What the terror balance sheet says

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

India has just missed consciously an opportunity to initiate steps to put its troubled relations with Pakistan on an even keel.

When Pakistan’s Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz landed in Amritsar a day ahead of Sunday’s Heart of Asia conference on Afghanistan there was speculation that there might be informal talks to improve the relationship between the two countries which touched a new low after militants from across the line of control attacked an army base at Uri in Jammu and Kashmir and India retaliated with surgical strikes on terror launch pads on the other side. However, the Indian government said no talks were possible while acts of terrorism continued.

Terrorism figured prominently in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to the delegates to the Amritsar conference, who included representatives of a score of countries including the United States, China and Russia. He said it was necessary to end terrorism to foster stability, security and development in Afghanistan and in the region as a whole.

The year witnessed an escalation of militant activity in Kashmir and a corresponding deterioration in the relations between the two neighbours. In the very first week there was a daring attack on an air force base at Pathankot.

In his Independence Day address, Modi raised the issue of Pakistani human rights violations in Baluchistan as a counter to Islamabad’s harping on Indian rights violations in Kashmir.

The killing of Burhan Wani, a young home-grown militant leader, by the security forces led to youth unrest which paralysed life in Kashmir valley for nearly four months.

Eighteen soldiers were killed in the Uri attack which took place during a rotation of units. The surgical strikes, which occurred a few days later, marked a departure from the policy of strategic restraint which the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance governments had followed. It boosted Modi’s sagging macho image but failed to make any appreciable difference to infiltration across the LoC and terror attacks. The year appears set to end as one of the bloodiest in recent years.

The worst year of the decade was 2007. As many as 311 militants crossed into India that year and 121 uniformed personnel were killed and 336 injured in terrorist attacks. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), which collates information relating to terrorism, 164 civilians and 492 militants were also killed that year.

The following years saw a decline in militancy in Kashmir and infiltration across the LoC. Casualty figures of security personnel fell continuously and stood at only 17 in 2012 before starting to climb again.

This year, there has been only a marginal increase in the number of violent incidents but casualties among men in uniform have risen dramatically. On September 30, the toll stood at 63 security personnel killed and 181 injured. The latest available tally is 77 dead, as on November 27.

Parliament was told recently that 105 terrorists from across the LoC entered Kashmir until September 30 this year, as against only 33 last year. This, again, is the highest figure since 2007.

The security forces can perhaps draw some comfort from the fact that this year they have been able to impose heavier penalties on the terrorists than in the recent past. Their toll stood at 119 at the end of September.

Casualty figures at the SATP website show that since 1988 terrorism has taken a toll of 49,315 lives across India, 44,119 of them in Jammu and Kashmir. The number of terrorists killed was 24,101, including 23,121 in J&K. A total of 9,854 security personnel were killed. 7,688 of them in Kashmir. Civilians bore the brunt of the attacks: 17,526 killed, including 14,735 in Kashmir. 

The hope raised by the surgical strike was shattered when three terrorists, wearing police uniform, broke into the Nagrota base in Kashmir last week and launched an attack in which seven military personnel, including two Army majors, were killed. They are believed to have entered India through a tunnel and reached the base travelling 85 kilometres evading army checkpoints.

Retiring Northern Army Commander Lt-Gen DS Hooda said later the Kashmir conflict was a long war requiring a long-term approach. It is just another way of saying it is a problem that requires a political solution. The terror balance-sheet also says the same thing. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 6, 2016.

BRICS summit yields little

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

A verbose statement at the end of an international event is usually an attempt to cover up sparseness of the outcome. When high expectations are raised it may even become necessary to pad up public statement with platitudes to contain possible disenchantment.

The Goa declaration issued on Sunday at the end of the two-day summit of BRICS, a five-nation group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) which accounts for 47 per cent of the world’s population, ran into more than 7,200 words. It is a good example of talking much and saying little. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi viewed the BRICS summit as yet another forum to use to carry forward the campaign to isolate Pakistan, which he launched after the attack on India’s army base at Uri.

Before the meet, there was a media campaign to make it appear that terrorism was the main issue before it. As soon as the meet ended, friendly media began propagating the idea that Modi had scored another great success in his campaign.

The Goa summit did condemn strongly terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and stress that there could be no justification whatsoever for any acts of terrorism. But, then, so did the summit held at Sanya, China, five years ago.

Of course, there was a reference to the terrorist attacks on India, which was as follows: “the recent several attacks against some BRICS countries, including that in India.” There was no mention of Pakistan or cross-border terrorism. How could they find their way into the joint statement when Pakistan’s best friend, China, is the BRICS member with the most economic clout? 

On the eve of the summit, the Chinese media had reported that there is no change in Beijing’s stand on India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group and its demand that the UN brand Pakistan-based Masood Azhar a terrorist.

Realising that it cannot have its way at the summit, the Indian government played up the BIMSTEC (short for Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) outreach planned as part of the BRICS summit as more important than the summit itself. This grouping, which includes India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka, was in the limbo since its formation a few years ago. It suddenly became a favourite as it does not include Pakistan or China.

When BRICS took shape the economies of its members were growing at a fast pace and the International Monetary Fund had projected that by this year their combined GDP would exceed that of the US. The recent modest recovery enabled the US to raise its GDP to more than $18 trillion, but the BRICS total fell short of the projected figure as a result of slowing down of their economies. 

In the beginning, by virtue of the political traditions of its members, BRICS appeared to have the capacity to evolve as a group that can counter the influence of the US, the sole surviving superpower. The New Development Bank floated by BRICS was widely seen as an attempt to build an alternative to the US-dominated IMF.

BRICS’s presumed anti-American potential has dimmed with the recent change of government in Brazil and the cosy relationship Modi has forged with the US, exemplified by the military logistic agreement which the two countries signed recently. However, the lone superpower dispensation is palpably on the decline and new synergies are in evidence in many regions, including India’s neighbourhood. 

Russia has been moving close to China in recent months, and a few weeks ago it participated in military exercises in Pakistan. Taking into account India’s sensitivity, the Russians got the Pakistanis to shift the exercises out of the Gilgit area, which was under the control of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir during the British period. But that was not enough to dispel India’s chagrin. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping came to Goa after visiting Bangladesh where he committed more than $23 billion for a slew of projects over the next five years. This is ten times more than what Modi offered when he went to Dhaka last year. China and Bangladesh signed 26 agreements and about 30 memoranda of understanding during the Xi visit. 

The summit itself may not have given Modi much to cheer but it became an occasion for renewal of Indo-Russian ties. Modi and President Vladimir Putin sang paeans of the special and privileged nature of their strategic partnership. The two countries also signed three big defence deals. ;; Gulf Today, Sharjah, October 18, 2016

Time to move from rhetoric to reality

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

The daring cross-border attack on the Indian brigade headquarters at Uri in Kashmir, which left 17 dead and about 30 injured, several of them seriously, poses a severe challenge to the Narendra Modi regime even as it copes with the situation created by more than two months of civil unrest in the valley.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh, who has emerged as the government’s chief spokesman on Kashmir-related issues, blamed the attack on the “terrorist state” of Pakistan. Modi, in a tweet, assured the nation that those who were behind the despicable attack would not go unpunished.

The social media and television channels were abuzz with the informed and the uninformed offering Modi advice on what punishment to give. Suggestions from former army officers and diplomats ranged from calls for surgical strikes to passionate pleas for well-thought-through responses.

Terror groups have targeted military establishments on more than 10 occasions since the eruption of insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir in the early 1990s. In terms of casualties, the worst attack was the one staged by a gang of three at the Kaluchak cantonment in 2002 in which 31 persons were killed and 47 injured. Of the dead, three were army personnel, 18 were family members of army men and 10 were civilians.

The most audacious of all Kashmir-related terrorist actions was the 2001 attack on the Parliament House in New Delhi. Six police personnel, two Parliament security guards and a gardener were killed but no MP was even hurt. The government, headed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader AB Vajpayee, viewed the event as a proxy attack by Pakistan and drew up plans for a military response but did not go ahead with it.

The Uri attack was the second one this year. In January a group of terrorists had sneaked into the large air force base at Pathankot. The encounter that followed resulted in the death of six defence personnel. It was apparently a calculated attempt to derail the India-Pakistan peace process. Following the attack scheduled official level talks between India and Pakistan were cancelled.

Going by the government’s accounts, the terrorists directly involved in all these attacks were liquidated in the encounters that followed.

Since the Pathankot attack, with one thing leading to another, there has been continuous deterioration in India-Pakistan relations. In his Independence Day address on August 15, Modi, in a marked shift from the position taken by all previous governments, openly voiced support for rebels challenging the authority of Pakistan in Baluchistan.

The ground situation in Kashmir took a turn for the worse when protests erupted after security forces announced the killing of young Hizbul Mujahideen commander Buran Wani in July. Many parts of the valley have been under prolonged curfew, and at least 80 persons have been killed, more than 100 blinded and several thousand injured in firing of supposedly non-lethal pellets by central security personnel.

As Pakistan despatched a large number of special envoys to world capitals to mobilise opinion against human rights violations in Kashmir valley, India decided on a similar effort with the focus on Pakistani rights violations in Baluchistan and Kashmir areas under its control. The flip side of such tit-for-tat manoeuvres is that they put India and Pakistan politically on the same level.

Some observers see in Modi’s toughening stance the influence of National Security Adviser Ajit Doyal, who, since retirement from the police, has attracted a bunch of admirers by recounting his exploits as an intelligence officer and has openly advocated a hawkish line. But he is also believed to be the one who sold to Modi the idea of inviting all South Asian leaders to his swearing-in ceremony in 2014.

For Modi the time has come to move from rhetoric to reality. Recent events have revealed two grave weaknesses which India can ignore only at its peril.

One is the ease with which terrorists have been able to intrude into fortified military establishments. The Uri attack resulted in heavy casualties as it took place when one unit was taking over from another. If the attack was timed with prior knowledge of the changeover, it indicates the terror planners have good intelligence support. Clearly, strengthening of the security environment deserves a higher priority than reprisal.

The other is the alarming degree of alienation in the Kashmir valley. In the past civil unrest manifested itself mainly in the form of demonstrations in Srinagar streets. This time young stone-throwers were out in the streets in the countryside and police personnel abandoned many stations. Restoration of normalcy must come first. All else can wait.

The Centre must not forget the healthy atmosphere that prevailed in the valley during the three armed conflicts with Pakistan. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, September 20, 2016 

India-Pakistan reality check

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

’s on again. The joint statement issued after Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif met at Ufa, Russia, signals that India and Pakistan are ready to resume bilateral talks which have been moving on an ‘on-again, off-again’ course for years.

Modi had invited all South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation leaders, including Nawaz Sharif, to attend his swearing-in ceremony last year, and they had all turned up. The development was widely seen as an indication of Modi’s eagerness to improve India’s relations with neighbours and their willingness to reciprocate.

However, India-Pakistan relations suffered a setback soon afterwards. Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi held consultations with some separatist leaders of Kashmir ahead of a scheduled meeting between Foreign Secretaries of the two countries, and the Modi government responded by cancelling the meeting.

Many at home criticised the decision. They pointed out that earlier, too, the Pakistani envoy had conferred with separatists before a bilateral meeting without inviting such a response. Besides, continued talks were the only sensible course before the two countries. However, Modi had to satisfy his Sangh Parivar followers who had been fed on anti-Pakistan rhetoric.

When India’s Foreign Secretary, S Jaishankar, was in Islamabad last March in the course of a tour of SAARC countries he discussed with his Pakistani counterpart, Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, ways to resume the dialogue process step by step without setting a time-frame.

The important decisions that emerged from the Modi-Sharif meeting include a meeting between the National Security Advisers of the two countries in New Delhi to discuss terrorism-related issues and a meeting between commanders of the Border Security Force and the Pakistani Rangers to de-escalate tension along the Jammu-Kashmir border, to be followed by a meeting between the Directors-General of Military Operations of the two countries.

India has entertained for long the feeling that Islamabad is not pursuing the case against the Pakistan-based terror group responsible for the 26/11 attack on Mumbai which left 166 people dead. According to Indian officials, a major takeaway of the Modi-Sharif meeting is Pakistan’s offer to cooperate in the terror attack trial by providing voice samples of suspects. It is not clear if the law permits the Pakistan government to do this.

Relations with Pakistan have been a contentious issue in domestic politics. Ironically the Congress, which was in power longer than any other party, is now plugging a critical line which is reminiscent of what the Bharatiya Janata Party did when it was in the opposition

For long the standard phrase in India-Pakistan joint communiqués was that the talks covered all issues, including Kashmir. After the cancellation of Secretary-level talks India was keen to shift the focus from Kashmir to terrorism.

Much of the latest communiqué is taken up by the issue of terrorism. What’s more, there is no specific mention of Kashmir. Indian officials cite this as evidence of Pakistani acceptance of the Indian stand.

However, they also concede, albeit indirectly, that India has been under pressure from the West to resume the dialogue with Pakistan. The US and other foreign governments have been warning India that recurrent exchange of fire along the line of actual control and belligerent statements by BJP leaders, including ministers, were leading to expansion of the Pakistan army’s engagement with terror groups.

The most positive aspect of the new situation is that leaders on both sides who were riding the high horse have come to terms with ground realities. However, they still have to proceed cautiously because of the compulsions of domestic politics.

Even as the BJP was labouring to present the Ufa outcome as a feather on Modi’s cap, Uddhav Thackeray, head of its closest ideological ally, the Shiv Sena, said the meeting with Sharif was unfortunate. “The neighbouring country needs to be taught a lesson in a manner it understands,” he added.

That the dialogue will now be at the level of National Security Advisers, and not Foreign Secretaries, suggests that India-Pakistan relations will be handled directly by the Prime Minister and his office, bypassing the External Affairs Ministry and its officials with experience of diplomatic engagements.

Modi and Nawaz Sharif were in Ufa for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. SCO admitted both India and Pakistan as full-fledged members at this meeting. It thus becomes another forum where the two countries will work together as equal partners.--Gulf Today, July 14, 2015.

A law unto itself

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

For 12 years the Gujarat government, under Narendra Modi, relentlessly sought to enact a draconian law ostensibly to combat terrorism.

But the Centre – first the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government of Atal Behari Vajpayee and then the Congress-led government of Manmohan Singh – blocked assent to the measure.

Last week, the State Assembly passed the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill for the fourth time.

With Modi in the Prime Minister’s chair, it may now be cleared by the Centre.

Two high-ranking police apologists, former Central Bureau of Investigation Director RK Raghavan and former Maharashtra police chief D. Sivanandan, immediately commended the measure publicly.

They conceded it was not perfect but wanted it to be viewed “as a piece that would hone itself over the years in the hands of those in authority.”

But the history of India’s black laws and the record of the Gujarat police leave no room for optimism.

When the Centre returned the bill to the state for the second time, it had suggested changes in three clauses.

However, Modi got the Assembly to pass it again without any change.

In their laboured defence of GCTOC, Raghavan and Sivanandan did not explain why the state wants a separate law to deal with terrorism when it can use the laws enacted by the Cenbtre from time to time.

First, there was the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) of 1985, which was in force for 10 years before it was allowed to lapse in view of strong public criticism.

In 2002 the Vajpayee government enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The first Manmohan Singh government repealed POTA but incorporated some of its harsh features in the Unlawful Activities Prevent Act, brought in to check threats to the nation’s sovereignty and integrity 40 years earlier.

Many of the provisions of the Gujarat law are copied from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), enacted in 1999 to deal with gangsterism in Mumbai.

It was made applicable to Delhi in 2002.

An official committee which reviewed the working of MCOCA found that on an average about 40 cases were registered under it each year and six or seven arrests were made in each case.

Only a small number of persons hauled up under it belonged to minority communities.

The fond hope of Raghavan and Sivanandan about Gujarat police patterning themselves after their Maharashtra counterparts is unsustainable.

A National Human Rights Commission study found that Gujarat accounted for as many as 19,000 of the 65,000 TADA cases although there was no significant militant activity in the state during the decade that the law was in force.

Modi, of course, bears no responsibility for the misuse of TADA in Gujarat since he became Chief Minister only in 2001.

But he cannot be absolved of blame for the misuse of POTA under his watch.

According to Dr Mukul Sinha, an advocate, in the wake of the communal riots of 2002, the state government used POTA to perpetuate the communal divide.

In all but one of the 287 POTA cases the accused were Muslims.

The lone exception was a case against Sikhs.

Gujarat police officials were involved in several cases of fake encounters and illegal snooping.

Coinciding with Modi’s rise on the national stage the noose around their necks has loosened.

But the Supreme Court’s damning conclusion that the state police implicated innocent persons in the Surat blast and Akshardham encounter cases cannot be brushed under the carpet.

The police love black laws because they make things easy for them.

Recognising the police’s propensity to extract confessions from those in custody, the colonial regime made them inadmissible as evidence in courts, and that is still the law of the land.

However, the black laws allow such confessions as evidence, permit tapping of telephones and provide a time-frame of 180 days, instead of the normal 90, to file charge-sheets.

They also make it hard for the accused to get bail.

There is nothing to prove that black laws have a deterrent effect.

On the contrary, there is evidence to show that they are counterproductive.

No charges were framed against 18,708 of the 76,166 persons on whom TADA was slapped till 1994, and only four per cent of those charged were found guilty.

As the well-known human rights organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties has pointed out, such laws are actually tools of state terrorism. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 7, 2015.

Terror Hunt in Kafkaland: The premature celebration of justice

B.R.P.Bhaskar
Open

On 29 August, the Supreme Court of India upheld Ajmal Kasab’s death sentence in the Mumbai terror case. The same day, a Gujarat court held former Minister Maya Kodnani, Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and 30 others guilty of murder in the Naroda Patiya case relating to the massacre of 97 persons, including 35 women and 36 children, in the worst attack on Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. All the accused got life terms.

Also on that day, the police swooped on residences in Bangalore and Hubli in Karnataka and nabbed 11 young men, including a journalist, a doctor and a defence researcher, on charges of plotting to kill pro-Hindutva politicians and journalists. More youths were taken into custody in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh later.

Kasab had his day in court as he had landed in front of ordinary cops and not elite commandos. Justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad said if he had not been caught alive, he and his Pakistani associates might have passed off as Indian Muslims. They went on to say, “No Indian Muslim would even think of venting his grievance like an animal, killing, maiming and wounding innocent people, his own countrymen.”

The emphasis on the external origin of the 26/11 attacks was welcome, but did the judges not step into uncertain territory when they asserted an Indian Muslim could never be involved in a terror attack? In fact, as they were disposing of Kasab’s appeal, in another courtroom two other judges were hearing appeals filed by Indian Muslims convicted in cases related to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. Some of them had pleaded for leniency, saying they were driven by emotions generated by the 6 December 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Both Hindus and Muslims have been active on the terror track. The Malegaon, Mecca Masjid and Samjhauta Express blast cases, in which the police initially implicated Muslims, turned out to be the work of Hindus. The investigative machinery appears to slow down whenever a Hindu hand is exposed. After Mumbai Police officer Hemant Karkare, who first exposed the activities of Hindu terrorists, died—ironically, at the hands of Kasab—there has been little progress in cases involving them.

In 2008, the Jammu & Kashmir Police claimed four Keralites were killed in an encounter while trying to cross into Pakistan, and identified one of them, on the basis of an ID card, as Shakeel Mohammed of Kovalam. Inquiries at Kovalam, however, showed that Shakeel Mohammed was alive and living peacefully. Two of those killed were later identified as natives of Malappuram. A full account of their terror trip is still awaited.

Information fed to the media by sources in Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Mumbai about the arrest of Deccan Herald reporter Muthi-ur-Rahman Siddiqui, DRDO scientist Ejaz Mohammed Mirza, Dr Jaffar Iqbal Sholapur and others, after being tailed for four months, raises some questions about the coordinated police action in several states. First reports had said the Uttar Pradesh Police made the arrests, but the state police chief ousted them from the picture. Delhi reports said defence and nuclear establishments were on the terror radar and the Karnataka Police had recovered photographs and sketches of defence installations from them. However, the Bangalore Police said investigations so far showed their only targets were some Hindutva personalities.

Official agencies said the youths had Saudi Arabian links. Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister R Ashoka’s statement that they had used Skype to cover their tracks suggests the police have no proof to show yet. He said Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had congratulated the state on busting the terror module. Was it a mere coincidence that the chain of arrests began on the day of the Naroda Patiya judgment?

Here are a couple of gems from the police story. The persons arrested in Maharashtra had maintained contacts with the Bangalore youths through social networking sites. The person arrested in Hyderabad is a nephew of a controversial cleric he used to visit.

The terror hunt and trials in the states are reminiscent of the nightmarish experience of Josef K in Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial. Abdul Nazzer Maudani, a 47-year-old Kerala politician, who was acquitted in the Coimbatore serial blasts case after spending more than nine years in a Tamil Nadu jail without
bail or parole, is now in a Karnataka jail in connection with blasts in Bangalore. He has already spent two years there without bail or parole. With most of the other accused in jails elsewhere in connection with other terror cases, the trial is sure to drag on for years. The police in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have lined up three more cases against him, which can keep him in prison for the rest of his life even if there is no conviction. From serial blasts to serial trials.

Afzal Guru condemns Delhi High Court blast

Afzal Guru, convicted and sentenced to death in the Parliament House attack case, has condemned the bomb blast at the Delhi High Court and deplored attempts to drag his name into the matter.

The following is the text of the statement:

Date. 8.9.2011

From Tihar jail No.3

It is a serious matter of concern that some criminal elements and anti-social persons committed that heinous and barbarous crime of bomb blast in Delhi High Court. It is a cowardly act and must be condemned by all. No religion permits killing of innocent persons.

I am disturbed that my name has been unnecessarily dragged in this connection. Some agencies/groups are playing dirty game by falsely involving my name. This is not for the first time that my name has been dragged by some mischievous persons /groups for such
heinous crimes. It has become a routine that whenever such blasts take place my
name is sought to be dragged in in order to de-characterize and malign me to cultivate public opinion against me.
I am sending this statement through Shri N.D.Pancholi, my advocate, and request the
press to publish this statement.

Sd/- Afzal Guru
s/o Habibullah
W. No. 8 (H.S.W.)
Jail No.3. Tihar.


Statement by Afzal Guru’s lawyer

The following is a communication from Mr Pancholi, forwarding Afzal Guru’s statement:

In my capacity of Mohammad Afzal Guru’s lawyer and as a member of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, I am enclosing the statement of Afzal Guru.

There is no doubt that the attack on the Parliament was to be condemned as totally unjustifiable on several basic grounds. But there were several questions about the way the entire investigation into the crime was carried out and how the accused were sought to be demonized via the electronic media even before the trial was started.

And once again within hours of the horrific bomb blast outside the Delhi High Court on 7th September,2011 in which so many lives were blown up, the name of Afzal Guru has been dragged in. The media, quoting an e mail whose veracity has not even been established, are broadcasting on prime time that the blast was motivated by a group supporting Afzal Guru.

The corporate media is not accountable to anyone, and there is no effective authority to monitor the functioning of the 24 hour TV channels and protect victims of violations of basic journalistic ethics. All the discussions on the talk shows are heavily loaded against anyone trying to put forward any view that the anchor does not support. Though electronic media talk loudly against corruption, yet it does not realize its own corruption of having power without any responsibility.

The media portrays anyone talking on behalf of Afzal Guru as anti-Indian as if
patriotism is the monopoly of the national security experts, anchors of the corporate media and the Hindu Right alone.

Our Save Afzal Guru Campaign brought into focus the following aspects of Indian democracy:

1. The corruption of the investigating agencies and the lack of professionalism in their work was exposed. The Investigating Officer in the Parliament attack case was many times decorated but later he was shot dead because of his involvement in shady real estate dealings involving crores of rupees. By hanging Afzal we will take away attention
from the corruption of the policemen of the Special cell.

2. The fact that the judiciary was more influenced by the media campaign rather than
constitutional and legal principles with the result that the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence only to “satisfy the national conscience of the country”. This is not a legal ground for sentencing anyone to death. By hanging Afzal it would mean Indian citizens can be hanged to satisfy Indian right-wing and corporate interests.

3. The chargesheet in the Parliament attack case accused three Pakistanies i.e. Maulana Masood Azhar, Ghazi Baba and Tariq Ahmed as masterminds of the attack. The said masterminds were not caught. Those who were involved in the actual killing were
dead. And so even if Afzal was a part of the conspiracy he could not be given a death sentence because he neither masterminded the attack nor participated in it. By hanging Afzal the responsibility of finding the real culprits and dealing with real causes of
terrorism would be put aside.

4. The human rights campaigners proved that two persons arrested were innocent. This included a pregnant Sikh woman who gave birth to her baby in the jail. Her life has been completely wrecked. We never saw her on the TV channels and the terrible tragedy of her life. It showed how dispensable some citizens are.

5. The people of Kashmir saw that there were people in Delhi and other parts of the country who genuinely showed solidarity with them and campaigned for justice in the
case. Hanging Afzal will breach such delicate bridges built between the people of Kashmir and the people in rest of India. .

6. Afzal Guru was never given a fair trial and he was not represented by any lawyer of his choice because lawyers were not willing to take up his case. Even the most important witnesses were not crossexamined. By hanging Afzal we will undermine the right to fair trial which is guaranteed to every person under the Indian Constitution.

The whole experience of the Parliament attack case exposed the weakness of our democratic institutions but it also showed that if a small group of committed activists and lawyers choose to fight for democratic space it was possible. If Afzal Guru is hanged that space would be jeopardized. The Hindu right-wing can celebrate with fireworks; the corporate media may get something dramatic to report on for a few days but Indian democracy would suffer a body blow. That is why Afzal Guru must not be hanged.

I enclose his statement for publication as requested by him so that people may hear the voice of a man who has been wronged.

Visit means trade

B.R.P.Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Barack Obama’s visit to India is unlike any previous US presidential visit. From Dwight Eisenhower onwards, several presidents came to India. They all began the odyssey in the capital city of New Delhi with a visit to the Gandhi memorial.

President Obama, who arrived on Saturday on a three-day visit — his longest trip so far to any country — landed first not in New Delhi, but in Mumbai, the bustling commercial capital, which stopped in its tracks to facilitate his safe passage.

Ostensibly Mumbai was given the honour to demonstrate US solidarity with the victims of the multiple terror attack on the city on November 26, 2008. The president’s first stop was at the Taj hotel, where the terrorists who arrived by sea from Pakistan had mowed down many Indians and foreigners.

The choice of Mumbai as the starting point was appropriate for another reason too. For Obama, who was accompanied by the chief executive officers of more than 200 US corporations, came as CEO of USA Inc. and was looking for business which will help his country’s economy, which is yet to recover from the impact of the meltdown.

Thanks to the work done in advance behind the scenes by government and company officials of the two countries, within hours of arrival he was able to announce the conclusion of 20 deals under which Indian firms will buy American goods worth $10 billion. These deals will help create more than 50,000 jobs, he said. As the day wore on, the size of US business deals rose to $15 billion.

Obama noted that India and the US are the world’s largest democracies. Yet, he pointed out, India ranked only 12th among America’s trading partners and there was vast scope for improving the position. Evidently upgrading economic ties is a key element in his vision of Indo-US relationship, which, he said, was going to be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.

Captains of Indian industry, who are looking for new opportunities in the US, were quite pleased with what Obama said. More Indo-US trade will mean more jobs in this country too, they reckoned.

However, some sections of the Indian establishment were sorely disappointed and they made no attempt to hide their feelings. Commentators on live television shows noted that while reiterating US commitment to fight the scourge of terrorism Obama made no mention of Pakistan, from where the Mumbai attackers had come. A spokesman of the Bharatiya Janata Party echoed the sentiments.

The Indian critics, who are obsessed with Pakistan, were not impressed by US analysts’ explanation that ordinarily visiting presidents to not refer to third countries in public statements.

All sections in India have generally viewed relations with the US in the context of politics, and attached little value to economic and strategic considerations.

From Jawaharlal Nehru onwards, most Indian prime ministers began their official tenure with visits to the US and optimistic calculations about improved relations with that country. But the post-war US administrations, caught in the logics of the cold war, looked upon India’s policy of non-alignment with suspicion if not outright hostility.

Ritual reiteration of the natural affinity between the largest democracies proved inadequate to forge close relations. Richard Nixon’s instant dislike of Indira Gandhi led to a deterioration in the relationship and she signed a 25-year friendship with the then Soviet Union to make sure that was a reliable ally close by as she helped Pakistan’s geographically separated eastern province to emerge as independent Bangladesh.

With the cold war a thing of the past, Bill Clinton and George Bush made attempts to improve relations with India. However, the complexities of the South Asian situation limited progress.

Obama has taken two significant steps which hold out the possibility of a break with the past. One is keeping Pakistan out of the itinerary of the current tour. Previously US presidents had combined visits to the two countries. The other is shifting of the focus from politics to economics.

Political issues cannot, of course, be wished away. Obama simply kept them aside to be taken up before winding up the visit in New Delhi.

The Obama approach is based on a realistic appraisal of the changes in the global scenario. He indicated as much when he called for breaking out of stereotypes and coming to terms with current realities. It remains to be seen whether India is ready to go along the new path. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, November 8, 2010.

Life of an Iraqi blogger

WAMITH Al-KASSAB
March18.org

In the summer of 2008, I survived an assassination attempt in Iraq. My "crime" was that I am "an enemy of God," a promoter of concepts that "offended" religion. My crime was writing articles calling for the protection of religious minorities and calling for the rights of women, children, and homosexuals in Iraq, urging people to protect innocent people from brutal attacks by armed militias.

My principles forced me to live in harsh humanitarian conditions as I search for a safe haven, and as many of the countries which adopted human rights protection, bloggers from Iraq are not in the ranks of immediate threat, and I am thus forced to stay in search for protection.

We pay a high price in order to convey the reality of death and destruction in Iraq and to defend freedom of expression. While I live the reality of my search for a lifeline away from a death sentence awaiting me in my home country, I receive no means of protection and every day I come closer to face death again because of the programs forcing Iraqis to return, adopted by several European countries through treaties the Iraqi government put fourth.
Through my continued search for safety, I think of my conditions and imagine the reality of my fellow bloggers inside Iraq, and I know in my heart that they have a more difficult reality and they face more risks as every day the challenging for blogging are bigger and more dangerous.

A few months ago an Iraqi woman ophthalmologist disappeared on her way back to Iraq. She was on her way to participate in a project to help Iraqi children with a delegation of medical professionals from Jordan. An informant for the Iraqi border police accused her of being a blogger known as "Hiba Shemary" who blogs under the false name of the daughter of the Baath. On inspection of her personal laptop, several articles were found to support the charge, and she was arrested on charges of promoting terrorism. Me and many Iraqi bloggers believe in the new Iraq and reject the return of the past and we disagree with her and her beliefs, but the truth is that she was not more than a doctor who promotes ideas and opposition to the government of Iraq through a personal blog, which had limited followers, obviously not enough to be regarded as a promoter of terrorism in a time when the government allows many satellite and radio channels, the kind that would have allowed her to potentially reach millions of people, so the claim against her remains ridiculous.

At the beginning of March, a known Iraqi activist in the field of human rights, who operates on the Internet, specifically on Facebook, received two death threats. The first accused her of being a Western agent and anti-Islam (the same charges I received) because she promotes the rights of women and children, freedom of education and discusses the failure of the educational system in Iraq. The second accused her of insulting Iraqi religious figures, threatening her not to cross the line against the characters of religions working in politics. She was forced to reduce her activities because she still lives in Iraq.

In another incident, a young Iraqi blogger living in upscale Shiite areas of Baghdad was attacked by the security forces and intimidated because of his support for the young Iraqi blog which promotes freedom of expression. The army officer searched his room for evidence of any potential threat. He asked about the many books in the young boy’s room. Were they school books? When the answer was that they were novels by Marquez, the officer asked, "Marx? Are you a communist?"

During the recent elections, bloggers carried cameras and took pictures documenting the elections. Whenever arrested they told the police they were working for a channel or a newspaper belonging to one of the sectarian groups, depending on what the soldier would like to hear, to avoid being charged with "terrorism." Other bloggers carried their phones, posting into sites like Twitter, moving between different houses in order to prevent anyone from detecting their signals. Especially since a number of religious parties had taken precautions against repeating the "new media" experience of the Iranian elections with bloggers and activists.

Political assassinations with silencers, explosive adhesive bombs, kidnapping, arrests for unknown reasons, hacking Iraqi sites, psychological and intellectual warfare: this is the reality of the Iraqi bloggers.

Any believer in freedom of expression, warrior against corruption, observers of the reality of political and financial corruption and advocate for reform and national reconciliation, fighters for the rights of minorities and other persecuted groups… anyone with the objectives of turning away from religious totalitarian regimes and ideology will face the hard reality that Iraqi bloggers continue to suffer through.

I asked a number of Iraqi bloggers about how to describe blogging in Iraq. They said: primitive, isolated, like a small child lacking guidance, a severe shortage of support. We are not recognized or treated like "media men," we are neglected, forgotten, ignored.

The best description of Iraqi blogging came from a veteran blogger who describes himself as an unarmed Iraqi soldier alone in a battlefield.
Iraqi bloggers learned blogging without a teacher. They do not get support or training from any person. They work in a country governed by customs, traditions and religion.

They are working in conditions of bad electricity to run the computer, using very bad Internet services, forced to walk long distances to reach the Internet café to publish blogs. Iraqi bloggers are working in complete secrecy because of the eyes that lurk in the Internet cafe from religious groups and parties. If we write in support of the new Iraq, we are an agent of the occupation. If we blog criticizing the Iraqi reality, we are an agent of terrorism. We don’t have any rights, it’s like we are unknown.

Iraq is a country living a conflict. It is in the middle of many powers trying to force their views to shape it close to the image that serves their interests.

Bloggers want to convey their vision of the nation, a vision we may like or not, but in the end a person wants to express himself and say a word in a peaceful manner, and has the right to work without fear or intimidation.
Unfortunately, through my experience that I live today I discovered that many of those who were outside Iraq and encourage us to express ourselves and convey images of a new Iraq, were at the forefront of abandoning me and others in my position. Today I face the risk of death or displacement, I risk my life, but I took to myself to fight in my remaining days to prevent a repetition of tragedies with other Iraqi bloggers who face the realities of working in an atmosphere of danger.

Help Iraqi bloggers with support and protection. Do not leave us to fight windmills alone, because we will fight like heroes and die without leaving a trace. Help us leave a trace in this struggle.

This post is contributed by Wamith Al-Kassab, a blogger at Iraqi Streets and Mideast Youth.

Courtesy: Countercurrents

Citizens voice concern over media's Soofiya Madani hunt

The following is a statement issued by a group of concerned citizens on Thursday

We, a group of concerned citizens from different walks of life, have come to know that the Kerala police has chargesheeted Soofiya Madani for her alleged involvement in the 2005 Kalamassery bus burning case. We do not want to take a position for or against Soofiya Madanai and we believe that the rule of the law and the constitution of India should prevail.

However, during the past few years we have seen a number of activists, students, scholars and other citizens from the Muslim community being imprisoned and persecuted in the name of combating terrorism. After long years in prison, many of them have been acquitted, free of all charges, by the higher courts. In the meantime most of them have been subjected to all kinds of violations of their fundamental rights. The media has also played a huge role in subverting the judicial process by sensationalizing these cases and publishing baseless stories without any proper investigation.

Soofiya Madani started appearing in news media in the context of the 10 year long imprisonment of her husband Abdul Nasser Madani without a trial. During this period, Soofiya was active in the affairs of the political outfit Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that her husband had founded. Abdul Nassar Madani was finally acquitted after this long incarceration without even as much as a whimper of apology, forget compensation. Following his acquittal, both Abdul Nasser and Soofiya Madani have been active in the electoral politics of Kerala, contesting the last Parliamentary elections along with the ruling Left Democratic Front. One of the cases against Soofiya Madani is that she was allegedly involved in conspiring the burning of a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus at Kalamassery, Kochi in September 2005 - and an anticipatory bail plea on this case is pending before the Kerala High Court today.

However the media in Kerala has been extra-judicially trying Soofiya Madani -- often using highly questionable anti-Muslim representations -- equating a case of arson where her involvement has not been legally established yet -- to fundamentalist terrorism. This media campaign also needs to be seen in the context of a prevalent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Malayalam language media in general.

In that context we fear that her basic constitutional rights might be violated in the coming days. We want to raise our collective voices against such an event and we strongly call on all concerned authorities to prevent any such violation from happening without prejudice to the Rule of Law and any investigations that should be carried out against her.

Sd/-
1. John Dayal, Member National Integration Council
2. K. Satchidanandan, Poet
3. M Rasheed, Freedom fighter & Journalist
4. Ajit Sahi, Journalist
5. A. K. Ramakrishnan, Professor, JNU (to be confirmed)
6. Sreerekha, Asst. Professor, Jamia Milia Islamia
7. Sreejitha P.V, , Kamala Nehru College, Delhi University
7. Jenny Rowena, Asst. Professor, Miranda House, DU
8. Hany Babu, Associate Professor, Dept. of English, Delhi University
9 Joe Athially, Delhi Solidarity Group
10, Shahina K K, Development Professional, Delhi
11. Rajeev Ramachandran, Journalist, Delhi
12. Maymon Madathingal, Software Engineer, Delhi
13. Sudeep K. S, Software Engineer, Delhi
14, Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Human Rights Activist, Mumbai
15. Anil Tharayath Varghese, Development Professional, Delhi
16. Bobby Kunhu, Human Rights Activist
17.K K Kochu,Dalit Scholar
18.G .P Ramachandran,Film Critic
19.K K Baburaj,Dalit Activists
20.M B Manoj,poet
21.Rekha raj,Development Profeesional,Cochin
22.Sunny m Kapikadu,Dalit Activist
23.J Raghu,Writer and scholar

Can India And Pakistan fight terror together?

PERVEZ HOODBHOY

Inseparable by geography, Pakistan and India are Siamese twins that have emerged together from the womb of history. For better or for worse, their futures will always remain inextricably tied together.

Today, one of the two is in deep trouble. The ferocious militant fanaticism of Pathan tribals, once sequestered in the mountains of Waziristan and Swat, has migrated down into the plains and across the country. Every city of Pakistan has been attacked, some repeatedly and without respite. With threats, abductions, beheadings, and daily suicide bombings, extremists have drastically changed the way Pakistanis live.

Just a couple of months ago, Pakistanis had heaved a sigh of relief. A brief lull in terrorist attacks had followed the army's successful operation against the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Swat, and the killing by an American drone of TTP's supremo, Baitullah Mehsud. Some hubris-filled "analysts" - who incessantly chatter on Pakistan's numerous private television channels - claimed that the TTP had been mortally wounded. But they were dead wrong.

Islamabad is now a city of fear as the TTP retaliates. Traffic crawls past concrete blocks placed across its roads as helmeted soldiers peer suspiciously from behind their machine-guns. Restaurants barely function, and markets are deserted. Still, the attackers appear unstoppable and, as in Peshawar, they have paralyzed the city. Some attacks are more spectacular than others, but even the outstanding ones are forgotten once the next one happens. Explosives inside a car blow up over a hundred shoppers in Peshawar's crowded Meena Bazaar; a suicide bomber detonates himself in the girls' cafeteria of the International Islamic University in Islamabad; three simultaneous attacks hit police institutes in Lahore; school children are shredded by ball bearings from a suicide bomber's exploding jacket in Kohat,...

Other recent attacks - against hard targets - were even more dramatic. Just days earlier the headlines had been dominated by Taliban militants who had stormed the apparently impregnable General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi, Islamabad's sister city. The 20-hour siege, followed diligently by private television channels, showed meticulous planning and execution that culminated in hostage-taking and killing. Still more recently, the heavily protected ISI headquarters in Peshawar was blown up by a suicide car bomber. The message was clear: no place in Pakistan is safe any more, not even the safest ones - particularly those belonging to former handlers and mentors.

Incredibly, Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, says that Pakistan is "compiling hard evidence of India's involvement" in terrorist attacks upon Pakistan's public and its armed forces. If he, and the Interior Minister, are correct then we must conclude that the Indians are psychotics possessed with a death wish, or perhaps plain stupid. While India's assistance for Baloch insurgents could conceivably make strategic sense, helping the jihadists simply does not.

As Pakistan staggers from one bombing to the other, some Indians must be secretly pleased. Indeed, there are occasional verbalizations: Is this not sweet revenge for the horrors of Mumbai perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba? Shouldn't India feel satisfaction as Pakistan reels from the stinging poison of its domestically reared snakes?

But most Indians are probably less than enthusiastic in stoking fires across the border. In fact, the majority would like to forget that Pakistan exists. With a 6% growth rate, booming hi-tech exports, and expectations of a semi-superpower status, they feel that India has no need to engage a struggling Pakistan with its endless litany of problems.

Of course, some would like to hurt Pakistan. Extremists in India ask: shouldn't one increase the pain of a country - with which India has fought three bloody wars - by aiding its enemies? Perhaps do another Bangladesh on Pakistan someday?

These fringe elements, fortunately, are inconsequential today. Rational self-interest demands that India not aid jihadists. Imagine the consequences if central authority in Pakistan disappears or is sharply weakened. Splintered into a hundred jihadist lashkars, each with its own agenda and tactics, Pakistan's territory would become India's eternal nightmare. When Mumbai-II occurs - as it surely would in such circumstances - India's options in dealing with nuclear Pakistan would be severely limited.

The Indian Army would be powerless. As the Americans have discovered at great cost, the mightiest war machines on earth cannot prevent holy warriors from crossing borders. Internal collaborators, recruited from a domestic Muslim population that feels itself alienated from Hindu-India, would connive with jihadists. Subsequently, as Indian forces retaliate against Muslims - innocent and otherwise - the action-reaction cycle would rip the country apart.

So, how can India protect itself from invaders across its western border and grave injury? Just as importantly, how can we in Pakistan assure that the fight against fanatics is not lost?

Let me make an apparently outrageous proposition: in the coming years, India's best protection is likely to come from its traditional enemy, the Pakistan Army. Therefore, India ought to now help, not fight, against it.

This may sound preposterous. After all, the two countries have fought three and a half wars over six decades. During periods of excessive tension, they have growled at each other while meaningfully pointing towards their respective nuclear arsenals. Most recently, after heightened tensions following the Mumbai massacre, Pakistani troops were moved out from NWFP towards the eastern border. Baitullah Mehsud's offer to jointly fight India was welcomed by the Pakistan Army.

And yet, the imperative of mutual survival makes a common defense inevitable. Given the rapidly rising threat within Pakistan, the day for joint actions may not be very far away.

Today Pakistan is bearing the brunt. Its people, government and armed forces are under unrelenting attack. South Waziristan, a war of necessity rather than of choice, will certainly not be the last one. A victory here will not end terrorism, although a stalemate will embolden jihadists in South Punjab, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammed. The cancer of religious militancy has spread across Pakistan, and it will take decades to defeat.

This militancy does not merely exist because America occupies Afghanistan. A US withdrawal, while welcome, will not end Pakistan's problems. As an ideological movement, the jihadists want to transform society as part of their wider agenda. They ride on the backs of their partners, the mainstream religious political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and Jamiat-e-Ulema-Pakistan. None of these have condemned the suicide bombings of Pakistani universities, schools, markets, mosques, police and army facilities.

Pakistan's political leadership and army must not muddy the waters, especially now that public sanction has finally been obtained for fighting extremism in Swat and Waziristan. Self-deception weakens, and enormously increases vulnerability. Wars can only be won if nations have a clear rallying slogan. Therefore the battle against religious extremism will require identifying it - by name - as the enemy.

India should derive no satisfaction from Pakistan's predicament. Although religious extremists see ordinary Muslims as munafiqs (hypocrites) - and therefore free to be blown up in bazaars and mosques - they hate Hindus even more. In their calculus, hurting India would buy even more tickets for heaven than hurting Pakistan. They dream of ripping apart both societies, or starting a war - preferably nuclear - between Pakistan and India.

A common threat needs a common defense. But this is difficult unless the Pakistan-India conflict is reduced in intensity. In fact the extremist groups that threaten both countries today are an unintended consequence of Pakistan's frustrations at Indian obduracy in Kashmir.

To create a future working alliance with Pakistan, and in deference to basic democratic principles, India must therefore be seen as genuinely working towards some kind of resolution of the Kashmir issue. Over the past two decades India has been morally isolated from Kashmiri Muslims and continues to incur the very considerable costs of an occupying power in the Valley. Indian soldiers continue to needlessly die - and to oppress and kill Kashmiri innocents.

It is time for India to fuzz the LOC, make it highly permeable, and demilitarize it up to some mutually negotiated depth on both sides. Without peace in Kashmir the forces of cross-border jihad, and its hate-filled holy warriors, will continue to receive unnecessary succor.

India also needs to allay Pakistan's fears on Balochistan. Although Pakistan's current federal structure is the cause of the problem - a fact which the government is now finally addressing through the newly announced Balochistan package - nevertheless it is possible that India is aiding some insurgent groups. Statements have been made in India that Balochistan provides New Delhi with a handle to exert pressure on Pakistan. This is unacceptable.

While there is no magic wand, confidence building measures (CBMs) continue to be important for managing the Pakistan-India conflict and bringing down the decibel level of mutual rhetoric. To be sure, CBMs can be easily disparaged as palliatives that do not address the underlying causes of a conflict. Nevertheless, looking at those initiated over the years shows that they have held up even in adverse circumstances. More are needed.

The reason for India to want rapprochement with Pakistan, and vice versa, has nothing to do with feelings of friendship or goodwill. It has only to do with survival. For us in Pakistan, this is even more critical.

The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad. A shorter version of this article was published on November 28 by Dawn, the Pakistani daily, and The Hindu, the Indian daily.(Courtesy: Countercurrents)

Are you a low level terrorist?

EMILY SPENCE
Countercurrents.org

When threatened, should we conform with lock-step in perverse obedience to the State's dictates, outlooks and agendas in an increasingly Orwellian milieu? If not, then we must constantly remind ourselves and each other of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas's vision: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

Recently, an American Civil Liberties Union report pointed out, "Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as ‘low level terrorism’.” [1]

Despite that DoD officials removed the offensive section from their educational resources at the urging of ACLU members, the DoD stance is still troubling since a longstanding practice to designate peaceful, law abiding activists as dangerous and treasonable still exists in many government departments and agencies. Indeed the participants of the first antiwar protest against the Vietnam incursion, put together in the mid-1960's by peaceable Quakers and FOR members after having discussed Gandhi's Salt March as a model for a nonviolent demonstration, faced government operatives filming them face by face from rooftops as they moved en masse down Broadway to the UN Plaza. (My mother, a pacifist married to a World War II Conscientious Objector, and I, a child at the time of the march, both were in attendance. When the film crew focused on us, she stood tall, faced the agents with their telephoto lens, glared in disdainful defiance and, simultaneously, throw the corner of her coat over my face. Afterwards, she muttered, "How dare they try to intimidate us!")

This sort of happening in mind, the treatment of Nobel Peace Award winner Aung San Sui Kyi in Myanmar is not necessarily all that different than the response that she'd receive in the USA and, while it's commendable that American spokespersons publicly object to her most recent arrest, they, certainly, might seem to be a bunch of hypocrites. This is due to the fact that a number of Nobel Peace Award recipients, such as American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), have had difficulties of their own on American soil.

For example, "AFSC’s work, always open and resolutely nonviolent, has been under government surveillance for decades. The Service Committee secured nearly 1,700 pages of files from the FBI under a Freedom of Information request in 1976. These files show that the FBI kept files on AFSC that dated back to 1921. Ten other federal agencies kept files on AFSC, including the CIA, Air Force, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and the State Department. The CIA has intercepted overseas mail and cables in the 1950s, and some AFSC offices (and even its staff's homes) have been infiltrated and burglarized in the late 1960s into the 1970s." [2]

In relation, AFSC associate general secretary for justice and human rights, Joyce Miller, asked, “How can we speak of spreading democracy in Iraq while dismantling it here at home?” She further remarked, “Political dissent is fundamental to a free and democratic society. It should not be equated with crime.”

Add to the AFSC problems, those pertaining to Nobel Peace Award recipient Nelson Mandela, who only a year ago had the designation "terrorist" removed from his name, under protest by the State Department, so that he no longer suffered travel restrictions from the US government. Yet his travel curtailment was not nearly as awful as was Ramzy Baroud's blockage. He, the editor of Palestine Chronicle, had his US passport seized by a consular officer at an overseas American Embassy [3]. Similarly, Senator Edward Kennedy was, also, flagged by the U.S. no-fly list.

Then again, Ted Kennedy received much less harassment than did Nobel Peace Award winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire after her flight from Guatemala had been directed to Ireland through Houston:

"She was probably tired and ready to get back to Belfast, where her attempts to bring about an end to The Troubles in 1976 made her at 32 the youngest Nobel Peace Prize-winner ever. Since then, she's been given the Pacem in Terris Award by Pope John Paul II, and the United Nations selected her (along with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Jordan's Queen Noor and a dozen or so other fellow Nobel Laureates) as an honorary board member of the International Coalition for the Decade.
"Unfortunately for Maguire, her flight back home to Northern Ireland was routed through Houston, where none of that meant diddly. Federal Customs officials were far less interested in any of that than they were in a box on the back of the transit form she filled out on her flight.

"'They questioned me about my nonviolent protests in USA against the Afghanistan invasion and Iraqi war,' Maguire said later in a statement. 'They insisted I must tick the box in the Immigration form admitting to criminal activities.'

"Maguire was detained for two hours -- grilled once, fingerprinted, photographed, and grilled again. She missed her flight home. She was only released after an organization she helped found -- the Nobel Women's Initiative -- started kicking up a fuss." [4]
On can add to her troubles countless other ones wherein human rights and environmental supporters have been repeatedly hassled for no other reason than that they're holding views that don't jive with positions at any number of U.S. government institutions. One needn't return in time to the McCarthy Era to find many individuals who have been investigated and persecuted for holding vilified opinions. For example, Stephen Lendman, a peace advocate and writer in his seventies with a permanent knee injury that delimits travel, has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI.

At the same time, he is joined by myriad others such as assorted activists in Maryland whose names were put on federal terrorist lists by state police who infiltrated their groups. [5] As such, their perfectly legal activities, freedom of speech and right to unhindered assembly have been criminalized.

Simultaneously, there's a certain inescapable irony and disingenuous quality presented by the Western government heads who are harshly critical of the Iran crackdown on dissenting citizens while they, themselves, condone similar ironfisted policies in their own lands. Their two-faced position is barely hidden beneath the surface of their mock concern for the well-being of Iranian protesters as they urge their own and allied troops into battle, show little (if any) sincere remorse over the slaughter of masses of civilians that happen in the process and make sure that demonstrators at home are disregarded, denigrated or preemptively rounded up as happened at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Then again, one might find himself in pretty good company if he were singled out as unpatriotic and treacherous for holding viewpoints or undertaking actions that go contrary to the perspectives that a certain hawkish and totalitarian segment of society holds. All the same, every method conceivable might be used to hunt down the offenders and, when taken to the extreme, render their seemingly provocative positions ineffectual by any means possible, including imprisonment and murder.

Anyone who doubts this to be the case needs only to remember about what happened to people like Howard Fast; the slain Freedom Riders Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner; the thirteen shot students at Kent State University at which Ohio National Guardsman fired sixty-seven rounds over a thirteen second period, and scores of others who have stood against mainstream policies.

Meanwhile, stigmatizing dissidents is a fairly common practice. As such, “There are 1.1 million people on the [U.S.] Terrorist Watch List and there is a 35 per cent error rate, minimum, for that list,” according to ACLU's Michael German. [6] Furthermore, the overzealous and aggressive surveillance tactics used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to check the public's e-mails, telephone calls and other communications are the same ones as were in use during George W. Bush's administration. Likewise, the amount of spying on personal exchanges is as high as it ever was.

In relation to recent claims by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was unintentional, House representative, Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey and Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, commented “Some actions are so flagrant that they can't be accidental.” Additionally, the act of tracking e-mailed transmissions and other interactions has seemed in violation of federal law according to lawyers at the Justice Department. Regardless, the practice continues.

At the same time, the decision to designate social activists as troublemakers, while singling them out for intimidation, threats and investigations, carries serious legal and political implications in democratic societies.The further measure of subjecting them to the sorts of difficulties that Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Ramzy Baroud, AFSC members and innumerable others have endured is clearly based in xenophobic, paranoid and despotic thinking. It embodies the kind of authoritarian mentality and oppressive activities that one finds in the worst types of tyrannical regimes.

As Harry S. Truman suggested, "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Due to this fear, are we, then, to all conform with lock-step in perverse obedience to the State's dictates, outlooks and agendas in an increasingly Orwellian milieu? If not, then we must constantly remind ourselves and each other of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas's vision: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

References

[1] Pentagon Rebrands Protest as “Low-Level Terrorism”

[2] American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)

[3] "Punishing activists or pursuing terrorists?" by Maggie Mitchell Salem in Asia Times Online

[4] Nobel Prize Winner Gets Hassled At Bush Intercontinental

[5] Police Spied on Activists In Md. - washingtonpost.com
and Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists

[6] One third of FBI Terror Watch List are innocent people

Emily Spence is an author living in Massachusetts. She has spent many years involved in human rights, environmental and social services efforts.

India must strengthen civilian democracy in Pakistan

DR. SANDEEP PANDEY
Countercurrents.org

In the clamour for asking the Pakistani government to take decisive action against terrorist organizations in that country and shut down their camps we forget one thing. The civilian government in Pakistan is probably simply not in a position to do what we expect from it. It is a well known fact that military and ISI in Pakistan are quite independent of the civilian government. The terrorists function quite independently too - sometimes with overt and at others with covert support of the military and ISI. In fact, the situation is such in Pakistan that probably none of the players is in a position to dictate terms to another. How may we expect any coordinated action in this anarchy?

The best course of action for the government of India would be to strengthen the civilian democratic government of Pakistan and not see it as its adversary. For only when the civilians government and the civil society will have any say in running the affairs of the Pakistani society can we hope for an order there. The military and intelligence cannot have an upper hand in any civilized society and definitely the terrorists have no place. But it is easier said than done. The Pakistani society has to cope with its problems. But the least we can do is to encourage the elements in there to help restore normalcy and democracy.

In the aftermath of the terrorist incidents in Mumbai it was easiest thing to have put the entire blame on Pakistan , treating it as a monolith. Thus people's anger was channelized away just like in the US after the September 11 attacks the entire blame was put on Al-Quaida. For, if the blame had not been put on Pakistan , people would have started asking very inconvenient questions.

First and foremost is, we've yet to know who exactly were responsible for the security lapses and why are they not being held accountable? The Home Minister and the Chief Minister or his deputy were only the tip of the iceberg. What about people below who were more directly responsible for day to day security and intelligence? It is humanly not possible to launch the kind of attack that we saw over three days by ten Pakistani citizens coming from outside through the sea route without any inside help. Are we completely denying it? Or, have we begun the process of identifying the insiders, in or outside the government-administrative-security apparatus, who might have helped the aggressors? Why has nobody not raised the last piece of information that Hemant Karkare's investigations had begun to reveal before his unfortunate death- the links between RSS and the ISI? Why were Bal Thakerey and Raj Thakerey silent during those three days? Have we forgotten that Bal Thakerey had offered to the then PM Vajpayee to send his Shiv Sainiks to fight the Pakistanis during the last build up at border? This time the enemy had obliged by coming to his doorsteps. But why did the Shiv Sainiks, or for that matter any group of combatants or non-combatants, not storm the Taj or the Oberoi to end the ordeal sooner? Is it possible for a Class IV educated daily wage labourer from Pakistan to operate sophisticated electronic devices during the attack? Has the letter written by Ajmal Kasab to Pakistani High Commissioner asking for legal help actually written by him or like in plethora of other cases police got him to sign on what they wanted to be written? Indian Express carried a front page story soon after the attack about the European and US connection to the attack by disclosing that two SIMs used in the mobile phones carried by the terrorists were bought in Vienna and New Jeresy. Was there or was there not any European and US connection?

If we start seeking answers to the question like the above-mentioned ones skeletons might start tumbling out of our own cupboard. We are so obsessed as a nation with nailing down Pakistan that we are loosing objectivity. A.R. Antulay is looked at condescendingly when he raises a question. We can reach the truth only when we explore all possibilities of how things might have happened.

The response of the Indian government amidst a frenzy demanding action to gear up its laws and beef up the security, with possibly US and Israeli help, is ignoring the basic issues. Which laws and security have been able to stop people on suicide mission? If the terrorists in Mumbai were given another chance would they care for a stricter Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the newly created National Investigative Agency or better equipped Indian security forces?

We did not face such terrorist threats when we were a non-aligned nation. The problems for India began with the demolition of Babri Masjid. The first bomb blasts took place, in Mumbai, soon thereafter. With India going nuclear and the right wing Indian government unilaterally declaring after the September 11 attacks that India would join US in the 'war against terror,' the terrorists incidents in India have increased. As we went closer to US and Israel we began loosing friends in the Muslim world. It will be in our interest to reverse this entire process.

Actually, to feel secure from Pakistan there is only one option. To end the animosity with Pakistan . All outstanding issues must be taken up with the government of Pakistan and amicably resolved once and for all. The nuclear weapons possessed by India and Pakistan are the biggest threat to the people of South Asia . People giving a war cry in moments such as after the Mumbai incident forget the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . True security can prevail only when there is disarmament and withdrawl of military from both sides of the border.

But for this to happen conducive situation must exist in Pakistan . The democratic government must assert its control over the military, ISI and the terrorist outfits. This is not going to happen overnight and will require lot of effort. Are we prepared for the long haul? It is almost like rebuilding the Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House as the best response to the terror attacks. We need to build friendship and peace with Pakistan and not create further enmity.

The author is a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee (2002) for emergent leadership and heads the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM). He did his PhD from University of California, Berkeley in control theory which is applicable in missile technology. He taught at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, before devoting his life to strengthening people's movements in early 1990s. He can be contacted at ashaashram@yahoo.com, www.ashaparivar.org