PAKISTAN’S neighbourhood appears to be in the midst of important changes and realignments that could have far reaching consequences for our economic well-being as well as national security in the coming years.

Well established relations, that had matured over the years and had thus appeared impervious to change, suddenly seem to be withering away, under new interests that have emerged in the wake of the paradigm shifts evident the world over. These shifts, some of which are of a fundamental nature, could pose serious challenges to our vital national interests. At the same time, they also represent historic opportunities that could open up new and far greater vistas for the promotion of our interests. That is the challenge for our political leadership in the coming years.

Let us begin with what is certainly the most fundamental shift that can be currently seen on the radar screen, for it concerns us deeply and directly. This is the growing thaw in relations between China, our closest friend and ally, and India, our historic rival. This trend started some years ago, but has gathered momentum in recent times. It has gone far beyond the expectations of most political observers, especially when it is recalled that one of the arguments advanced by the Indian leadership in defence of its nuclear tests in May 1998, was that it was meant to counter the threat from China.

Beijing was not amused at this charge, and the Vajpayee government soon realized that it (and more importantly the then defence minister, George Fernandes) had committed a major faux pas. The damage inflicted by that statement caused a serious, though short-lived, estrangement in Sino-Indian relationship, that we were able to exploit to our advantage in the post-nuclear test days.

Much water has flowed down both the Ganges as well as the Yangtze since those tension-filled days. Last month, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao paid a high profile visit to India which most observers consider as “historic” and during which both sides signed 12 accords, one of which was for making “meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments” at disputed points along the 3,000 kilometre long border.

The joint statement indicated that the visit was a breakthrough in Sino-Indian relations when it spoke of the two sides being convinced that “an early settlement of the boundary question will advance the basic interest of the two sides and should therefore, be pursued as a strategic objective”. These understandings are likely to spur an end to years of suspicion and hostility that affected all aspects of their relations.

In fact, it was Wen Jiabao who appeared the more enthusiastic partner in the talks, especially when he called upon both countries to “refuse to let questions left over from history disrupt and impede the development of bilateral relations”. This meant that India would give up its policy of supporting the Tibetan freedom struggle, while China would acknowledge Indian sovereignty over the kingdom of Sikkim, as well as control over 35,000 square kilometres of Himalayan territory that falls in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Bilateral trade that is at present less than $3 billion is expected to grow to $30 billion within a decade, thanks to the Chinese desire that its hardware experts join hands with Indian software experts to capture the international IT market.

What explains this unexpected urgency on the part of Beijing to settle its differences with Delhi and build a web of understandings that could result in meaningful cooperation between the two? One possible reason for this were the alarm bells that rang out in Beijing when it saw the Bush administration give tangible evidence of its desire to build up a “strategic relations with India”, clearly aimed at bringing the latter within the fold of its oft-expressed policy of containing China. It is no secret that the neo-cons in Washington see China as an emerging strategic rival and want to draw India into a military alliance against it.

No wonder, when asked whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meant what she had stated in Delhi that the US policy was to “help India become a major world power in the 21st century”, the state department emphasized that Washington “understands fully the implications, including the military implications, of that statement.” Clearly, it is this American policy of encircling China, more than any reason, that has convinced Beijing that it must settle its differences with its neighbour, while strengthening its economic and military power as well.

The Indians are, of course, much too smart not to realize the implications of this. Most Indian analysts claim that their country is too big and too proud a player to be anyone’s cat’s-paw. Delhi is, therefore, likely to encourage both the US and China to continue wooing it and, in the process, extract as much as only a much sought-after entity can. And why not? After all, if it can get sophisticated American technology in the fields of nuclear energy and space research, and other favours, why should it spurn the offer? But it is likely to remain extremely cautious and selective in what it takes, as evident from the manner in which it has reacted to the American offer to sell it the F-16s. Possibly, because its heart is set on the French Mirages, it can be expected to use the American offer to drive a harder bargain with the French.

The other important development has been the escalating tension between China and Japan, which while unexpected is not surprising, if seen in the context of what has been happening between them for the past couple of years. The Chinese have been watching with growing concern the many disturbing developments taking place in Tokyo. While Japan’s pacifist post-war constitution restricts its armed forces to self-defence, because of which it has kept a low-profile on most contentious issues, all that has changed since Mr Koizumi came to power.

Though the Japanese may claim that they are only reacting to what they perceive to be growing assertiveness by China, the reality is that under Koizumi, Japan appears to have made strategic modifications to its role in the region. For example, it has sent its troops to Iraq (on the plea that they are on non-combat duties), while its navy has joined the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative, and has also increased its military cooperation with Australia and South Korea, two of America’s staunchest allies in the region. Koizumi has also been lobbying vigorously with the Europeans against lifting the embargo on arms sales to Beijing.

Even more worrying for China has been Japan’s agreement to allow the command headquarters of the US Army’s First Corps to be transferred from the US Pacific coast to Camp Zama, near Yokohama. The US is also in the process of moving the command operations of its Pacific Air Force fleet from Guam to Tokyo. This prompted the International Institute of Strategic Studies to comment in a recent paper that “the ramifications of this would be that Japan would essentially serve as a frontline US command post for Asia-Pacific and beyond.”

All this has led even Japanese analysts to the conclusion that these developments are indicative of a desire on the part of the United States to use Japan (along with the British), as one of the two states that would be the basic pillars of America’s security architecture in this century. The Japanese appear to have become enthusiastic accomplices in this design.

China’s growing suspicions about Japan are, therefore, understandable, but what has puzzled most observers is the manner in which Beijing has gone about countering this threat. The whipping up of anti-Japanese sentiments in Chinese cities and the permission granted to known anti-Japan groups to organize attacks on Japanese companies and even diplomatic missions, represents a sharp departure from standard Chinese reactions to such developments.

True, Japan has made highly annoying statements on Taiwan; true, it is intending to revise Article 9 of its constitution concerning Japan’s military role; and yes, it has failed to atone for atrocities committed during its occupation of China and of other countries earlier on. Its expressions of remorse, even when made, have been half-hearted and grudging, though occasionally accompanied with economic favours. But none of this explains the way China has abandoned its history of detached and dispassionate reaction to similar provocation from Japan in the past. After all, China and Japan are extremely close economic partners, with China now Japan’s biggest trading partner. Their economies, which are the second and third largest in the world, are remarkably complementary as well.

It is, however, the United States that will determine the future of this region. Will it let Chinese economic growth and military advancement proceed undisturbed, thereby allowing Beijing to play the role that is commensurate with its power and potential? Or, will it want to use its relationship with Japan as an instrument to resist and counter the Chinese, as appears to be the desired option at the moment?

And, will, Japan pursue an increasingly assertive military and diplomatic role as a surrogate of the US? And, most importantly for us, will India join with the US in its anti-China campaign? If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, the region is likely to see greater tensions and possible turmoil in the coming years. In other words, much will depend on the degree of intelligence and foresight that the Bush administration shows in the coming years.

What does all this portend for our policy planners? While it is true that most inter-state relationships are no longer zero-sum games, the fact remains that any significant improvement in one set of relations has its inevitable fallout on others. Our policy of seeking normalcy in our ties with India is the right course, especially as this is in our interest and is also the desired option being advocated by both the US and China. But our policy must be carefully thought-out and skillfully executed, so that temporary advantages do not make us lose sight of our long-term strategic interests.

In particular, we must not be satisfied with the current level and extent of our relations with China, but must constantly come up with new ideas and initiatives to give it greater substance and purpose. At the same time, we must make it clear to Washington that we can never be a party to any of the schemes being cooked up by the Bush administration, whether they are directed against China or any other power, in this region.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THERE is a growing consensus in Pakistan that our higher education system is not working well in state-run universities. Dr Attaur Rahman, chairman of the Higher Education Commission, admits that no Pakistani university is included in the list of world’s top 500 universities. In order to arrest this decline, suggestions have been made to tackle major issues such as a the appointment procedure of vice-chancellors; faculty; administrative heads, the problems faced by the student community, the examination system etc.

Since a vice-chancellor is the symbol of the prestige of a university, he ought to be a world-class scholar. But a few vice-chancellors come up to this yardstick in the country. Here, they are appointed more on the basis of their close connections than academic credentials. Besides academics, retired bureaucrats and generals are also appointed to these posts. They are unfamiliar with academic norms, and take decisions either on the basis of instructions they receive from above, or according to their whims, or succumb to internal pressure. Thus, the appointment of non-professional vice chancellors is a major cause of the decline in the university education system.

Another set of administrators comprises chairpersons, directors of the centres/institutes, and the deans. Their principal function is teaching and research. For their additional charges, they get allowances, perks, and access to the vice-chancellor, and until recently marks for the special grades in 21 and 22. In Pakistan there is a rush for additional charges. The more additional charges a person holds more important and powerful he/she is supposed to be in the university hierarchy.

The duties of the faculty include the preparation of younger generation for meeting the challenges of the modern world. They are also role models for students. But here, many freshly appointed lecturers use universities as launching pads for passing competitive examinations.

There is a second category of academics who are good scholars. Unfortunately, their number is not very high. Because of their dedication to their work, union leaders may not be happy with them, and the administration either uses them as research showpieces. In some cases, their outspokenness puts them in trouble. Pakistan lacks good Ph.D holders, who could be research supervisors as well. Their number is just 1,700.

Up to the early 1970s, the universities sent their faculty abroad to good universities. Ph.D holders from there were a few in number but their degrees were well received. Later, cultural scholarships were also given to non-English speaking countries. Ph.Ds can be obtained locally but there are drawbacks, as plagiarism is common. In many cases, the supervisors are “the ghost authors’ of the theses. It is a positive development that two foreign examiners will evaluate Ph.D degrees. But still there are pitfalls in this scheme.

The policy of the HEC to hire highly qualified scholars for faculty development programme is well intended. But runaway Pakistanis should not be appointed for that job. Western scholars may not prefer to stay in Pakistan for a longer period, but Bangladeshi and Indian scholars, especially those who have roots in this land, can be hired.

The examination system at different public sector universities appears to be out of tune with the realities of our country and the times. The Quaid-i-Azam University was the first institute that adopted the semester system. It works well when it’s basic requirements such as the 1-10 student-teacher ratio are met. The semester system is an internal arrangement in which the teacher should be a person of a high integrity. On the whole, the semester system is dysfunctional in many public sector universities which lack basic facilities.

Under the old examination system, the scripts were assessed by anonymous, outside examiners. The semester system made it easy for students to approach the examiner either by flattering or bullying him. Under these circumstances, the semester system is unsuitable for many public sector universities in Pakistan. A modified version of the old system should be introduced.

During the Zia regime, armed violence came to Pakistani universities. All sorts of small weapons were available for sale. Thus the criminal- minded students helped themselves with arms. The exchange of gunfire became a norm on campuses and remain so till today.

At that time, walls were erected and the Rangers were deployed at campuses. The major losers were once again the students who had to show entry passes and undergo body searches before being admitted to the campus. Zia’s policy of a ban on students unions and the deployment of the Rangers still continues, perpetuating an atmosphere of suffocation.

The attitude of political parties towards education is markedly indifferent. Religious parties like the army regard the universities, as places to be purged of undesirable elements. However, the most regrettable attitude towards the higher education comes from the Oxbridge legislators of the mainstream liberal political parties. Undoubtedly, they have every right to send their own children to elite universities, but as public representatives, they are obliged to give attention to the falling standards of the education. In order to do so, there should be committees on education within the political parties and in the houses of parliament.

Unlike the government and the political parties, civil society, especially the intellectuals, are quite concerned about the rapidly declining educational standards of university education. When Dr Issa Daudpota, exposed the alleged award of a fake Ph.D to a vice-chancellor, that cost him his job, a host of letters and columns were carried in newspapers. The voice of these intellectuals may not be effective in a military-dominated political setup, but certainly, the informed public is receptive to it, so may be Pakistan’s donors who are interested in the welfare of its citizens.

Qualified youths are an asset for Pakistan. But they can also prove to be a liability. If the dwindling standard of higher education offered by the public sector universities is not checked, the results will be horrendous for Pakistan and the international community.

A wide-ranging set of reforms are required to improve university education. For this, it is necessary that the selection of academics should be based on their dedication to the job and there should be greater emphasis on the quality, not quantity, of Ph.Ds. Admissions should be conducted on the basis of aptitude and the availability of facilities including student accommodation. The ban on student unions should be lifted. Legislative bodies should form committees for monitoring universities and offer suggestions for improvement.

Similarly, the performance of civil society in monitoring the functioning of public sector universities is necessary, and its scope should be widened. There is need for increased interaction among members of the student community, parents, academia, the university administration, the government functionaries, journalists and other intellectuals.

The international community appears to be more interested in curbing terrorism emanating from the madressahs than containing the falling standards of higher education. Considering the latter’s importance in maintaining stability donors must put pressure on the government to improve higher education and guarantee freedom of expression in the universities.

Moreover, more scholarships should be awarded to fresh graduates and young and senior academics, especially from the social sciences, to increase the pool of well-educated persons. This pool is indispensable to the development, and that is the best form of the national security.

The writer is professor of international relations at the University of Sindh.

IN Russia’s calendar of memorable dates, the ninth of May occupies a special place. Just one mention of Victory Day causes the heart of each Russian to be wrung. It’s unlikely that even now — 60 years after — there can be found in the country a family which was not scathed by the flames of war.

The grievous ordeal that fell to the lot of the people of the Soviet Union revealed the greatness of the human spirit and numerous examples of heroism, personal feat and true patriotism. That is why this war has gone down in the history of our country as the Great Patriotic War.

The victory anniversary celebration has a symbolic significance both for the state as a whole and for its citizens. In those dramatic war years, the destinies of the great country and of its people became closely intertwined. For many, especially the veterans, this is a very personal holiday, but the veterans, unfortunately, are leaving us. The memory remains of those who perished defending the fatherland from the plague of the 20th century, who died from wounds, in prisons, in captivity or in the blockade.

There also remain the lessons which the world community drew from the events of more than half a century ago, but which have not lost their relevance today. A hot debate on this theme has unfolded in many countries. It is not merely an argument about how to interpret this or that event of the war period, but entirely opposite moral assessments of its outcome that have a direct relationship to present-day European and world politics.

In discussing this theme, we also bear considerable moral responsibility to those who paid with their lives for the defeat of Nazism and to new generations learning about the war. It is our responsibility not only to uphold the historical truth but also to fix firmly in public consciousness a correct understanding of its lessons for the contemporary world. The Second World War was an epochal event. It was not only a global battle that exceeded in scale all previous armed conflicts in world history, and one witnessed not just the different interests of states but diametrically opposed and irreconcilable approaches to the very basis of mankind’s existence.

For the first time in history, the stake in this struggle was the preservation of the life of whole peoples. The gas chambers and crematoria of Oswiecim (Auschwitz), Buchenwald, Salaspils and other death camps have demonstrated what fascism carried with it. Those who question the significance of the victory and the role of our country in it are forgetting that without it their countries might not have been on the map. Distorting war history is a bid to assign the laurels to western democracies and to belittle the role of the Soviet Union, while at the same time to blame it for Hitler’s unleashing of the Second World War.

As to the prewar period, there should be no forgetting the policy of appeasement of fascist Germany pursued by Britain and the US, that aimed at warding off aggression from themselves and directing it against the USSR. This policy can be seen in the Munich agreement of 1938. The assertions about an “exaggeration of the Soviet contribution to the cause of victory” do not stand up to criticism. In 1944, the length of the Soviet-German front was four times greater than that of all the fronts where the USSR’s allies, put together, fought. During the same period, up to 201 enemy divisions fought on the eastern front, whereas only two to 21 divisions faced the American-British troops in the same months.

Even after the opening by the West of the second front the allies had 1.5 million men in western Europe, while the Germans had 560,000. At the same time, 4.5 million German troops were amassed on the Soviet-German front, against whom 6.5 million Soviet soldiers fought. Hitler’s forces sustained major losses in the battles against the Red Army: 70 per cent of their manpower and 75 per cent of all their military equipment. As Winston Churchill wrote: “It was the Russian army who tore the guts out of the German war machine.”

We did not divide victory into percentages in 1945, nor do we divide it now. Together with our allies we marked the 60th anniversary of the opening of the second front, together we shall celebrate the victory in Moscow. It was our common victory. But no one has the right to detract from the price which our country and our people paid in the course of the war and play down the enormity of the Nazis’ crimes.

The main outcome of the war is not just the victory of one coalition of states against the other. In essence, it is the victory of the forces of construction and civilization over the forces of destruction and barbarity, the victory of life over death. The war was the greatest tragedy for the people of Europe and the world, regardless of whose side the states fought on. And in the assessment of the war’s outcome, no shift in moral guidelines should be allowed. Speaking in Oswiecim on January 27, 2005, President Vladimir Putin described as deeply immoral the attempts to rewrite the history of the war, to equate the rights of the victims and the hangmen, of the liberators and the occupiers.

The creation of the anti-Hitler coalition may rightfully be called the biggest diplomatic breakthrough of its time. The coalition became an example of the rallying of states of different ideologies and political systems in the face of a common mortal danger. Today, 60 years on, there is no need to simplify or embellish history. Each of the anti-Hitler coalition states pursued its aims, had its own national interests. The achievement of mutual trust did not come easily. But still, the participants of the coalition succeeded in rising above their differences and putting aside all that was secondary for the sake of achieving a common victory as their principal task. The opponents of fascism were united by a common understanding of the fact that evil had to be resisted together, sparing no effort for that, allowing no compromises, no concessions or separate deals. This lesson in full measure retains its relevance in our days as well.

The experience of the international brotherhood in arms during the war years is assuming particular significance in the conditions when a global challenge again confronts humanity, this time in the form of international terrorism. Thousands of innocent people have already become its victims. The foundations of civilization are again in jeopardy. Like fascism, terrorism has nothing to offer the world, but violence and scorn for human life.

To cope with this kind of threat, just as it was done 60 years ago, is only possible on the basis of solidarity and mutual trust. “Double standards” with regard to terrorists are inadmissible. Giving terrorists a public platform for stating their views is as immoral and unnatural for contemporary Europe as the parades of former SS men in the countries claiming adherence to democratic values.

Our duty to those who paid with their blood for the sake of saving humanity from fascism consists primarily of putting a reliable barrier in the way of the spread of intolerance and racism, national or religious superiority, that serve as the ground for new threats. The unity of anti-terrorist nations, the harmonious development of relations among various nationalities and confessions, tolerance and mutual respect, the preservation of cultural diversity, an open, constructive dialogue of civilizations — these are the main conditions for victory over the forces of hatred and extremism.

Neither do the lessons of the Second World War appear less relevant from the viewpoint of construction of the postwar world pattern. The outcome of the war exerted a profound influence on the development of international relations. Even now, 60 years later, when the world has changed beyond recognition, the elements of the postwar arrangement of Europe and the world retain an enormous significance in the cause of safeguarding peace and security on our planet.

The striving to deliver humanity from the scourge of war for good inspired the nations of the anti-Hitler coalition to establish a global mechanism for safeguarding peace and security — the United Nations Organization. Its charter became the basis for contemporary international law, and a fundamental code of conduct for states and international organizations. The principles and standards of the UN charter, which stood the test of the Cold War, today form the basis for shaping a new, secure and equitable world pattern.

The 60th anniversary of Victory Day must not be a cause for confrontation to settle old scores. It is symbolic that the United Nations, at the initiative of Russia and other CIS countries, has designated May 8 and 9 as “Days of Remembrance and Reconciliation”. It is in this vein that we intend to hold the celebrations in Moscow today, May 9, where a special summit is taking place with more than 50 heads of state and government and heads of leading international organizations in attendance. It is important that the day contributes to uniting all countries and peoples and serve to reinforce our solidarity in the face of the global challenges of the 21st century.

The anniversary is above all a tribute to and an expression of the profoundest gratitude for those who upheld our fatherland’s independence and brought the long-awaited liberation to the people of Europe enslaved by fascism. The anniversary must serve as a reminder of the enormous inner spiritual potential that Russia and the Russian people possess. In this regard, the history of the Great Patriotic War remains for us an inexhaustible source of strength and confidence in the future.

The writer is the Russian ambassador to Pakistan.

THE historic international event which is being celebrated in Moscow today in the presence of a staggering list of world leaders, including the presidents of the United States and China, marks the 60th anniversary of the Great Patriotic war and the subsequent victory over Nazi Germany.

Though the occasion has received considerable publicity in the West, the event did not make any waves in Pakistan, where the conflict is still regarded as essentially a European affair, as a struggle between competing imperialist powers.

Members of the older generation in Pakistan, who as children caught glimpses of subcontinental heroes like Bose, Jinnah and Gandhi still believe that if it hadn’t been for the fierce resistance of the Germans who were fighting a rearguard action against the collective military might of 19 nations, and the Japanese who humbled the British in South Asia, India and Pakistan would not have been granted independence so soon after the conclusion of the Second World War II.

Russophiles nevertheless trotted off to Friendship House in Karachi last Saturday, where the consul- general Vladimir Mikhailov had his own celebration. After the usual nostalgic speeches one of the classics of Soviet cinema, The Cranes are flying, was screened. Along with Ballad of a Soldier, which also stirs up memories of the war, this is one of the finest films to be produced by the Soviets.

President Putin of the Russian Federation, however, soon learned that not everybody shared his enthusiasm over the celebration. The presidents of two Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, turned down Russia’s invitation to come to Moscow to participate in the festivities. The decision did not really surprise anybody. Official spokespeople for both the Lithuanian and Estonian governments had said in the beginning of February that their presidents would most likely not visit Moscow for the anniversary.

Both Valdas Adamkus of Lithuania and Arnold Ruutel of Estonia had their own reasons for not celebrating May 9 as a holiday. The Lithuanian president pointed out that the Russians were not the only people to have waged war against the Nazis. He had probably forgotten that while the allied troops in the Normandy landing faced only 58 German divisions, the Soviet Union and the Red Army had to overcome 228 crack German divisions in their march to the Reichstag.

The Estonian president stated that Estonia was not free to choose its future after the war and implied that the Estonians had had a pretty rough time after the Soviet occupation. And so it transpired that Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the president of Latvia, was the only leader of the three former Soviet Baltic states to visit Russia for the anniversary. But even here there was a sour note when she insulted Russian veterans by saying they were celebrating May Day with dried fish and vodka.

However, it would be unfair to steal Mr Putin’s thunder; for in spite of what one reads in the history books and is spite of what one saw on the American silver screen, it was really the grit, determination, resilience and fighting ability of the Red Army under Joseph Stalin that played an overwhelming role in the defeat of the Wehrmacht.

Curiously enough, one doesn’t come across Stalin’s name very often these days. A couple of important books on him were published last year. And his moniker popped up in one of those delightful BBC documentaries where a globe trotter with a film crew suddenly decides that he hasn’t really lived unless he visits one of those totally inaccessible places in eastern Siberia where peasants eke out a bare living from the soil. And so he heads for a small village north west of Magadan.

After the usual low helicopter shots, where the film was speeded up so that the clouds could fly, and slowed down so that eagles could soar languidly, the camera focused on an old codger who complained that business was not at all good and that he couldn’t find anybody to buy what he produced. Then viewers heard the punch line. Things were different in Stalin’s time. You see, there was order and discipline.

That’s what the old Soviet Union was really about — order and discipline, and of course the simple securities of life like having enough food to eat, enough clothes to wear and adequate heating in the long cold winter to keep warm. And in the middle of it all was the fearsome image of a ruthless dictator, shrouded in mystique, the corpulent Georgian with the huge moustache and a ravenous appetite, who ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist and remained a Georgian till the end of his life.

The Russians have now learned that he wasn’t such a great military strategist, that like Hitler, he made a series of blunders, and that the Soviet Union achieved a great victory in spite of, rather than because of, him. The Russians have now also learned that he was a mass murderer who destroyed millions of his own countrymen, who had Trotsky killed , who used to draw sketches of some of his victims while attending politburo meetings, and ordered the execution of a number of Polish officers who were his allies. One wonders, however, if the course of the war would have been different had Stalin not been at the helm of affairs. Much of what the world knew of Stalin came from the campaign Leon Trotsky orchestrated in the 1930s, when he described him as a talentless, primitive, murderous, bureaucratic “mediocrity”. But as the author Robert Service points out in his fine book Stalin: A biography, Joseph Stalin is now recognized as one of the 20th century’s outstanding politicians. Evil and strange? Certainly. Cruel and cunning? Certainly. But as Service points out, he was also exceptional, gifted, complex and seethingly subtle.

A number of Russians still cherish his memory. The image of a millionaire flashing by in a swanky, expensive German car, a cover girl blonde in a fur coat clinging to the steering wheel, or a Russian Jewish family occupying a whole suite in a luxurious Tel Aviv hotel, was unthinkable in Stalin’s days. His name is still held with certain awe throughout the length and breadth of Russia. And he is still the best read Russian ruler since Catherine the Great.

Part of his appeal is possibly due to his humble origin. He was born in 1878 to a drunken cobbler in an unhappy Georgian home. He trained as a priest, experimented in romantic poetry and subsequently embraced Marxism-Leninism. But besides being a Russian imperialist, in his vindictiveness, his thin-skinned dignity and his relationship with family and friends, he remained a Georgian till the end of his life.