Thursday, December 23, 2010

The Reformation of Iran and the Historical Impact of Reza Shah Pahlavi: A Brief Overview


Reza Shah Pahlavi, prime minister and then first sultan of the former Imperial State of Iran, was instrumental in creating a more modern Iran. Though most IR scholars would hesitate to call today's Iran "modern," the transformations Reza Shah put Iran through in the 1920s was an attempt to improve the society and bring the country into the new century. Back then, this was a monumental and dramatic change.

Reza Shah’s rise to power in the 1920s marked a beginning of authoritarian reforms that would forever change the face of the country. Reza Shah, originally a colonel in the Cossack Brigade, became the respected prime minister of Iran in 1923. He aimed to bring similar reforms to Iran as Kemal Ataturk had brought to Turkey. Reza Shah took complete control of the Iranian political system, making the Majlis’ elections essentially null and void (the Majlis being the political assembly in Iran at the time). Reza Shah enforced the banning of trade unions, the abolition of opposition parties (as well as the arrest of officials with whom he was discontent), and the use of censorship. Though these measures may differ from most Western ideals, Reza Shah actually sought to reform Iran in the likes of Westernization.

Reza Shah’s idea of modernization was mirrored in his efforts to bring authority to tribal leaders, by forcibly disarming the tribes and confiscating their land. Though these measures were effective, they ultimately led to the poverty of these tribes. The Shari’a judicial system was bypassed, making room for new secular legislation. In 1932, a law was passed that abolished the Ulama’s right to register legal documents. In 1939, all waqf lands were seized (waqf meaning a religious endowment in Islam, often used for religious and/or charitable purposes). Reza Shah also attempted to centralize tax collection and finance by hiring an American financial expert, Dr. Millspaugh, to reorganize the finance and tax collection of Iran in 1922.

Education reform was another accomplishment of Reza Shah’s reign. As a result of the regime devoting more funds to education, the number of enrolled students rose dramatically. Tehran University was opened in 1935, each year offering one hundred scholarships to study abroad at European universities. Unlike in Turkey, madrassahs were not abolished. Instead, in Iran, the number of students enrolled in madrassahs increased as well. Reza Shah tried to implement a modern, nationalist attitude in Iran, not quite accounting for the diversity in ethnic groups occupying the country. Students in schools around the country were taught to form patriotic attitudes. Reza Shah favored the banning of minority languages and even restricted the use of some Arabic and Turkish words, in favor of the national language, Persian. Though Iran fostered a flourishing industrialst era, the rural areas and agricultural development left something to be desired.

In 1936 the Ulama in Iran were snubbed by means of a new law enacted that stated all judges in the new state courts were to have a degree from the Tehran University Faculty of Law or from a foreign university. The Ulama had their own means of education; they were Muslim legal scholars who were already well-versed in many fields of Islamic studies. The reforms in Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey seemed to be more for the benefit of the Turkish people and for the benefit of the country; he wished to build popular sovereignty in the constitution. The reforms of Reza Shah seemed more aligned with building his personal power and that of his son, whom he wished to rule after him.

Iran’s neutrality during World War II (though the country possessed a well-known pro-German attitude) was a cause for concern in the west. Iran was occupied by British and Russian forces, who took advantage of its vast oil resources. The United States left civilian and military personnel in Iran after the war, who then established influential positions in Iranian government.

Thus, reforms in the fields of financial administration and military organization were established, a move that still influences U.S.-Iranian relations today.

In a political climate which focuses so heavily on Iran's nuclear program, its human rights abuses, and the rhetoric of its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is important to take a take back and reflect upon the history of this country, rather than focusing all attention on issues of today- pertinent and dire though they may be.

-Elizabeth Dovell


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Recent Award Ceremonies Don Musical-Chairs Theme


By Michelle Consorte

Despite the theory that human rights ideals are 'universal,' and the belief that governments are charged with the duty of protecting those they represent, several countries still refuse to accept self-criticism from their citizens, even when faced with international disapproval.

Recently, two awards ceremonies have stood out to the international human rights community as further proof that universal acceptance of these basic rights is still far from reality.

The first, and the more prestigious award was the Nobel Peace Prize, given to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. He was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power" and sentenced to 11 years in prison. At the ceremony, as no immediate member of Liu's family nor any of his close friends—let alone Liu himself—were allowed to go to Oslo to accept the award, an empty chair received the medal of honor in his place.

According to an article in The Guardian, The Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said that Beijing must learn to take criticism, and referenced Articles 35 and 41 of China's own constitution which allow Chinese citizens "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association" and "the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary".

Putting the situation into a larger context, he added that to a certain extent China's size and economic might mean it is "carrying the fate of mankind on its shoulders." In effect, if we can get China to adhere to human rights standards (which is has already agreed to but frequently chooses to ignore to keep control of its own authoritarian power) a good portion of the battle, merely through sheer size, will be won.

One attendee who also read on Liu's behalf was the actor Liv Ullmann. Ullmann was critical of China's current position but optimistic that change was on the horizon and that human rights are capable of universality, stating, "there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme."

A second ceremony that included an empty chair to hold the place of the winner was for the European Union's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Guillermo Farinas was to be awarded the prize for his consistent human rights campaigning, which includes staging over 20 hunger strikes and having been in prison for a total of 11 year. The latest hunger strike, which had Farinas on his death bed, ended in July when the Cuban government agreed to release 52 political prisoners.

Farinas said he accepted the award on behalf of the Cuban people and for all those others who also campaign for human rights. He stated, "[t]he only fear I have is of failing the Cuban people and the campaign for democracy in Cuba."

Unfortunately, like Liu Xiaobo, Farinas was also barred from attending the award ceremony by his own government. He was denied an exit visa by the Cuban government, preventing him from traveling to France to accept the award. Attempts by the European Union to convince the Cuban government to let Farinas go were to no avail. And so, yet another prisoner of conscience and human rights activist was denied the ability to accept his rightful prize. Another shame and another blotch on the government's human rights record (both China and Cuba).

For those who argue that human rights are not universal but are only western ideals and a ploy to try to force imperialistic beliefs on other parts of the world, I have to ask, what is so negative or dangerous about spreading ideals of human freedom? If life and liberty are not not protected by the government but, instead, seen as detrimental to the government's own authority then there is something wrong with the structure, not the rights or the call for them.

Economic and social progress are not mutually-exclusive; they must be harnessed in tandem. It is imperative that nations take human rights seriously and adhere to their principles vigorously. As Michael Waltzer states in his work, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, human rights are always present as undeniable entities and "are still standing at the very moment they are overridden: that is why they have to be overridden."

With that in mind, we as an increasingly globalized world must move toward a point in time where empty chairs do not fill in for award recipients solely because the winner was not allowed out of the country by the government that is supposed to be protecting and representing them.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

I Am Staying For The Adventure

By Adrienn Kácsor


“A message for my friends who are planning to immigrate to the West: I am staying for the adventure.” Ironically enough, but this common saying, which was originally popular amid the underground Hungarian opponents of the Communist era, now became absolutely fashionable again: this time amongst the leftist rivals of the present Hungarian government. Unfortunately, today's opponents have every reason to use the legendary rhetoric from the past.


The present ruling party Fidesz gained an absolute majority in the Parlament this April, when the last elections were held; Fidesz now seems to use this power in an utterly undemocratic way.


After electing a previous sportsman as the President of Hungary, in this way getting rid of one political power that would normally be able to balance the government, Fidesz took an even more serious step toward a totalitarian-styled power; this time Fidesz eliminated the Constitutional Court (which, now let's say that used to function as the Supreme Court in Hungary). “Europe needs to send Hungary a signal,” pointed out La Guardian writer Jan-Werner Mueller, clearly stating his opinion: it is really time for the European Union to stand up against the Hungarian government's attacks on democracy. It was a long-awaited reaction; however, today's news show that these signs have not made Fidesz rethink its policy at all.


The latest news that arrived today: Hungary's two public television channels, public radio channel and public news agency will work under the umbrella of one centralized organization. News producing will be headed by a journalist arriving from the far-right media, who in an interview today said that “a public medium must be loyal to its government and fair with the opponents.”


As things are going in Hungary now, it sadly seems much more possible that the new centralized media organization will only keep loyalty in mind, but not fair play.


It is time to say goodbye to the freedom of the public media in Hungary...


Saturday, December 11, 2010

Be Hunted/Hunter: The Swiftly Changing Roles in Wafaa Bilal's Virtual Jihadi Project By Adrienn Kácsor


Americans are simply not used to be hunted,”1 summarizes Iraq-born artist Wafaa Bilal on why his artwork has caused so much tension since it was first shown in Chicago in 2008.


Bilal's cyber video game project, titled Virtual Jihadi is based on the subverted version of the “Quest for Saddam,” one of the most popular games in the past few years in the United States. The wargame, in which American troops hunt for Saddam Hussein during the occupation of Iraq, was first hacked by several cyber jihadist Al Qaeda members, who created a new game by exchanging the roles, and as a consequence, changing the whole narrative as well. In the new wargame, titled “A Night of Bush Capturing,” it was the Americans and not the Iraqis whose bodies suddenly became totally 'dehumanized' in the war.


Then came Wafaa Bilal, who twisted the narrative once again: he added his own character to the Bush-hunter game as a suicide-bomber terrorist. Underlying the structure of the original wargame so radically, the artist is aimed to reflect on the loss of his brother who was killed in 2005 at a U.S. checkpoint in Iraq. Bilal develops a second reality in the virtual world, to draw attention to the total absurdity of real life in a war zone. By promoting alternative perspectives of the Iraqi war, he creates opportunity for dialogue and criticism as well.


Beside pointing out how easily the “Western” world demonizes the “enemy,” the Virtual Jihadi project also challenges the relationship between gaming and war within a society. Since the beginning of the Cold War, wargaming2 has had a significant function in the United States: that is selling the idea of war to the public and clarifying who the “bad guys” are.


According to the German philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer's theory of gaming3, if one suddenly or radically changes the rules of a game, it would cease to be a game any more. This is exactly what happened with the Virtual Jihadi project in reality: after its premiere, the project was suspended at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Chicago and Balil was shut out of the building, as he was considered to be a real terrorist. This incident shows how easy it is to cross the border between reality and virtuality; and also how easily one can become the wanted “bad guy” in both worlds.


1Wafaa Balil talked about his artwork at a roundtable discussion, organized as a SanctionnedArray event on November 2, 2010, in New York City. http://www.arteeast.org/pages/events/1304/

2About the relation of wargaming and computer game, see e.g. Patrick Crogan, “Wargaming and Computer Games: Fun with the Future” In The Pleasure of Computer Gaming: essays on cultural history, theory and aesthetics. Edited by Melanie Swalwell and Jason P. Wilson. 2008, McFarland & Company, Inc., North Carolina, and also Bogost, Ian, The Persuasive Games: the Expressive Power of Video Games. 2007, MIT Press, Cambridge

3 Gadamer, Hans Georg: Truth and Method. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. 1989, Continuum,, New York.

Friday, December 10, 2010

The Role of Regents

by Esme Ellis


The attack last night on the Prince of Wale's Roles- Royce proved rather enlightening. The looks of shock on the Duchess' and the Prince's faces respectively spoke to an ignorance of the riots and a naivite of the popular reaction. Protestors broke the windows of the car, and a lone man jeered,"Off with their heads!" as the car passed by a crowd on its way to the theater.

Students in the U.K. are recovering today from a bout of protests regarding the revisal of student university fees. The price of an education is expected to rise to about 9,000 pounds a year, a shocking increase for most Britons. London has filled with students from all over the country for a vote which took place in Parliment on Thursday. The Liberal Democrats failed to produce a significant stance against the raise, and as a result, the tution increase is effective starting September 2012.

The matter is almost entirely out of the jurisdiction of the British Royal Family, and yet their reaction still has the entire country talking this morning. A protestor snapped a shot as the car passed by, and it is a curious photo. The Duchess is dressed in green silk, the prince in a suit and they wear faces of both shock and disbelief, as the lights surrounding the car press in closer. A video of the event shows a slow speed away from the scene, as crashes are heard and a paint can is lobbed at the Royal Royls- Royce.

There were some differences of opinion this morning on the sancrosanctity of the British Royal Family, and the subsequent exposure level they can be expected to have to social issues. The incident is an interesting opening into British conception of societal structure, as it is the direct involvement of the Royal Family in a "common issue." Education in Britain has traditionally been heavily subsidized by the state and it has played a crucial role in leveling the class structure which formed the backbone of British society for essentially the last 400 years.

The Royal Family in Britain plays a primarily symbolic role. They are a historical artifact, and evolving saga which every Briton knows the details of by heart. The Queen holds very little actual legislative or executive power: the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy in its extreme- Parliament is the actual governing body in the two party system, and these representatives are elected by district, with the possibility of coalition rule. The populace is responsible for their own elections.

In fact, the Queen's main source of authority lies in her ability to delegate power. By her mandate only are Prime Ministers approved for rule, and again, by her word only can Parliament be dissolved in the event of a conflict. She also retains the right to safe guard her own legacy and wealth- the Queen is not required to relegate any personal wealth back to the British state. Her hereditary fortune is hers.

These duties will fall on the shoulders of Prince Charles once his mother abdicates the throne, and the direction the royal family takes under his jurisdiction will determine much of the future of monarchy in the greatest European stronghold of nobility, Great Britain.

Other Constitutional monarchies have retain royals in primarily symbolic and advisatory positions: Denmark, Japan, Monaco, to name a few. Royals themselves have become increasingly mainstream with the years, placing themselves increasingly in the "normal" range: the Swedish Princess, Victoria, recently married her personal trainer, a move which placed European monarchy firmly in the 21st century. Prince William is not exactly engaged to the scullery maid- Kate Middleton is the daughter of millionaires, but given the English royal tradition of marrying within the upperclass noble elite, he might as well be.

The differenciating aspect of British society is that it's elites to not exist in total juxtapostion to the monarchy. There are levels of elitism within the elite, and a medival sense of belonging to England's upper class is hereditary, and like all clubs, very exclusive. There is only one way to join, and this is to be invited by default of birth. Concepts of "new money" resonate badly within this group, and while education has provided the means for less noble citizens to achieve fiscal and intellectual success, there is occaisionally a divide between the old families and the new money.

The historical shift away from a servant working class towards a modern Britain, occured with the rise of enterprenuers and also mass education. Education has been instrumental in facilitaitng change, and despite retaining a very archaic sense of elitism, Britain has made room for the equality of humanity within its borders, regardless of social class. The young people in Britian claim they are fighting for future generations as much as for themselves: attempts to limit education for the masses will be met with very strongly, as Great Britain owes its current structure to its educational system.

The debate on the events of last night will be worth watching, for those interested in British notions of society and class, and also pose interesting questions regarding the duties of a state towards educating it peoples.

Park51: 4 Months Later





By Maeve Dwyer

Sharif-El- Gamal has continued on with plans to build the 15-story community center Park51 despite the harsh criticism the project generated this fall. The media storm erupting over the 'mosque at Ground Zero' controversy could not have been missed by anyone even slightly tuned into the news. Parties on both sides of the debate were impassioned and to some extent guilty a hurling unnecessarily harsh insults at the opposing view, whether they be generalizing anyone with slight misgivings about Park51 as possessed by an Islamaphobia or blatantly declaring Park51 to be a 'victory mosque' built by Muslims who could barely be differentiated from the perpetrators of 9/11. Politicians and public figures across the country came out with their views on the matter, desperately trying to find a middle ground least likely to upset a significant number of people (unless of course they thrive off of angering the left in which case a present may just as well have dropped into their laps). The controversy brought the actual building Islamaphobia of the post- 9/11 United States into the open, trying to hide hate and ignorance behind a plea for 'tact'. Yet, after the November elections passed, Park51 largely disappeared from the news cycle almost as quickly as the public outrage set in.

However, more recently, the planned community center two blocks away from Ground Zero once again has started receiving snippets of media attention (and renewed criticism). Starting November 22, reports started circulating that Park51 had applied for a $5 million 9/11 rebuilding grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Council. According to NY Observer, Gamal says he is just trying different funding opportunities. The money would be directed toward violence prevention, education, and arts programming. Created hundred of construction jobs in the process and 150 permanent jobs once the projects is completed. This time around the arguments against Park51 have taken a different tone. Maybe this has to do with the absence of an upcoming election or possibly it's just a matter of time. Either way, though some still condemn the project as a whole, critics have come to accept Park51 but, like the NY Observer writer, question whether this most recent request has crossed a line.

In what I found to be a surprisingly tame blog for Fox News Rabbi Brad Hirschfield admitted Park51 was more than a matter of faith, even declaring Park51 was not "an affront to the memory of those murdered on 9/11" as New York Representative Peter King contended. Instead, he believes it's a matter not of whether Park51 should be built, but how they should be built. This is a fair point to make, as long as the how remains the same for Muslims as it is for Christians. Even more worth thinking about is the Park51 claim to almost a third of the 9/11 rebuilding grants totaling only $17 million dollars. According to the The Telegraph, the Downtown Development Authority only recommended Park51 request $100,000 to $1 million.

In order for a religious organization to receive grant money from the 9/11 rebuilding fund the organization must use the money for, "a facility or a portion of a facility that is dedicated to non-religious activities or uses". For reasons states earlier in this post, domestic violence, art, etc, Park51 meets this qualification. Still, publications like OA Online, and like-minding people, still believe the funds for Park51 should come from locally raised funds, not the national taxpayers. Somehow, I don't see the suggestion being the same for a Christian organization.

The Islam community behind Park51 has started doing the very thing other Americans have been complaining they have not been doing; condemning radical Islam and taking proactive steps to combat it.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rau on December 7 announced the formation of the Cordova Movement to improve understanding and build trust within a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. The PR Newswire quoted Rau as saying, "We must retake the discourse among religions and cultures from the hands of the extremists around the world who benefit from hatred and violence".



Last week the Jewish community of New York took a major step to embrace the Islamic community of New York and the Park51 controversy. At a conference hosted by Rabbis for Human Rights , attended by about 250 people, invited Cordoba House Founder Daisy Khan to speak, the Jewish Week reported. Khan told the gathered crowd, "You understood our pain; you fought a struggle for acceptance". The overarching theme pushed by the organizers addressed the idea that Jews have not done enough to stand up for the Muslim community. Maybe all of us need these conferences, having not done our parts to defend the citizens of our country under attack.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

CEDAW Ratification

By Maeve Dwyer

Working on social media at a women's rights, legal rights organization this past semester, a week or two of my twitter-life were filled with the Senate judiciary subcommittee on human rights and law hearing regarding the ratification of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Women's rights organizations all over the internet started campaigning like, implementing action campaigns to call senators, writing strongly worded blog posts, and live tweeting the hearing. On the other side, right wing and religious organizations implemented their own action campaigns, fearing the ratification of CEDAW would threaten homeschooling, stay at home mothers, and mandate abortion access. Despite the amount of activity within the blogisphere and on Twitter, interestingly enough, very little, to almost no, attention was paid to the topic. True, the hearing was small with more women's rights supporters attending then congressional members, and the hearing itself lack the ability to take any further action on ratifying CEDAW, but the treaty still carries a great deal of importance, both for the for and against sides.

The Lincoln Tribune
published a short article going through the basics of the treaty. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty, a year after the United Nations passed it, however CEDAW never even made it to a vote in the Senate where it would require 67 votes to pass. This times around, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin brought the bill up in the committee he chairs stating, "Throughout history, we have tried to be a leader in the world to advance human rights. But many times we have lost our credibility when other countries have challenged us." This argument, that the passage of CEDAW would be instrumental for the legitimacy of United States action abroad, especially in the Middle East, has been used in addition to the arguments regarding the importance of women's rights I'm sure people have heard over and over again by now. One of the testimonies brought in pointedly addressed this subject, with Wazhma Frogh from the Afghan's Women's Network testifying that the lack of United States ratification is a frequent argument made by conservatives within Afghanistan for why advancements on women's rights are not of significant importance. Furthering this point, the only other countries in the world still to have not ratified CEDAW are Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and a few pacific island countries. Great company we're keeping right?

CEDAW certainly has the backing of the powerful such as Sandra Day O'Connor, President Obama, and U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues Melanne Verveer. As technorati.com reported in an article on the matter, O'Connor wrote an open letter to the Senate including, "Ratification of CEDAW would enhance the authority of the United States to advocate on behalf of women's rights in countries, including both CEDAW parties and non-parties, that do not respect women's rights to the same extent that the United States does." In today's political climate, with tea partyers and citizens fretting about terrorism and national security, effective arguments must be framed in the context of national security to may any leeway, especially if they include unpopular aspects.

Personally, the ratification of CEDAW seems like it should be a no brainer. But obviously many people just don't see eye to eye with me. Homeschoolers apparently believe CEDAW will allow more governmental control over schooling, whether it be at home, public, or private, on the pretense of gender bias. Concerned Women for America remain convinced CEDAW will be the demise of Mother's Day. Following America's aversion to participation within the international community, CEDAW would also subject America's laws to review by the UN, an obviously intolerable event, forget the fact that in reality this committee could do little to actually coerce the United States to change policies. However, opponents of CEDAW have indeed hit on one fear that may actually materialize were CEDAW to be ratified. In some instances, the treaty has been used to increase access to abortion services under the guarantee of non-discriminatory medical care. CEDAW's prospects for passing, especially during the lame duck session are slim to none, but hopefully we'll one day see the sense the rest of the world does.



Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Human Rights Day

by Joanna Kurylo

On December 10, 2010, the world will be celebrating Human Rights Day. This day commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While many NGOs and the United Nations will be observing this day with conferences, meetings and through various channels, you too can celebrate this day. Listed below are three ways you can too participate.

  • Visit the following link: http://www.amnestyusa.org/take-action-online/page.do?id=1031043 and support human rights by taking an action through Amnesty International. For example, take action on a recent 2008 scandal in Columbia where more than a dozen men from the town of Soacha were executed. Their families are seeking justice and yet the government has done very little. You can write a letter to Angela Maria Holguin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Juan Manuel Santos, the President; and Gabriel Silva, the Minister of Defense; and demand action.
  • Visit jumo.com and sign up! Jumo is a website started by the co-founder of Facebook that connects you with various organizations for social good around the world. You can follow different issues such as human rights, women’s rights, disaster relief, microfinance, among others and connect to specific organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the International Rescue Committee and Witness. This lets you stay updated about various top news from different human rights organizations.
  • Read the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted in 1948, this document is considered very crucial to human rights and still continues to be relevant. The theme of this year’s Human Rights Day is discrimination. According to article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml)

Please comment below on more ways you can observe Human Rights Day.

India, a BRIC in a House of Glass?

by Ryan French

President Obama made a concerted effort to win India's favor during his recent diplomatic tour of Asia, taking every opportunity to praise the largest democracy in the world and even calling for a permanent Indian seat on the United Nations Security Council. The United States is indeed wise to strengthen its partnership with India; the country's skyrocketing economic growth and impressive power potential have led analysts to describe it as a “BRIC state” – one of the four rising states (including Brazil, Russia, and China) on track to challenge the traditional economic dominance of the West. While China is the BRIC that receives the most attention from worried Western policymakers and academics, India’s rise is conversely viewed with encouragement in the U.S., which sees India as a vital “offshore balancer” to China’s ever-growing regional influence.

India has attained BRIC status for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which being an average annual GDP growth of 7.4%, which only decreased to 6.5% in 2009 in the midst of the global financial crisis (CIA World Factbook). Additionally, India sits on a wealth of natural resources and arable land, including the fourth-largest reserves of coal in the world. If India is able to develop peacefully and harness the full productive potential of its massive population, there is little doubt that the country will rise as a regional power with a capacity to rival China. Nevertheless, India faces tremendous obstacles – both external and internal – to its long-term growth and development; these must be addressed by the government in New Delhi if India is to realize its destiny as a regional economic and military powerhouse by the middle of the 21st century.

India faces a number of external barriers to its continued prosperity, primarily from Pakistan and to a considerably lesser extent from its regional competitor, China. The November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai demonstrated India’s vulnerability to terror as a state-sponsored tool, as allegations persist that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence provided intelligence and logistical support to the Pakistan-based terrorist group behind the attack, Lashkar-e-Taiba. While no definitive proof of the Mumbai link has been unearthed, the ISI's past support for militant groups in the disputed Kashmir region has created fertile ground for suspicion. These allegations have exacerbated ongoing tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir and threaten to embroil India in a costly war that could jeopardize its long-term growth. Furthermore, India and Pakistan’s relatively unsophisticated command and control procedures greatly increase the potential for a conventional war to escalate into a nuclear exchange. India should seek a compromise over Kashmir similar to the de facto settlement reached with the Chinese in the mid-1990s regarding the territory dispute over Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. However, negotiating with Pakistan over Kashmir would be a politically unpopular venture for Indian policymakers in a country where the news regularly demonizes its western neighbor, “Pak.”

India is also cursed with a number of formidable domestic obstacles to long-term economic growth. First is the underlying ailment of joblessness in India’s fast-growing economy; despite averaging 7.4% GDP expansion per year, India’s unemployment in 2009 was at 10.7% (CIA). In 2007, the percentage of the population below the poverty line was 25%, which in a country of 1.2 billion people is 300 million – the near equivalent of the entire population of the United States! Unless it is reversed, the developing world poverty that is so endemic to India will constrain per capita productivity and continue to hinder the country’s prosperity in the coming decades.

The population of India deserves particular analysis in any discussion of the country’s projected rise.Projected to surpass China by 2040, India’s exploding population – which grew by 15.58% between 2001 and 2010 – would be an incredible asset for a rich, developed country with high levels of physical infrastructure. However, India does not currently meet this development profile, and its economic growth could stagnate if its cities fail to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing population, which according to a Goldman Sachs report include, “…water supply, sewerage and sanitation, urban transport, and urban renewal.” India’s population is 52% agrarian according to the CIA World Factbook, and as the country modernizes, these people will flock to urban centers in search of a better living. As it stands, India is slated to become 60% urban by 2050. Because of Goldman Sachs' finding that the movement of rural populations to cities accounts for a considerable portion of India’s annual GDP growth, the Indian government must prepare the infrastructure of their cities to handle an unyielding influx of migrants (Goldman Sachs). Specifically, one of India’s most glaring infrastructure inadequacies is the endless trash that seems to pile up on the sides of roads, sidewalks, alleyways, and parks. The Indian government will have to muster a competent public sanitation program in the near term or watch as New Delhi and Mumbai become populated landfills.

One of India’s most critical and glaring problems lies with its transportation infrastructure. Any Westerner who has visited India immediately notices the dismal condition of the roads. Where the roads are paved, they are treacherous and dotted with potholes, and unpaved roads are simply incompatible with even medium-term population growth (and rainy seasons, for that matter). The need for radical improvement of the roadway network is evidenced by the fact that India’s demand for automobiles is expected to drastically increase; in 2009, Indian auto sales totaled 1.43 million, and Ford Motor Company alone reported a 237% increase in auto sales from April to September of this year. Although car ownership currently hovers at the 1% mark, that figure will soon begin an exponential ascent. India must develop the transportation network to handle tens of millions of additional cars, but they must also have the petroleum resources to fuel them.

Oil and energy sources in general are of particular salience to the subject of India’s rise. India presently imports over 97% of its oil to satisfy domestic demand (CIA). Thanks to soaring demand for cars, domestic oil consumption will continue to grow, just like with China. Moreover, once India's population surpasses China's sometime around 2040, the average Indian citizen will have an even greater economic means to afford a vehicle. India must work quickly to secure reliable oil sources to meet these eventual needs, though China has gotten a head start in this arena through its efforts to secure resource contracts with African countries in exchange for infrastructure development projects. There is more to the energy equation than oil, however, and India is making some progress toward a sustainable energy future. The 2005 Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal was a move by India to bolster its capacity to generate nuclear power with the help of U.S. technology and general know-how. In return, India has agreed to submit to IAEA inspections of their civilian nuclear facilities. Still, much more remains to be done for India to attain proper energy security.

India’s capacity for long-term sustained growth is further challenged by the fact that only 41% speak the most prevalent national language, Hindi; there are 14 other official languages in the country, including Tamil, Telugu, and Bengali (CIA). These overlapping language barriers are indicative of a deep-rooted structural problem – an inadequate public education system. With India’s literacy at 61% and school attendance by 6-14 year olds at 80%, there is much room for improvement in India’s education system. As the old parable of the Tower of Babel illustrates, a civilization that cannot communicate is unable to cooperate and achieve success. New Delhi, however, understands the urgency of India’s education problem and is seeking to ensure 100% school enrollment by the end of this year (Goldman Sachs). Whether the initiative will be a success remains to be seen, but as long as there is a meaningful effort to improve the primary and secondary-school educations of India’s children and teenagers, some progress is certainly better than none.

India’s long-term economic growth will also depend in great deal on foreign direct investment, but nothing scares away investors like a good insurgency. India has suffered from an ongoing Maoist insurgency since 1967 from a group of rebels known as the Naxalites. In 2006, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency as “The single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country.” It is very much a rural, peasant-supported movement, but India upped the ante on the Naxalites in November 2009 by initiating an ongoing offensive known as “Operation Green Hunt.” Unfortunately, the Indian offensive has ignited unforeseen levels of violence, with the Naxalites conducting successful attacks on Indian security forces and the leader demanding an immediate end to the “Hunt.” Now that the offensive is well underway, India will have a difficult time disengaging from the bloody conflict while still saving face; what was previously a nuisance has mushroomed into a considerable dilemma with no easy solution.

India has an ongoing tourism campaign cleverly titled, “Incredible !ndia.” Indeed, whenever tourists visit India, they always return home with fantastic stories about the wealth of historic sites, the spectacular Mughal architecture, and the friendliness and hospitality of the people. It is never long, sadly, before the stories emerge about India’s abject poverty, the begging in the streets, treacherous roads, and crumbling infrastructure. India will have secured its future prosperity as a BRIC state when it shears the thorns from the rose; when that gloomy half of every visitor’s story becomes a relic of the past.