Aftermath of Arab Spring

Libya has come a long way since Muammar Gaddafi’s death in October 2011, when Tripoli seemed ahead of Tunis and Cairo in its democratic transition. That early promise is a distant memory now. Tuesday’s attack on the Corinthia Hotel in Tripoli by suspected Islamic State (IS) militants occurred against the backdrop of a country that appears to be falling apart — a spate of bombings and kidnappings in its west; the state split between two rival governments based in Tripoli and Tobruk, each with its own militia; the country fighting not one but two civil wars, against Islamists in the east and a complex multipartite battle in the west.

Two things appear to have gone wrong in Libya. First, each of its warring groups — Islamists, rebels who ousted Gaddafi and the old-guard — preferred to win first and then have democracy. Libyans have had no experience with democracy, and the absence of institutions saw five governments come and go since October 2011. Second, Western powers who midwived Gaddafi’s fall were too quick to abandon Libya. The September 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, in which its ambassador was assassinated, sealed Libya’s predicament. Given the ground complexities that preclude any neat distinction between the “good” and “bad” guys, a military intervention is difficult. The just-concluded peace talks in Geneva are the only sign of progress in a long time, with the two main warring factions declaring a ceasefire, although a third party didn’t turn up.

In January 2015, Tunisia alone can boast a post-Arab Spring success. Cairo is back in the hands of a strongman, albeit elected, after the divisive rule of a democratically chosen president. Syria’s civil war has transmogrified into the larger battle against the IS. Shiite militiamen in Yemen, home to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, ousted the president before Tuesday’s deal to form a “salvation” government. For now, making peace seems as difficult as going to war in the failing post-Arab Spring states.

THE HISTORY OF PARANTHE WALI GALI

A decade-and-a-half had passed since the Mutiny. Chandni Chowk had started settling under the new governance of the British. Year 1872 - Pt. Gaya Prasad, a yong man in early twenties, left his home in Tehsil Bah in Agra and came to Delhi in search of greener pasture. He put up a shop in a lane entering the Kinari Bazaar in Chandni Chowk and started making hot and sizzling paranthas. Soon the popularity of his paranthas grew so much that he had to call his brothers and cousins to help him in the business. Gradually, there came up almost a score shops - all belonging to the extended families of Gaya Prasad. Little they would have realised and imagined that the lane itself would become popular and famous after their paranthas as Paranthe Wali Gali (Lane of Paranthas) !
Thirty five varieties of Paranthas are served in the four shops that are now left in this lane. The fillings range from the usual, aaloo (mashed potatoes), gobhi (grated cauliflower), gaajar (carrots), mooli (radish) and paneer (cottage cheese); to the adventurous, methi (fenugreek), pudina (mint), karela (bittergourd), bhindi (okra); to the exotic, kela (banana), khurcha (thick layer of cream) and dry fruits. The usual fillings are rolled into a ball of dough and flattened with a rolling pin on a wooden or marble base. In the exotic parathas, the filling is spread on a flattened layer of dough and covered with another layer. The layers are then neatly tied and are ready to fry.Unlike the usual way of frying the parathas on a 'tawa' (flat griddle), the parathas in the Parathe Wali Gali are fried in a 'kadahi' (iron wok).

The parathas, fried in the 'desi ghee' (clarified butter) are then served in a 'thali' accompanied by 'kaddu (pumpkin) ki sabzi', 'aaloo mattar' (potatoes and green peas), 'aaloo mattar paneer' (potatoes, green peas and cottage cheese in gravy) 'kele ki saunth' (slices of bananas in thick jaggery and dried ginger chutney) and pudina (mint) chutney.The choice of vegetables and chutneys, served as accompaniments, have remained unchanged all these years.

The owners mention - with a gleaming pride - about the celebrities who have savoured the sumptuous parathas at their joints. Among these are Kabir Bedi, Salma Agha, Akshay Kumar, Gauri (wife of Shahruk Khan) and Amithab Bachhan. The shop of Pt. Gaya Prasad Shiv Charan (claimed as the first shop among the lot) has proudlydisplayed a unique picture of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru along with Vijaylaksmi Pandit (Nehru's sister) Indira Gandhi and Babu Jagjivan Ram dining at Parathe Wali Gali eating the paratnthas served in 'pattal' (plates made of leaves) and 'kullhad' (bowls made of clay) Paranthe Wali Gali has seen more than a century and a quarter go by. And all through, it has been a major destination for the locals as well as the tourists who throng the place to satiate their gastronomical pleasures. All but four shops are now left in the lane. Many, from the original count of nearly a score, have diversified into other business. But those who have chosen to remain in the traditional business speak high of Mr. Sreedharan, the doyen of Delhi Metro.

 Anjali, the sixth generation female owner of the shop Pt. Baburam Devidayal, feels indebted to Delhi Metro for bringing in more and more customers from the far flung areas of Delhi. The Chandni Chowk station of the Delhi Metro opens right in front of the Paranthe Wali Gali.

Ukraine moving towards NATO

The new Ukrainian Parliament’s overwhelming vote last week in favour of the country opting for membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a contentious signal from a pro-western government to further cement Kiev’s strategic ties with the West. The decision reverses the country’s policy of non-alignment with any political and military grouping, codified under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych in 2010. Instead, it paves the way for Ukraine’s strong military and strategic engagement with European powers and the United States. Eventual entry into the military alliance may still take years. But the current context of the continuing separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine lends the legislative step a provocative edge, from a Russian standpoint. Moscow has characterised Ukraine’s move as confrontationist; one that is consistent with its decade-long and stout opposition to the eastward extension of the military alliance. The Russian stance is also in sync with influential thinking in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union that grew sceptical of the relevance of NATO in a post-Cold War scenario. Whereas the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact followed the emergence of the new democracies in the former Eastern Europe, NATO has continued to expand in the more than two decades since.

Clearly, Kiev’s latest move cannot be viewed in isolation. Earlier in December, both Houses of the Congress adopted the Ukraine Freedom Support Act with the avowed objective of countering threats from Moscow to the territorial integrity of the Slavic nation. The Russian response has been the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan to promote regional trade. The Kremlin came under criticism for the annexation of Crimea following a referendum earlier this year. Its alleged role in aiding Ukrainian separatist groups with military equipment has since remained in the spotlight. Meanwhile, the United Nations said last month that nearly a thousand people have been killed since September 2014 when the ceasefire between the Ukrainian forces and separatist rebels came into force. Besides, the months-long conflict has claimed a few thousand lives. Moreover, the number of people who have registered as displaced by the conflict has risen by over 50 per cent to 460,000 in the same period. In the absence of swift and concerted diplomatic initiatives to address the scale of the humanitarian tragedy, the region runs the risk of prolonged instability. That is in the interest of neither Russia nor the western powers. Kiev’s overtures at this juncture to join NATO would merely raise the rhetoric and deepen mutual suspicion.