Mumbai terror attack: what’s your take?

India is seen as an easy target as its government cannot act as strongly as the US government can. The weaknesses come from: India not being powerful, Pakistan’s ISI, poor centre-state coordination, weak political leadership, competitive politics, no strong action against suspects due to fear of angering religious communities, and corrupt, inefficient, poorly trained and poorly staffed police force and intelligence networks… 

Worse, nobody in the higher political and bureaucratic hierarchy feels accountable. They sing paens in praise of resilience of Mumbaikars, visit the injured and take vow to tackle terrorism only to divert attention. Some politicians sitting in Delhi might even be thanking their luck that the terror event would take the focus away from Anna hazare’s anti-corruption campaign.

What is your take? [Some options given below.]

"There was no intelligence input - either with the Centre or the state agencies - about this blast. Despite the vast intelligence machinery that is available, there was no intelligence...this one slipped through… Having no intelligence in this case, however, does not mean that there was a failure on part of the intelligence agencies." Chidambaram 

"It is very difficult to stop every single terrorist attack. The idea is that we have to fight terrorism at the local level. We have improved leaps and bounds. But terrorism is something that is impossible to stop all the time… We will stop 99% terror attacks but one per cent of attacks might get through. We must try to stop 100% attacks. Terrorism is something we will fight and defeat." Rahul Gandhi

"It is a policy failure not intelligence failure. There have been repeated attacks on Mumbai, this is a failure of policy… Indian government must shed its ambivalence towards terrorism. It should declare that its policy against terrorism will be of zero tolerance." Advani

"Even US had to go through 9/11 attacks. In a country of 1.2 billion, we have made progress. We have improved our intelligence network. But nobody can say that there won't be any attacks. We are comparatively better than Pakistan, where attacks happen every day, every week… It has been much better than NDA can claim. There have been less number of attacks in the last five years." Digvijaya Singh

Osama is dead, but I'm not particularly happy

Osama is dead but that does not kill terrorism. The US has been trying single-mindedly to pursue Osama and have succeeded finally. This serves to satisfy the ego of the only superpower on the earth, but does not take care of terrorism on the whole.

For the US, terrorism has never been absolutely bad; it could be good if it helps the US in gaining foothold over a region. India too had its good terrorism in Sri Lanka but it seems to have learnt to be more ethical in geo-strategic affairs. Even if it tries to have similar, blinkered, vision, India cannot afford to do so but the US can, and it will always keep doing so. Wikileaks have exposed the duplicity of American foreign policy, but all keen observers already knew that. No wonder, despite championing the cause of world peace, the US is suspected by all nations.

Gandhiji and many pacifist thinkers have talked of the evil power called ‘the state’. If we analyse the everyday actions of governments all over the world, including their secret agencies, corrupt and power-hungry politicians and bureaucracy, and other paraphernalia, they are collectively the biggest terrorists. Rulers of the West Asia and Africa use their absolute power and democracies use the power concentrated in a few hands in the name of people’s will – but all use the powe4r of the state for bad ends. While we be happy that Osama is dead, let’s also remember that there are thousands of Osamas killing people and extorting money, another few thousand mini-Osamas that kill people legitimately, and many thousand that kill people without shedding a drop of blood.

vinayak sen verdict: colonial law, colonial mindset

India News salutes Dr. Sen

Dr. Vinayak / Binayak Sen and his co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment yesterday for a conspiracy to commit sedition. Shocking that police could fix an inconvenient human right activist so easily and the court could be convinced that Dr. Sen needed to kept behind bar for his entire life. The evidences produced by the police are said to be frivolous but enough to get the judgment.

Dr. Sen's real crime [in the eyes of the government and the police] was that he was a doctor dedicated to giving tribals cures for their ailments and also giving them strength. His leaning were to the left; any noble soul who has seen so much suffering in the hands of a corrupt and rabid police would turn well-wisher of the innocent. So was Dr. Sen. Also ironical is that Dr. Vinayak Sen was a human right activist, opposing the type of violations to which he himself has fallen victim.

Arundhati Roy's comments on the court verdict are apt: “A couple of years for the bosses of Union Carbide and a life sentence for Binayak Sen..."


Arundhati herself is facing the charge of sedition. [India News reference to the police case against her, here]

Human right activists from all over India have condemned the verdict. India News joins them all. The judgement shows how the courts can be so badly influenced. It is because the judges themselves have a colonial mindset and it becomes easy for them to apply this mindset to colonial and colonial-type laws  to give pervert judgements.

arundhati, geelani, kashmir and freedom of speech

Yesterday, P. Chidambaram announced that Delhi Police would not take any action against Arundhati Roy for making remarks about Kashmir not being an 'integral part of India' a line India keeps close to its heart. BJP has been demanding strict legal action for 'seditious' remarks made by her. Law Minister Moily has slammed Arundhati and Hindu Pandits from Kashmir have been demanding her arrest.

Arundhati made these remarks in a seminar at Delhi in which Syed Geelani - the avowed India hater - also spoke. He has been arrested a few dozen times, only to evoke more anti-India feelings in Kashmir.

What the two said has been discussed threadbare in the media, both traditional and web media. But that is not the issue here. The issue is, whether it makes sense for the government to react to expressions of the type Geelani and Arundhati make? Well, to say that the Government should act mature and ignore them sounds liberal but here lies the dilemma. To what extent should the liberty be given? If action is to be taken, what type of action?

I think, though the middle path is often the best path in such cases, the Government should not directly be a party. Never. Nor should its Ministers / spokespersons get dragged into what is right and what is wrong. In fact, P Chidambaram's trying to show Government's magnanimity was also uncalled for. Government should let its wings - administration and police - to do their job [and this job should be mature and well-considered, keeping in view all its implications] and if the decided job is to deal with rubble-raisers firmly, take the stand that law would takes its course. No apologies after that.

Coming back to Arundhati and Geelani, their speeches in seminars or articles in Outlook or some other magazine would not destabilise a country like India. And what did she say? Even the government appointed interlocutors said almost the same thing.

As for Geelani, his life-long India baiting in Kashmir has done India hardly any harm; it is our mis-handling of the situation in Kashmir that is the real culprit.

Quote-unquote
"Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is an historical fact. Even the Indian Government has accepted this...": Arundhati in a seminar, "Azadi - the only option" at Delhi on October 24, 2010

“I said what millions of people here say every day... I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland...It's a pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free.” : Arundhati in defence of her stand on Kashmir

sharing headley's terror leads: american duplicity again

Headley's case has once agains proved what the world knows about the US: they will have friendship at their own terms.

When it comes to their country's perceived interests, they will remind you about international norms, long tradition of their friendship, etc etc and when they have to reciprocate, they are most miserly. Take the case of disasters: they do not want India to have harsh provisions for suppliers of nuclear tech but would like to savage a company such as BP for oil spill. They will grudgingly share superficial leads relating to Headley's terror operations, but would like India to support them in 'fight against international terror' even by keeping mum against a sworn enemy - Pakistan's ISI. America's stand on pollution control and climate change or during negotiations in the WTO are but some examples in which America's stand leaves much to be desired in terms of give and take. But, unfortunately, America gives the impression of being unfair, untrust-worthy, too self-centred, too snooty.

In this type of dealing, America only invites suspicion, not cooperation. It is the world that loses the opportunity to get better peace and development, because America has the ability to take everybody in the world along if it shows that it can be trusted.

[This response is based on reports that America did not share Headley leads with India. American authorities have said that they did not infact have specific information and that it was failure of Indian intelligence agencies that made free movement and actitivies of Headly possible. However, this does not wash the impression that it is America who hesitates in cooperating with other countries even on terror matters when it is not targeted against their own country.]

kashmir interlocutors, who and what for?

The three interlocutors appointed by the Centre for talking to Kashmiris have one good thing: they are non-political persons. But the goodness almost ends there. They are hardly the ones that carry weight and will have hardly any goodwill with Kashmiri hardliners, politicos, moderates, commoners, even civil society. None of them can claim to understand the complex sensitivities of the Kashmiri people. None is a Kashmiri and none has passed through the hell in Kashmir.

Come to the names: Dileep Padgaonkar – distinguished journalist, Radha Kumar – an academician, MM Ansari – CIC chief and a Muslim.

Now that the interlocutors are in place, let them be. Let us assume that they have full brief on behalf of the government, PM and Home Minster will lend them access and ears all the time, and that they all speak in the same voice. What the government must also do is to send feelers to the Kashmiris that the Centre is damn serious about solving their problems and addressing their genuine grievances, and that the interlocutors have full government backing. The latter is essential so that they can take firm stand, especially when talking to tough hardliners. By appointing such interlocutors, the Centre has given the impression that it is not too serious; this impression must be wiped out immediately.

What is very necessary is that the government does not get complacent after appointing the interlocutors. Even if it does not tell it to the people, it must have a time-bound plan to solve the Kashmir problem from Indian perspective, if not from all angles and for ever. Only holding meetings, making statements, calling for action-taken-reports, PR gimmicks and playing politics will not do. Use the lull in violence, which may not last long the way Gilani et al are provoking the people to 'act', to find solutions, not buy time.

the TOI survey on public perception in naxal-hit area

Times of India has come out with a survey conducted by it through IMRB, in five districts of Andhra Pradesh where naxalism has been contained. The findings more than corroborate what the civil society has been telling us: it is the cutting edge bureaucracy and police that have alienated the people. However, fear, more than people's love for Naxals is supposed to be the reason for spread of naxalism.

Please read the report with an open mind. By TOI's own admission, the survey was carried out in districts where naxalism is no more there. On the other hand, this has the advantage as people must have responded without fear and also they could comment on naxalism and post-naxalism situations. The survey was conducted in remote towns and among low income people.

My comments are in brackets along with the queries. The main findings are given here:

• Do you feel that your region has been neglected by the government?

yes: 50%, no:27% [Proves the point, but the question is biased against the government.]

• Do you agree with govt's claim that Maoists are extortionists and mafia?

agree: 26%, disagree: 64%

• Do you agree with Maoists' methods of revolt against govt apathy?

agree: 64%, disagree: 32%

• Do you believe in govt/police's claims about Naxal encounters?

yes: 25%, no: 60%

• Are killings of Naxals justified?

justified: 34%, unjustified: 65%

• Was Naxalism good for development of your area, or bad?

good: 58%, bad: 21%, don't know: 21%
[About three-fourths feel it was good or not bad!]

• Has the exploitation in your region increased after the Maoists left?

yes: 48%, no: 38%

• Now that Naxalism has waned in your area, has life improved or worsened?

improved: 34%, worsened: 27%, no change: 38%
[Why will the people oppose the naxals if 65% feel the life has worsened or there is no change? More so, when they feel that exploitation has increased after naxals left?]

• Did Maoists work for development or were they just armed goondas?

devp: 53%, goons: 15%, right intent but wrong methods: 32%

• Did Maoists force the govt to focus on development in your region?

yes: 50%, no: 36% [Question biased against the government.]

• Are the violence and killings carried out by Maoists justified or not?

justified: 52%, unjustified: 48%

• What was the main reason for the strength of the Naxals in your area?

popularity: 9%, fear: 46%, mixed reasons: 45%

new steps for Kashmir, new hope

The Centre government has announced eight confidence building steps for the people of J&K, the state in turmoil for most parts of this year.

Like the government arose only after a lot was lost in preparations for the Commonwealth Games, the government has finally arisen and though belated, these should be welcomed. The state government’s first response has been that they are happy and will implement the measures announced by the Centre.

These steps will need to be supported by:

• The state government implementing them and adding something from its side.
• The state government implementing them in letter and spirit, without letting the rotten bureaucracy and political class make hay at the cost of the people. Also monitoring by the central government.
• Well thought-after sops for tourism and other local vocations to let them recover from a long period of inactivity.
• Continuing with efforts to engage PDP, local intelligentsia and separatists with dialogue and it should be with a flexible give-and-take approach.
• Improving security along the border and finding a dignified and less obtrusive way to muzzle terrorism. Military should be strengthened in border areas, not weakened, but its role should mostly be what a professional army is supposed to do and is good at.
• Not getting provoked to fire. Even if cases of arson and hooliganism take place, and these will not die down overnight, the police/ CRPF should innovate ways that are effective but not lethal.

The Centre's steps are listed here.

AFSPA: armed forces special powers act

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 or AFDPA is in the news for wrong reasons. It has become a serious issue and even the union cabinet is divided on whether the Act should be diluted in the context of recent disturbances and killings by security forces in Jammu & Kashmir.

The government, armed forces and some political parties and a section of citizens feel that once army has been drawn in disturbed areas, there is no escape from giving the forces the necessary legal protection to deal with the extraordinary situation. On the other hand, civil society is generally against such a ‘draconian law’ that gives excessive powers to the armed forces, which are misused and abused.

In this post, I am giving the text of the AFSPA. The Act was first enacted in 1958 for Assam and Manipur. It was extended in stages to other north-eastern states and in 1990 to Jammu & Kashmir. The wordings of the act as it applies to the north east and J&K is the same. For the sake of clarity, I have removed certain technical references to amendments etc.

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958

An Act to enable certain special powers to be conferred upon members of the armed forces in disturbed areas in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Ninth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

2. Definitions

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "armed forces" means the military forces and the air forces operating as land forces, and includes any other armed forces of the Union so operating.

(b) "disturbed area" means an area which is for the time being declared-by notification under 3. to be a disturbed area;

(c) all other words and expressions used herein but not defined, and defined in the Air Force Act, 1950-, or the Army Act, 1950-, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Acts.

3. Power to declare areas to be disturbed areas.

If, in relation to any State or Union Territory lo which this Act extends, the Governor of that State or the Administrator of that Union Territory or the Central Government, in either case, is of the opinion that the whole or any part of such State or Union Territory, as the case may be, is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary, the Governor of that State or the Administrator of that Union Territory or the Central Government, as the case may be, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the whole or such part of such State or Union Territory to be a disturbed area].

4. Special powers of the armed forces.

Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in a disturbed area,-

(a) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire-arms, ammunition or explosive substances;

(b) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilised as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence;

(c) arrest, without warrant, any person who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest;

(d) enter and search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to, be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawfully kept in such premises, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

5. Arrested persons to be made over to the police.

Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the, officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report. of the circumstances occasioning the arrest.

6. Protection to persons acting under Act.

No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.

all-party meet on Kashmir: will it find solutions or end in hogwash?

The solution to Kashmir problem has to be found fast and with full political resolve. The way even the cabinet is divided on AFSPA, the overpowering armed forces law, and on the fate of Omar Abdullah, hectic multi-lateral political parleys must be on in Delhi and Srinagar to find a way out of the mess.

However, somebody must remind the Union Government that a tough stand is not always the best answer to emotional and highly sensitive issues. Government’s flexibility in the all-party meet called today will show whether the government is interested in involving opposition only for the sake of dragging them into the issue [as often is the case] and in furthering the cause of Congress in the state, or is sincere about finding a solution with wider appeal. If the meet fails and generates more cacophony, the blame will lie on the Government and not the opposition.

We the ordinary bystanders are likely to see angry ‘bites’ on TV, of leaders from BJP, PDP and if Omar is to asked to resign, National Conference. Inside, the PM will, with a sad and innocent face, appeal to all his brothers and sisters to eschew violence and to the opposition to help the government in finding solution to a gigantic problem.

saffron terrorism? ask chiddu

Media in India [for that matter in any country where they are given freedom] pick up controversy better than a bird picks up grain. The latest one is Home Minister P. Chidambaram's statement in a police meet that they should be vigilant about all sorts of terrorism, including that by fundamental Hindu groups.

It is right that P.C. should not have used the expression 'saffron terrorism' to describe stray cases of terrorist acts by Hindu fundamentalists. Associating terrorism with a particular religion is not only indiscreet for a Minister, it is atrocious even as a thought. But Chidambaram, by profession a lawyer and a stickler for nuances, cannot have faulted by mistake, more so when he delivered a written speech. So, what was the intent? I dunno.

BJP and Shiv Sena righteously raised hell in parliament over the issue. They not only see the Hindu connotation in Chidmbaram's statement, they find the colour connotation also objectionable. Hindu saints usually don saffron robes and associating terrorism with that colour shows them in as poor a light as saying that all with long beards are Muslim terrorists.

Congress spokesman later tried to make light of Chidambaram's statement. He said, the Minister's statement came against the backdrop of investigators finding links between Hindu extremist outfits and bomb blasts at Mecca Masjid, Ajmer, Goa, Malegaon and Modasa.

P. Chidambaram will have to not only be more careful on such sensitive matters but also show with deeds that he treats all terrorists with the same iron hand and he has no intention of stoking communal feelings.

Chat unchat

"...I wish to caution you that there is no let up in the attempts to infiltrate militants into India. There is no let up in the attempts to radicalise young men and women in India. Besides, there is the recently uncovered phenomenon of saffron terrorism that has been implicated in many bomb blasts of the past..." P. Chidambaram at DGPs/IGPs Confernece on 25th August 2010 

Kashmir problem is a state creation

I approached this issue earlier too, and the present one is in response to PM’s all-party meet.

There should be no doubt in the minds of policy makers in New Delhi that Kashmir problem of today is largely a creation of state: the state government, the centre itself and the military.

Yet, Delhi behaves like the monarchs of yesteryears who would install a friendly satrap in a remote province and watch disinterestedly if that satrap made a mess of his kingdom.

Consider these:

The Prime Minister woke up only after two months and 50 youths’ death. And he woke up only to utter something that does not make any impact on the listeners – it is like a long yawn from a distant aunt on a visit.

The Chief Minister has mostly been aloof from the ground. When there was peace, people didn’t notice but he remained aloof when boys were killed in cold blood.

Look at the callous responses from the central government: ‘stone pelters have to be tackled and such mistakes [killing of the innocent by security forces] are bound to happen.’

There is polarization in the available political space, between PDP and NC. Local Congress leadership seems to be happy with this situation.

There seems to be no sincere effort to attend to Kashmiri people’s psyche, which due to historical, geo-political and communal reasons is very sensitive. There is no appreciation that Kashmir’s problem is not merely an expression of economic frustration or Pakistan’s gameplan or separist-induced outburst of emotions.

It is not that policy makers and governments’ thinking hats have lesser understanding of the issues than this lay blogger, but there is complete lack of positive, sincere and dispassionate intent to attend to Kashmir.

how many more need to die for the naxalism cause?

Two years back, the then Home Minnister said in a public meeting that Naxalism and Maoist violence had become a bigger menace than even terrorism. People, including papers, thought, the Minister was exaggerating things. One year later the Prime Minister had to echo what his cabinet minister had been saying.

In the last two years, a few hundred people - including security personnel, Maoists themselves and people at large - have died because of the Maoist related violence. The central and state governments have been toying with various ways of dealing with the scourge. There are a number of well-meaning thinkers who think that a permanent solution to the problem lies in development. Unfortunately, many of them seem to have become indoctrinated with this view to the extent that they do want only 'development' route and nothing else.

It is very sensible to say that the root cause of Naxalism and its spread is development not reaching remote areas of the country, especially the tribal areas. Together with it, there is wanton exploitation of natural resources without any benefits coming to the locals; there is huge leakage in the system that does not allow the governmental schemes to reach the target beneficiaries; there is police highhandedness and persecution. These ground realities, however, do go against the 'development only' or 'development first' argument. We will not be able to change the ground reality overnight even if we put the best bureaucarats in Naxalism affected areas, pump in funds and change the police forces lock stock and barrel. These things will take time.

So what we need is to try to reform the system and ensure through a focussed approach that the benefit of the governement schemes reach the needy. But that militates against the Maoist credo and their interests. So, they do not allow the legitimate machinery to function there. They want people to suffer so that their writ runs large. They kill CRPF and police forces to prove a point more than to fight 'oppression' and suppression by the security forces. So, it becomes imperative that a rule of law is established, however 'oppressive' it may look from a particular policical philosophical point of view.

The intelligentsia who support the Naxals have a duty to come out with practicable solutions that can be accepted within the limits of the Indian Constitution and laws. The Central Government and the concerned state governments have the duty to listen to all sane voices and find out a workable solution and also to see [even with a strong hand]that such solutions are implemented in letter and spirit. Politicians need to rise above petty partisan interests and join the governements in securing a just and lawful solution to the Naxal problem.

PS: Even as I was writing this piece, my phone got the alert that 8 CRPF jawans wewre killed by Naxals in Dantewara and 80 jawans are missing. Fierce fighting is going on.

what all is happening in Kashmir?

Kashmir is on boil again. Like earlier, this time too it is the foolish handling of the political situation by the CM [ Omar Abdullah ] that first angered and now alienated the local population. The intelligence outfit of our too friendly neighbour, Pakistan, has only to stoke the fire with the help of disgruntled local youth and opportunistic politicians to make the locals feel that the Indian 'occupation' forces and their 'stooges' in power in Srinagar are out to crush their 'azadi'.

One after the other, the CMs have been blaming propaganda from Pak for the mess. They have been pushing local politicians into prisons now and then. They have brought in 'developmental grants' of massive proportions from the Indian government. Still, people come to the streets to show their disenchantment. Why?

Soplutions are not simple, every sane person knows. But what lacks is a sincere political will to solve the problem. CMs and Kashmiri politicians sitting in Delhi, not to speak of lesser breed, are busy nurturing their little fiefdoms. They must work against others and indulge in intrigue to save their political territories. When they are not in power, they must create problems for the ruling party/ parties even if it means invoking the djinn that Kashmir is in danger. They need to internationalise the issue so that there is more trouble for their adversary. They must look after political future of their progeny. They and all their kins must live a lavish lifestyle....

As it happens everywhere in such situations, sincere Kashmiris and their wellwishers are not able to stand up. They can debate issues ad nauseum on TV channels but cannot provide leadership. I am not including all debaters and orators in sincere group; a majority of them are likely to go with the wind.

Whoever the culprit, we have landed Kashmir into such a hapless situation. Only the Central Governement can take it out. Manmohan Singh should show statesmanship if he is sincere towards bringing order into the Kashmir chaos.