and globalization of industry etc. have raised social anxieties and political unrest to a fever pitch.

Today, even the most ardent supporters of liberalism have started to accept some of the mistakes made by the post-Cold War neoliberal order led by the US. To Harvard Professor Stephen M. Walt post Cold War liberalism perhaps ‘over-promised’ what it could deliver.

According to him, “promoters of the liberal experiment argued that spreading democracies, human rights and open markets would guarantee peace and prosperity everywhere and largely for everyone, but of course that turned out not to be the case.” Among the political blunders he claims the liberal elite made were the invasion of Iraq, the creation of the euro, the mismanagement of the US economy leading to the financial crisis of 2008 and the politics of austerity in Europe that prolonged the crisis.

Another Harvard professor, Michael Sandel posits that “people want politics to be about values, moral questions, justice, inequality and what it means to be a citizen, but when liberal and progressive voices failed to offer that kind of politics and became largely technocratic that vacuum was filled by narrow, intolerant voices and strident nationalism we see today”.

For his part, Francis Fukuyama avers that being individualistic in orientation, liberal societies develop weak collective identities, unlike the strong sense of identification with community and a higher purpose engendered by nationalist and religious groups that gain traction in times socio-political instability and crises. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the influx of migrants into US and Europe, it is only natural that the values of liberal tolerance and universality would suffer in the West.

These frank admissions of failures by liberal thinkers, though highly commendable and reflective of the spirit of introspection that liberalism rightfully extols, seem out of sync with the erstwhile dogmatism they displayed while spreading the liberal message through coercive means around the world, often with disastrous consequences. Take for instance, the self-righteous assertion by liberal thinkers like Professor Michael Doyle that non-liberal governments are almost invariably in a state of aggression with their own people. Such conceited claims about the deviousness of other political systems underscores the rank ideological fervour Western powers resorted to while making gratuitous interventions, unwarranted invasions and gross violations of the sovereignty of non liberal nations in recent decades. The pretext was almost invariably the imposition of a liberal democracy in countries and societies which may or may not have had any prior experience or understanding about such systems of governance. Many Western powers often imposed these ideological solutions through military means or punitive economic measures, often contravening their own national interests, expert geo-strategic warnings and the very values of tolerance, rule of law and universal morality that liberalism professes.

The challenges facing Western liberalism notwithstanding, the world needs to cherish and imbibe many of its universalist principles such as tolerance, rule of law, human rights etc. For its part, Western liberal powers also need to introspect about some of their dogmatic excesses in the past, which would help them restore an increasingly fractious and disjointed global order.

RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM: IS THE WEST CATCHING THE MIDDLE EAST FLU?

Extremism is a polarizing force that strives to manifest its professed demons in order to legitimize its cause. More often than not it succeeds in creating its ‘Other’ in its own image as it projects its perceived insecurities and fears onto the psyche of its supposed rival. As societies implode into contending camps, moderates in the middle get squeezed from all sides and are vilified as two-faced timeservers, enemy collaborators or as mere feckless nincompoops.

In such an ionized atmosphere, faith trumps reason and liberalism gets a bad name. This is not just the story of the Middle East, strangely the West is fast catching the flu. The virulence of ISIS’ radicalism has not only created its own set of hideous lone wolves and sleeper cells in the West, it has also engendered its doppelgangers in far-right White supremacist groups — albeit of a considerably less noxious variety until now.

Doom loop of liberalism

Derek Thompson attributes the rising tide of far-right extremism in the West and the emerging “doom loop of liberalism” to three contemporary trends:  low birth rate of Western societies, the fragility of European welfare states and rising wave of foreign migrants. The far-right groups blame the general permissiveness of ‘neo-liberal’ mores and the advocacy of LGBTQ rights as responsible for the ‘death’ of the institution of marriage in the West leading to declining birth rates and a consequent need for foreign workers. Similarly, neo-liberal support for environment protection is misconstrued as being detrimental to Western industries forcing multinational companies to shift their centers of gravity to Asia, leaving behind predatory ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions for Western populations to fend. The messages of repressing ethnic and racial identities and of ‘compromising’ national interests at the altar of a technocratic, globalist neo-liberal order has started resonating with even moderate sections of Western societies. The last match to light the tinderbox has been the swarm of refugees from Syria, Libya and other Middle East states entering Europe in recent years bringing economic uncertainties to the continent and a series of terrorist attacks to boot.

The Populist Challenge

The most glaring sign of this rising tide of rabid nationalism was on view in the recent “Independence March” held in Warsaw on November 11, in which about 60,000 people took part — which included several fascists and White supremacists who chanted slogans like “down with the refugees,” “Europe will be White” and “God, honour, homeland”. They sought the removal of both ‘the Jewry’ and Muslims from their country as many banners called for “clean blood”. Surprisingly, Poland’s government, led by the right-wing Law and Justice Party, described the rally as a “beautiful sight” and defended the protestors as “patriotic”.

In fact, Europe has been witnessing a groundswell of populist challenge to liberal democracy for quite some time now, which is evident even in the recent election results of various European states. On October 15, right wing conservative candidate Sebastian Kurz won the Austrian general election on an anti-immigration platform and is on the verge of becoming its youngest chancellor. In the Czech Republic, the October 20-21 legislative election has produced an anti-EU and an anti-establishment candidate, Andrej Babis, as the prime minister-designate. Meanwhile, the anti-immigration rhetoric of Alternative for Germany party has made it the third largest party in Germany’s parliament (Bundestag), where it has claimed 94 seats. This is the first time any far right party has entered German parliament since 1961.

Meanwhile, two regions in Italy — Lombardy and Veneto — voted for more autonomy in late October, coming on the heels of referendum in Catalonia voting to secede from Spain. The same anti-EU trend was notable in Britain’s referendum in June last year, when the UK electorate voted against being part of the European Union (now dubbed the Brexit vote), thereby agreeing with the position taken by the right wing UK Independence Party (UKIP) and even some Conservative Party members. 

Across the pond in the United States, there has been a marked increase in hate attacks against people of colour, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ community and other minorities this year. On August 12, hundreds of white supremacists and neo-Nazis reportedly converged on Charlottesville, Virginia, for “Unite the Right” rally, the largest of its kind held in the US in recent decades. The rally descended to outright clashes with anti-racist and anti-fascist activists throughout the city, causing widespread violence and the killing of a 32 year old social worker. Since then, several “White Lives Matter” rallies have been organized.

Meanwhile, a survey report issued last month by the US media organization NPR (National Public Radio), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, found that the most White Americans believe they face racial discrimination in their country. Out of the 902 White Americans surveyed, 55 per cent believed there was discrimination against their race. However, only 19 per cent claimed they had personally experienced racism against them.

Global village? Not yet!

These developments point to a very destabilizing situation unfolding in advanced countries of the West, which need to be addressed before it escalates out of control. Perhaps, the world could not keep pace with the speed of globalization in recent decades and the votaries of a neo-liberal “end of history” theory were too premature in making their bold predictions. It is also noteworthy that all extremist religious and nationalist movements around the world think remarkably alike and they all oppose the liberal and humanitarian values upon which the modern international order is founded.

This makes for a very disconcerting trend. There is clearly a need for introspection and course correction, which ironically can only come from the moderate and liberal sections of the international community. Perhaps, regional groupings and international institutions — like the World Bank, the IMF and the EU — should become less prescriptive and more responsive to the needs and vulnerabilities of their member states, and should take into account societal fault-lines while making decisions. Governments and civil society in every country also need to identify and resolve the unaddressed real issues facing various communities that extremists exploit to justify their call. There is clearly a need to initiate fresh ideas and policies to drain the growing swamp of hate and intolerance in order to build a more peaceful and integrated global society for tomorrow.

REFERENDUMS: THE DANGERS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property”. This anti-democratic diatribe does not come from any advocate of totalitarianism, but surprisingly from the ‘Father of the US Constitution’ and the ‘Bill of Rights’, James Madison (Federal Papers No. 10, 1787 AD). In fact, the ‘Founding Fathers’ ensured that the United States of America becomes a Constitutional Republic, with sufficient checks and balances on direct democracy to mitigate the dangers they thought it is susceptible to.

Ironically, there have been many well-meaning political philosophers throughout history — including Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Nietzsche etc. — who have consistently pointed out the flaws of democracy, with some regarding it worse than monarchy and a precursor to anarchy and tyranny. Even John Locke, whose political philosophies are said to have inspired the French and American Revolutions, was an exponent of representative form of democracy but not direct democracy — as the representative form was designed to check the ills of unbridled democracy, such as populism and majoritarianism.

The disturbing increase in referendums

Therefore the spate of direct democracy experiments since 2016 — such as the Brexit vote against EU membership, the Columbian vote against the FARC peace deal, Thai referendum in favour of military rule, Turkish vote for expanding presidential powers, the Kurdish, Catalan and last week’s Italian referendums — have drawn serious concerns among many Western political experts over the increasing impact of referendums on political stability and their “undemocratic” fallout. It is a disturbing new trend indicating growing public resentment towards failures of democratic governance and state institutions.

Direct democracy has three principal devices: ‘Initiative’ (citizens bypass legislatures by placing proposed statutes), ‘Referendum’ (wherein citizens vote on policy issues, even secession) and ‘Recall’ (citizens vote to recall or replace a public official before the end of the term of office). Another term ‘Plebiscite’ is also used and connotes a non-binding, advisory referendum conducted by a government. However, Referendum has now become a generic term for all forms of direct democracy.

With the exception of Rousseau and Anarcho-Syndicalists like Noam Chomsky, referendums have generally drawn intellectual flak since times of ancient Rome, as they seek a simplistic ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response from the electorate on highly complex political issues. To make matters worse, certain governments seek answers from an electorate on a variety of issues in a single vote, like the Turkish referendum this year which asked the general electorate to vote on 21 constitutional amendments in one go.

The general level of voter apathy or ignorance on complex political issues, even in advanced countries, is cited as a drawback of direct democracy. Most voters find it difficult to have the knowledge, inclination or time to fully study and delve into the subtler aspect of a piece of legislation. Their views are often influenced by campaign slogans, jingles, the social media, opinions of family, friends, their race, religion etc. Thus, Winston Churchill once famously observed: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter”.

To circumvent these problems, Western nations devised a representative form of democracy, wherein people elect officials, who are implicitly trusted to be aware of the subtleties and intricacies of policy and decide on behalf of their constituency. The legislative body and parliament retains opposition members, whose job is to question the majority-backed legislation and bring out a more nuanced understanding on policy issues during debates. However, referendums only uphold the majority verdict and leave no space for the opposing view, even when the margin of victory is narrow (like the Brexit ‘leave’ vote which garnered a little less than 52 percent).

Populism and majoritarianism

Sometimes, the popularity of any political party or leader calling for a referendum can influence people’s views away from the merit of the proposal put up for a referendum. Thus, the electorate ends up voting for a political leader or a party and not on the proposal for which the vote was sought.

Again, the time-specific vagaries and mood swings of an election can often skew the purpose of an important referendum. Sometimes, elections are influenced by populist or emotive issues and may violate minority rights, universal ethical values and curtail civil and individual liberties. This is illustrated by the fact that many dictators, like Adolf Hitler in 1934, have used referendums to legitimise their rule. As a concept, democracy is not limited to the process of elections, but comes with a complete set of political values including civil liberties, minority rights, rule of law etc.

 Sometimes, rich regions in an economically challenged or politically unstable country (like the Kurdish region or Catalonia) decide to opt out or secede from their nation, just when the state needs their support the most. Such referendums seem oblivious to the fact that a declaration of independence might not resolve any problem but might trigger greater hostilities and dissensions within the province, the state and the region. It is for these reasons that the Kurdish and Catalan referendums have not been welcomed by the international community.

Therefore, it is important to understand that the buzzword of democracy in and of itself cannot be used to justify indiscriminate political determinism. Democracy is a movement of collective and institutional consciousness that grows over time and requires gradual and sustained nourishment across diverse societies having varying socio-political sensibilities and outlook. The one-system-fits-all approach cannot always provide desirable or sustainable outcomes.

Political Branding: From Gandhi to ISIS

By Dr Adil Rasheed

A picture may speak a thousand words, but a single political image – like the mythical beauty of Helen of Troy – may well nigh launch a “thousand ships to war”. Thus, as a coinage ‘political branding’ may be of recent origin, derived from the textbooks of modern advertising and PR, but conceptually it has been practised by statesmen and demagogues for ages.

In fact, it is politics of yore that has taught modern advertising the nuances of public perception, crowd manipulation, mass hysteria, propaganda, misinformation and mind control, as was most evident in the fake WMD drum-roll leading to the Iraq War and the social media-driven mischief of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Ironically, the domain of subliminal messaging and brainwashing has never been as pervasive and misleading as in the ‘new media’-propelled campaigns of our times.

‘Commodifying’ Leadership

In fact, it is surprising how a simple, emotive symbol or a trusted brand can open up hearts and minds of millions of people to dangerous ideological implants, a collective delirium studied in depth by the Christopher Nolan film Inception. Similarly, the art of personality branding can make or break political careers overnight. Many political leaders and movements are naturally gifted in ‘commodifying’ themselves and in projecting their carefully calibrated brand image.

Political branding - like any form of commercial branding - is the process of giving a prospective public figure or a movement a distinctly emotive identity, so that its sentimental appeal in public perception resists any intelligent attempt at scratching the surface. This art of seducing highly impressionable minds – be it through a catchy slogan, logo, clothing, looks, speech, or mannerism - comes naturally to gifted politicians, film stars and adept political groups, who use it for various ethical, amoral and at times immoral purposes.

In fact, religious and political brands have always been used to mobilize the masses for righteous and diabolic purposes, be it the Christian Cross or the Communist Hammer and Sickle, Churchill’s famous ‘V’ for  victory sign or Hitler’s Nazi salute in his Chaplin-like moustache.

The half-naked fakir

Paradoxically, the most gifted exponent of political branding in the 20^th century was the plainly unassuming Mahatma Gandhi. Although there was no fakery involved in his distinctly genuine and recognizable brand, Gandhi became a powerful political symbol of non-violence and simplicity against colonial oppression and modern consumerism. A bespectacled messiah-like figure, wearing a self-woven loins-cloth and wielding a shepherd’s walking stick, Gandhi’s venerable image resonated more with poverty-stricken Indian masses than any evoked by his contemporary Indian leaders. As a consequence, a nation’s destiny was revived and millions rallied behind this “half-naked fakir” to end the misrule of the British Raj. Gandhi stood up to the might of the British empire by becoming the universal brand ambassador of his own principles. Simply put, he looked the part and became the change.

Rebel without a cause

Another iconic brand, which eventually became more popular than political, is that of the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara. His image is not only being used by Left-wing politicians  today,like the former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, but is also traduced by small-time merchants to sell air fresheners in Peru, snowboards in Switzerland and cheap liquor in Italy. Korda’s famous photograph of Che taken in 1960 now symbolizes not the violent Marxist leader of his time, but the quintessential young rebel without a cause.

Other notable mentions are Abraham Lincoln, the first leader whose 19^th century photographs were retouched in his time to improve his public image, John F. Kennedy who did not just market his policies but also harnessed his celebrity image, Yasser Arafat who gave a name and identity to the Palestinian cause by wearing a distinctive keffiyeh over military fatigues and Barack Obama whose famous red and blue ‘O’ brand symbolised hope and made him the first Black president of the US.

ISIS’ iconography

Muslim leaders have historically kept themselves away from political branding in principle as Islam eschews iconography even for symbolic purposes. However, this trend has been sullied by the most pernicious terrorist organization ISIS, when it used the impression of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) seal on its flag. Lacking religious support or legitimacy from any respected Islamic scholarship, the group resorted to such irreverence only to ensnare the misguided and impressionable. Its monochromatic black flags are again an attempt to authenticate its claim of being a prophesized apocalyptic force. This illegitimate brand identity of the group may have won it a few neophytes initially, but has consigned it to infamy in Muslim history forever.

Thus, political branding can work either in favour or against any aspiring political leader or organization. Again, the invention of a brand identity cannot itself give longevity to the political career of its subject. However, in today’s age of information overload and confusion, populations need to develop abilities of critical discernment whenever ideas calling for reforms are presented in a revolutionary package. No self-righteous political leader or movement should be taken at face value, for as the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes once put it, “There is nothing more deceptive than the obvious”.

NEW CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS

IDSA Website

May 15, 2017

For a long time Indian strategists have sought to devise a credible strategic communications programme against the devious indoctrination of the vulnerable sections in Kashmir society by Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled terror groups, which has increasingly taken on a religious colour, but is mainly directed at weaning the state of Jammu and Kashmir away from India.

However, in the absence of any effective public relations or ideological counter-narratives campaign, it is ironic that the act of discrediting Kashmiri secessionism has come from a highly unlikely quarter.

Salafi jihadi groups, particularly ISIS operatives, using social media apps like Telegram have been quite busy these days denouncing the so-called Kashmir independence movement as ‘un-Islamic’. To them, jihad should not be conducted for nationalistic reasons but instead waged solely to please Allah (what they call ‘jihad fi Sabilillah’), which, in practical terms, implies the imposition of the most Salafized version of Shariah. According to the transnational Salafi terror outfits, the championing of democracy by Kashmiri separatists and leaving the character of the political dispensation of a prospective breakaway Kashmiri state to the will of its people delegitimizes the Islamic credentials of the movement.

In addition, the methods and means adopted for the so-called resistance by segments of the Kashmiri populace has also come under criticism by the purveyors of global jihad. Thus, ISIS elements have denounced the participation of Kashmiri women in stone-pelting activities against Indian soldiers, which, to them, violates the conservative Islamist norms regarding Muslim women’s conduct in public life.

Pakistan’s provision of support to the secessionist Kashmiris is also denounced as irreligious by the ISIS and Al-Qaeda, because, in their view, the state of Pakistan is an ‘apostate’ power, in that it has avoided the full implementation of Shariah rule and has ostensibly sided with the international coalition against terror.

This growing vilification of the Kashmiri movement by Salafi-Jihadi terror groups is a part of their overt radicalization attempts aimed at hijacking the sub-nationalist insurgency. There is a new cat among the pigeons! In fact, there are early signs of doctrinal wedges appearing among the jihadist outfits operating in the valley and this ideological dissonance is intended to prepare the ground for a turf war between the forces of jihadist globalization and the indigenous secessionist leadership represented by the Hurriyat.

The ideological wedge has widened to the extent that Burhan Wani’s successor as the leader of Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir, Zakir Musa, has himself quit the organization. Following the Salafi-jihadi line of jihadism, he has called for the creation of an Islamic State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this action, Zakir has reportedly drawn the support of two other militant outfits — Harkatul Mujahideeen (HuM) and Kashmir Taliban.

The confusion among the Pakistan-backed jihadi groups and Kashmiri secessionist forces over the growing ideological influence of the ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the trajectory of the movement is palpable in the Hurriyat’s recent strongly-worded condemnation of ISIS and other foreign jihadist groups. A portion of the joint statement issued by the three main Hurriyat leaders – Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik – posted on the coalition’s website on May 8 reads, “Our movement has nothing to do with these world level groups (Al-Qaeda, ISIS etc.) and practically they are non-existent in the state. There is no role for these groups in our movement.”

But the statement does not stop at dissociating the movement from global jihad. In order to fend off disturbing Islamist claims, Hurriyat leaders have resorted to blaming their ‘Other’ (i.e. the Indian government) for even this alleged ‘conspiracy’. This can be seen from the following sentences on its web portal: “Authorities in Delhi have now started to play a vicious game under the garb and label of ‘holy war’. It is a ploy to create a wedge between people and brave hearts, said they (sic). Quoting reliable sources, leadership disclosed that agencies are hiring some sick minded and Ikhwan type goons (sic) and they have been assigned the task for creating chaos in state.”

The outrageous conceit of placing the blame for ISIS’s criticism of the Kashmir movement on the Indian government in order to defend the indefensible, inane and ludicrous as is, only highlights the heightened sense of unease and desperation among Hurriyat leaders in the wake of their receding credibility among the Kashmiri masses.

It is to be noted that this Salafi-jihadist ideological salvo comes at a time when there is growing resentment among young Kashmiri radicals, who are questioning the commitment of the Hurriyat leaders towards their avowed cause. Writing on a secessionist website dubbed Kashmir Despatch, a purported resident of the province going by the name Inamur Rahman has criticized Hurriyat leaders of being engaged in pointless academic pursuits at a time when the insurgency was at its most critical moment. He criticises Geelani for having the time to write and release a book on 20th century poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal in April 2017 even as the civil strife following Burhan Wani’s death last year petered to an inconsequential end. He then refers to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s PhD, which was on a 14th century saint rather than on the ongoing Kashmir conflict. The author claims, “This shows how much the Hurriyat is disengaged, disinterested and disconnected with the masses.”

Do these developments point to a gradual shift in the ideological drivers of the Kashmir insurgency? Does it mark the decline of the self-styled leaders of the Kashmir uprising and the emergence of a more rabid, extreme global Salafi-jihadist movement? Will this trend gain momentum and alter the course of the secessionist movement? Answers to these question are essential if the Indian authorities are to successfully navigate these treacherous waters in the times ahead.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India