Ananth Venkatesh

In the final part of the Indo-Pak story, Ananth says that India ought to not believe in words of peace and make concessions or promises till the proven industry of terrorism is annihilated by Pakistan.

Any Indian government, which negotiates with Pakistan when no tangible action has been adopted by Pakistan to incarcerate the terrorist, Hafeez Saeed, is a dishonorable government.

Any Indian government or think tank or media house, which even contemplates negotiations with Pakistan for the ‘resolution’ of Siachen/Sir Creek/J&K disputes, is a hopelessly unrealistic and inexcusably idealistic entity. This vision of talking is unpardonably utopian as the terrorist industry in Pakistan has mushroomed in the last 15 years.

The dangerous battlefield [source]

There have been murders of prominent Pakistani politicians such as the Pakistani Punjab’s former Governor, Salman Taseer, and the former Pakistani Federal Minister, Shahbaaz Bhatti. The ISI and the Pakistani military have demonstrated no concrete sign to India and to the global community of their full breakaway from these macabre terrorist groups who carried out the killings. No convictions of the detained Pakistanis have occurred in Pakistan in order to provide justice to the casualties of the 26/11 barbarities in Mumbai. The ISI and the Pakistani military will be the final deciders of the Pakistani relationship with India, not the democratically chosen feeble Pakistani government.

There have been mammoth instances of Pakistan fomenting ghoulish terrorism in India, with some help from some indigenous Indians. Temporarily, the Indian government is outraged and appalled and desists from having conversations with Pakistan. But then, with the passage of time, everything is forgotten and India is conversing with Pakistan again and issuing homilies in support of Indo-Pak tranquility. Indian PM Manmohan Singh emits commendations of the ‘Pakistani intentions of peacefulness.’ But the terrorists are there on that country’s soil planning their next atrocity on India, the laboratory of Islamic terroristic experimentation.

Shahbaz Bhatti: A cardinal has called for the Church to consider declaring 
the murdered Pakistani politician a saint [source]

It should be an Indian governmental principle that India will not negotiate with a Pakistani government that doesn’t deliver an onslaught on terrorism. Sagacious and realistic diplomacy doesn’t mean that India should continue to have unfettered dialogue with the Pakistanis even if anti Indian Islamic dragons in Pakistan continue to envenom themselves untouched. Talking to this Pakistani government and even mulling over any ‘peace deal’ with them is an affront to the thousands of casualties in India. These Indian casualties, who have been exterminated in crowded trains, buses, marketplaces and outside temples, deserve an Indian government that doesn’t compromise with a Pakistani administration that doesn’t whip terror on its soil.

The bottom line is that Pakistan will continue to adhere to the policy of making India bleed gradually. This policy was embraced by the Pakistani State after the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India during the Indo-Pak battle of 1971.

This Pakistani policy is likely to continue at least till Pakistan attains its prime goal of annexing J&K. The question is, should India let that happen for the sake of ‘peace’ with Pakistan? For any kind of ‘durable’ peace and for a wholesome ‘resolution’ of Indo-Pak ‘disputes’, as stressed by Pakistan, India will have to make territorial and administrative concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan. India will have to make some territorial concession to Pakistan on the strategically important Siachen Glacier.

Then only, Pakistan will be satisfied and there may be ‘peace.’

[source] Still not solved. Not cared.

• Should India make these concessions and thereby scorn the sacrifices of its military personnel in J&K, who have sacrificed their lives to continue J&K’s association with India?
• Should India make the Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh minorities in Kashmir additionally vulnerable by making concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan? What about the miserableness of the condition of the dispossessed Kashmiri Hindus, millions of whom are not in their Kashmiri hometowns and are, instead, in piteous refugee camps and in other parts of India?
• Should India lose the strategic advantage it has currently by demilitarizing Siachen in the absence of any foolproof guarantee from the Pakistani military that it will not try to reoccupy Siachen clandestinely?
• Can Pakistani ‘tranquil’ intentions be trusted by India in the presence of such terrorist sectarianism in Pakistan, in the presence of copious anti-Indian Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan (and in Pak-possessed Kashmir)?

Illogical sentimentality with Pakistan will make India appear to be a friend of foolhardiness and idiocy. Indian military potency and an indefatigable resolve to place terror in an unrecoverable comatose condition will be India’s savior, not comical emotionalism. A nation that indulges in comical emotionalism on security matters will be ridiculed by the world. India can start off by executing some of the convicted terrorists in India jails, who are with the death penalty.

Ananth Venkatesh

Ananth does not trust the peace talks of Imran Khan and charts out the path he may be taking to oust India from Afghanistan, thereby creating worse conditions for India, the West and international peace. The real messengers of peace like Burhanuddin Rabbani are being murdered while the politicos are making pacts with the murderers. Part two of three in his story on India-Pakistan peace relations. (part one)

The infrastructural robustness and the ideological verve of these Pakistani terrorist groups are largely unstained and unbroken, notwithstanding the outlawing of some of them periodically by the Pakistani government. The outlawing is so passive and ineffective that these groups regroup and rename themselves and their aims to make themselves more palatable to the global community. They reincarnate themselves as outfits of philanthropy. Pakistan can then conveniently express its incapacity to crack and illegalize these ‘charitable outfits.’

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the humanitarian wing of the 
Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group (source)

Essentially, these ‘charitable outfits’ have the same demoniacal aspiration as their terrorist founders. One needs to look at the ‘transformation’ of the proscribed Laskhar-e-Toiba into a ‘philanthropic outfit’, which has meant that the Lashkar has circumvented the proscription on it by adorning the guise of a ‘charitable outfit’, which it may very well be, but its intentions and infrastructure, as well as finances for funding terror, still are healthy. Lashkar, LeJ and Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami were involved in the many unsuccessful endeavors to bump off Musharraf, which led majorly to their toothless banning in the first place. Of course, these terrorist groups have indulged in bloodthirsty bellicosity against Western interests as well, such as the vehicular bombing in June 2002 near the American Consulate in Karachi. The LeJ is also accused of participation in the loathsome homicide of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, in December 2007.

The menace of these extremist Pakistani outfits hasn’t faded away, with many of their members forging ultra-orthodox political alliances, whose mammoth congregations have been attended by the functionaries of Imran Khan’s emerging political party, Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Imran Khan has promoted himself as the bringer of a better future for the Pakistani populace. He is, apparently, a stainless candidate unlike Zardari and some of the other conventional Pakistani politicians, who have been encircled by allegations of subornment and nepotism. Imran Khan does represent a new political fragrance for the Pakistani electorate as he is untested administratively and, hence, bereft of the grubbiness of allegations of corruption. But his standpoints on Afghanistan, on the Taliban, on the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, on the Pakistani terrorist outfits, on the international military presence in Afghanistan, etc. are fundamentally worrisome for Indian interests and strategic wellbeing.

Imran Khan advocates a dialogue with the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban to procreate orderliness in Afghanistan. Talking to these terrorist outfits, which have not hesitated to murder prominent Afghan messengers of peace such as Burhanuddin Rabbani, is a catastrophic idea, which will eliminate whatever democracy and tolerance that exists in Afghanistan today under the presence of the ISAF. Talking to the Talibani outfit will mean compromising with them if success has to be accomplished during the talks. That means that the Talibani demand for political power in Kabul will have to be accommodated. The cultural, religious, sectarian and gender bigotry practiced by the Taliban will come to the fore more openly if the Taliban acquires political potency. The objective behind the justifiable liberation of Afghanistan by the ISAF in 2001 was the extermination of the poisonous infrastructure of the Taliban. To accord the Taliban political power in any form would be to infringe the core principles upon which the invasion of Afghanistan was implemented in October 2001 by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 carnage on American soil that was thickly assisted by the Al-Qaeda leadership safeguarded on Afghan earth by the then governing Taliban.

Burhanuddin Rabbani was the former head of the High Peace Council before he was killed in September 2011 [Reuters] [source]

The Talibani penetration of political potency in Kabul, as a part of any ‘peace pact’ arranged by the Pakistanis and even by the reluctant Americans, would be devastating for the stabilizing Western influence in Afghanistan. The Talibani access to the Afghan governmental corridors would be a blow that incapacitates Indian influence in Afghanistan, which has been beneficial for Afghan infrastructural development since 2011. The Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would mean an increased likelihood of sanctuaries being provided in Afghanistan for Taliban terrorists, who are opposed to the West and to India (non-Islamic India/Hinduism). An Afghanistan without the ISAF, even under a national coalitional administration consisting of the Taliban, will be forced to depend on Pakistani tutelage. Pakistan can take advantage of its meaningful connections with segments of the Taliban (terrorist Haqqani network) to exert considerable pressure on Afghanistan after 2014, 2014 being the year of the intended disengagement of American troops from Afghan soil.

Pakistan will then block any Indian attempt to gain a toehold in Afghani matters such as Indian investment in the Afghani economy, Indian training for the Afghani military, etc. Pakistan will subdue Afghani strategic independence to such an extent that India will be regarded as a pariah in an Afghanistan that is devoid of the ISAF and that is, subsequently, under the coercive counseling of the Pakistani State (ISI, Pakistani military). An Afghanistan, which has a central coalitional government with the Taliban as one coalitional component, will be a nation fractured by political unsteadiness, administrative procrastination and obdurate inter-ministerial divergences. In the event of a coalitional government in collaboration with the Taliban, a few ministries will have to be handed over to the Talibani hands. Such a government will be forever under incapacitating political paralysis of different degrees.

Afghan National Police officers, seen training with mock guns during a session with ISAF soldiers from the German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) at the German army camp in Fayzabad, northern Afghanistan, Monday, Sept. 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
ISAF benefitted the Afghan police and civilian administration in training activities.

The Taliban, on acceding to the democratic political process in Afghanistan as part of a ‘serenity accord,’ may ensure the temporary deactivation of their armed cadres to gain international succor. However, after the ISAF withdrawal from Afghan soil in 2014, the Taliban, even if it is a part of the political process in Afghanistan then, can effortlessly reactivate the militariness of its cadres as there will be, at best, an inconsequential global military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Reactivation of its armed cadres will not be difficult for the Talibani political wing then.

After the ISAF disengagement from Afghanistan in 2014, the whole geopolitical and geo-strategic scenario vis-à-vis Afghanistan will alter. Pakistan, through means such as its endorsement of the deadly Haqqani network, may become the major foreign player in Afghanistan and the weary West may relent. This means that anti-Indian Islamic terrorist factories could reopen in Afghanistan after 2014 and function more freely. Terrorists could be pushed from Afghanistan to Pakistan, their border being unmanageably unlawful and unruly. These terrorists could then infiltrate Indian Kashmir from Pakistani soil i.e. vintage cross-border terrorism. Anti Western terrorists could house themselves in Afghanistan after 2014 with the guarantee of receiving safe havens from the Afghan government, which has the political Taliban as its part. If the moderate pro-Indian Afghani parliamentarians protest against Talibani dictatorialness, then the Taliban could disengage from the Afghani political process and threaten to instill anarchical bloodshed on the streets.

Will the West intercede militarily then to terminate the Taliban threat?

A Taliban blast in Kabul (source)

Another full-fledged Western military intercession is highly improbable considering the Western tiredness on account of the current Afghan conflict. Pakistan will be the only country that will then trumpet to the world that it has the power to stabilize Afghanistan and kill the prospective anarchy there. This will mean, at least, that Pakistan will ‘arrange’ a very strong Talibani presence in the national Afghan government, which will represent the sidelining of other relatively broadminded Afghan political parties, with strategic conviviality towards India. Pakistan, in order to assert itself in Afghanistan, may desire and come up with a heavily Talibani Afghan government. This will typify the termination of the meaningfulness of the Indian diplomatic presence in Afghanistan as the Taliban will not aspire to do any business with India.

Pakistan shares a border with Afghanistan and India doesn’t. India currently doesn’t have a military existence on Afghan soil. It will be difficult for India to penetrate Afghanistan militarily after 2014 if the Talibani virulence for India manifolds. India will be a tragic loser.

This is the reality that Imran Khan desires, despite knowing the thick connections between Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other Pakistani Islamic terrorist groups. Negotiations with the Taliban represent a core strategy of Imran Khan to heighten the Pakistani influence in Afghanistan after 2014 and to decapitate Indian influence there after 2014.  [Photo:"By 2014 Afghans will be fully responsible for their security' [source]]

Imran Khan aspires to see the ouster of a constructive Indian presence in Afghanistan. His sugarcoated talks about Indo-Pak peace being one of his primary goals must not make India position blind trust in him.

His alliances with the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, who have zero respect for India, his advocacy of discussions with Pakistani extremist groups to create orderliness in Pakistan and in the lawless Waziristan, his disparagement of the stableness that the Western military presence and the Indian diplomatic presence have brought to Afghanistan, etc. embody his political personality, which is unpalatable and indigestible for the idea of peace in South Asia.

He has not spoken at length about the measures that he would take to dissect the Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. He probably never will speak at length on this matter since he doesn’t intend to do anything of this sort. India, at this stage, can derive no comfort from the electioneering and sloganeering of Imran Khan and his allies.

Ananth Venkatesh

Pakistan is unable/unwilling to stop the mushrooming terror camps at home, though their leader speaks of mutual peace in India. In this multi-part series on India-Pakistan relations, Ananth Venkatesh talks of the condition of peace in Pakistan, the threat to their populace from home-grown terror groups, the effects of America’s troop withdrawl from Afghanistan on India, and the need to be wary of Imran Khan’s peace talks.

“If the American troops and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraw from Afghanistan as planned, 2013-14 are going to be crucial watershed years for India as far as the security of our western border is concerned”  -  Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne

“It is Kabul now we are dealing with. The moment we resolve that, we will take over the next phase to liberate Kashmir from Jammu & Kashmir state” –  Hafiz Saeed

The recent spiritual voyage of the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, to India recently, which also had a Pakistani political presence enmeshed in it, epitomizes yet another measure in the tempestuous diplomatic history between India and Pakistan. In his journey to the respected Mohammedan shrine in Rajasthan’s Ajmer, known as Ajmer Sharif Dargah (ASD), Zardari had company in the form of his young son, Bilawal Bhutto, who is, at the tender age of 23, the occupant of the post of chairmanship of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite having exiguous active political experience. But possessing the Bhutto surname and having the Late Benazir Bhutto as your mother unburdens Bilawal from the requirement of hands-on political experience in Pakistan’s stormy, sectarian and toxic politics in order to become the chairman of the PPP. Zardari arrived in India with the prominent Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, who is quite adept at offering the Indian political media access to him. Zardari sought connection with divinity on arriving at the ASD, which was, by then, surrounded by a high hill of security presence. Zardari’s fairly substantial grant of $5 million to the ASD, seemingly for the welfare of the ASD, was a gesture that must have been heartwarming for the ASD’s management.

There was a get-together in the Indian Prime Ministerial residence between the Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, and Zardari while the latter was en-route to Ajmer. As has become customary during such visits, the statements by the two leaders and the two nations’ delegations were symbolized by insipid and docile declarations of tranquil intentions. The two leaders pronounced that they had congeniality in their minds and hearts for the Indian and Pakistani populace. While such proclamations of warless intentions are indeed welcome from the Pakistani State’s head, one needs to refrain from forgetting that such idyllic pronouncements have been uttered in the recent history by Indian and Pakistani leaders.

There has, however, been no extermination in the Pakistani terrorist infrastructure despite these rosy and blissful statements of peace emanating from the Pakistani governments and political parties in the recent past. In fact, the numerical and infrastructural strength of Pakistani terrorism has only strengthened in the last few years, with a miscellany of outfits sprouting on Pakistani soil.

Pakistani school girls and pedestrian move away from the site of a bomb blast in Peshawar on January 3, 2012. Two separate bomb blasts in Pakistan’s troubled northwest on January 3 killed five people and wounded 26 others, police said. (1/3/2112) AFP/Getty Images 

…Sunni-Shiite bloodshed

‘Organisations’ such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahedeen, which are conventional and ill-famed, have been joined by other Islamic fundamentalist outfits such as Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). Each of these is characterized by virulent inimicalness towards India, towards non-Muslims in India and towards secularism in India. The aspiration of these Sunni terrorist outfits is to ground an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate in India with the decapitation of non-Islamic religions in India. The lethality and depravity of these outfits are so copious that they have limitless hatred for Shiite Muslims’ ideological structure as well. They regard the Shiites as unworthy heretical Muslims, who deserve the kismet of subjugation and extinction. The long-standing and grisly history of the massacres of the Shiites in Pakistan has been caused by militant outfits such as SeS and LeJ.

Afghani Shiites too have not been spared by these Sunni terror groups. The LeJ is strongly believed to have been involved in the terrorist assaults on Afghani Shiites on December 6 2011, when three macabre terrorist atrocities demolished Afghani urban areas simultaneously on the auspicious Shiite Ashura, which terminated 63-80 Shiite pilgrims. The frequent murders and pulping of Pakistani Shiites, more so during the Shiite sacred ceremonies in Pakistan, is a testament to the sectarian murderousness of these outfits’ philosophy. These terrorist organizations are there intact and are mushrooming, with charitable arms sprouting out of these terrorist outfits (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). The robust popular presence at the rallies of the Pakistani Islamic extremist leaders in different Pakistani cities demonstrates their healthy base. India can’t ignore this gruesome and insidious reality in the name of peace. India can’t let ignorant, self-destructive and illogical emotionalism dictate the course of her relationship with Pakistan.

The organized systematic genocide of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan
has claimed 58 lives and injured 67 during the month of January 2012 in 32 attacks. (source)

The perilously ultraconservative Islamists in Pakistan, with political ambitions, are led by the likes of Hafeez Saeed, against whom the Indian government and the convicted terrorist, David Headley, have presented intense evidence in relation to the insidious role of Saeed in the mastership of the Islamic terrorist atrocities in Mumbai in November 2008. The Pakistani ultra-conservatism is recognized for its straightforward and tacit compassionateness for the additional terrorist outfits like the Pakistani Taliban.

…leaders themselves under threat

The Pakistani ultraconservatives have even declared their antipathy for the likes of the former Pakistani autocrat, General Musharraf, for his ‘strategic proximity’ to the West in the ‘global conflict against Islamist terrorism.’ Musharraf is despised by the Pakistani Taliban and other acidic Sunni (Punjabi) terrorist outfits for various reasons, one being that he is a Mohajir i.e. an Urdu-speaking immigrant with Indian birth, who then migrated to Pakistan in the aftermath of the horrific British Indian partition. Of course, Musharraf’s dexterous positioning of Pakistan in alliance with the West in the ‘war on terror’ generated vitriol for him in the minds of these Pakistani terrorist outfits. Musharraf did cooperate, to a certain extent, with the West by handing over certain sinister anti Western terrorists to the Western authorities. These terrorists were related to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No meaningful action was taken by him, however, to oust and cripple primarily anti-Indian terrorist outfits on Pakistani soil. Also, the substantiation that is emerging gradually demonstrates that the global Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, could have been dwelling in Pakistan from as early as 2005-2006 itself, at a moment when Musharraf was in power. Musharraf, being the dictator and the lord of the Pakistani army, ostensibly failed to notice the presence of this terrorist monster on Pakistani soil.

Hardline Islamic opposition against Musharraf (source)

The Pakistani espionage and intelligence community also failed to detect bin Laden hiding on Pakistani territory. It is difficult to swallow this proposition for many observers. Musharraf and his government repetitively assured the international community that bin Laden was not present on the Pakistani earth. But that was the case in May 2011, when bin Laden was liquidated on Pakistani soil by an outrageously gallant operation implemented by the American special military forces, much to the dismay of Pakistan. The operation to extinguish Laden was a surreptitious one.

Next Part: ‘Chartable Outfits’ or terror groups? Plus, Imran Khan’s plans analysed.

Ananth Venkatesh

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended. 
Ananth Venkatesh gives us a brief account of Tamil-Sinhalese conflict that has plagued Sri Lanka.

The inability of the Indian state to execute the convicted assassinators of Rajiv Gandhi, despite the repeated judicial green signals, is a perilous and worrisome indicator of the political irresoluteness that exists in the national government.

Rajiv was an ex-PM at night on May 21, 1991, when he was pulped by the ferocious explosives triggered by the LTTE’s hardened female suicide bomber, Dhanu. Rajiv, of the Indian National Congress Party (INC), had arrived in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu that month to participate in the national electoral campaigns, during which it was broadly predicted by political observers that he would reoccupy the Prime Ministerial position after the electoral results were announced. The national coalition governments, after the electoral ouster in 1989 of INC’s Rajiv from the national political arena, were headed by the impactful VP Singh, and, then, by the rustic pragmatist, Chandra Shekhar.

Rajiv’s handling, as PM, of some significant subjects such as the national religious situation related to Ayodhya and the administrative corruption personified by Bofors was dangerously mediocre. The overturning of the secular Supreme Court (SC) verdict on the Shah Bano case by his administration in 1986 riled several segments of even the moderate Hindu population, apart from giving teeth to the campaign of the ultraconservative Hindu outfits. Rajiv’s subsequent surrender to the unrighteous demands of Islamic fundamentalists by additionally constitutionalising Islamic personal laws only partitioned the public opinion in India further on communal lines

The monumental Bofors scandal, which had created questions over the integrity of the Gandhi family, had generated a political wave against the INC, which led to its defeat in the 1989 general elections.

As the King of the INC, one of India’s oldest political entities, Rajiv made no substantial effort to stem the unpalatable sycophancy that had penetrated the members of the INC during the headship of Indira Gandhi.

However, in my view, one of his few achievements as PM was his assertive and hard-nosed foreign policy, which was evident in his authorization of a military intercession by India to undo the coup in Maldives in 1988 against the Maldivian President, Abdul Gayoom. The coup was backed by the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgent organization, PLOTE. Rajiv always believed that South Asia was a zone, in which no foreign power can be allowed to wield disproportionate influence. It was his opinion that India, being the largest country in South Asia, must take the initiative in resolving political disputes in this region instead of allowing the foreign armies to enter South Asia to end the standoffs here. As per Rajiv, an inept and lethargic India, uninterested in its immediate neighbourhood, would only lead to foreign nations acquiring a strategic toehold in this region, which could then, at a later date, have put India under discomfort.

His foreign policy as regards the ethnic disorderliness in the gorgeous Sri Lankan island was a balanced one. The civil strife between the minority Tamils and the majority Sinhalese had grilled Sri Lanka ever since Ceylonese liberation from British colonialism [Photo: Tamil population in blue]. The secessionist Tamil outfits (PLOTE, LTTE, EROS, TELO, etc.) were recognized for their efficient barbarousness in their pursuit of their primary objective: the secession of northern and eastern Sri Lanka and the formation of a sovereign Tamil nation, Tamil Eelam, there. The north and east were sectors of Sri Lanka that were inhabited by Tamils conventionally.

The response of the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lankan state’ to the Tamil secessionism was largely domineering, which produced ghoulish repercussions. For the Sinhalese, the oneness of Sri Lanka had to be maintained at any cost as surrender to Tamil terrorism would inevitably have meant the breakup of Sri Lanka. The possibility of Sri Lankan division infuriated the ordinary Sinhalese nationalists, who were endorsed by the two prominent Sinhalese opposition parties, the SLFP and the UNP. As terrorism become deadlier gradually in the 1970s and 1980s with clandestine international branches opening up for acquisition of weapons, Sinhalese Sri Lanka responded even more domineeringly.

The roots of this burning ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka had begun during the era of British administration of Sri Lanka. The unilateralism of Britain in colonial Ceylon, absence of meaningful British consultation with the locals and shortage of adequate British understanding of the potential inflammability of the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka made Britain adopt some measures, which were deeply disliked by several Sinhalese. One such measure was the transfer of millions of Indian Tamils to Sri Lanka by Britain to work in the Sri Lankan coffee and tea plantations. This measure increased the Tamil presence in Sri Lanka and strengthened their clout. For the average Sinhalese, however, the Indian Tamil was nothing but an alien colonizer of Sri Lankan land. However, the economic, administrative, political and educational welfare of numerous Indian Tamils, due to their realistic cooperation with British colonialism in Ceylon, were looked at unfavourably and unkindly by the Sinhalese.

Also, the native Sri Lankan Tamils were able to stitch up a favourable relationship with the colonial British that led to the Tamils filling up several seats in the Ceylonese civil service and in other departments of the Ceylonese state.
In addition, the wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kingdoms had been occurring for ages in Sri Lanka, with each side claiming righteousness was on their side.

Yes, after Ceylonese independence in 1948, the Sinhalese were able to organize and unite themselves effectively to espouse the Sinhalese cause. There was cohesiveness between the Sinhalese politicians on issues central to the Sinhalese identity and its preservation in a self-governing Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese had no Tamil kingdoms, with which they had to deal. The Sinhalese could utilize their numerical dominance to push through legislations to institutionalize Sinhalese domination of the state. That is what happened. The SLFP and the UNP, during their control of Sri Lanka respectively, after being mandated by the Sri Lankan electorate, ratified several legislations that alienated sections of the Tamils. Sinhalese was made the solitary official language of Sri Lanka, with Buddhism being pronounced as the official religion. The Sri Lankan Tamils, of course, were predominantly Hindus.

Tamil Settlement in Central Sri Lanka

Considerable Indian Tamils were disenfranchised politically by contentious legislations that had the unspoken support of some native Sri Lankan Tamils besides the vocal backing of Sinhalese political parties. Reservations in higher academic institutions designed to favour Sinhalese students agitated the Tamils, who interpreted these reservations as a malicious Sinhalese tactic to undercut the Tamil dominance in the Sri Lankan public sector. Even the native Sri Lankan Tamils slowly began to view the electoral disempowerment of the Indian Tamils as a signal from Sinhalese Sri Lanka that the Sinhalese would always receive an extraordinary place in a free Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese attitude was that the Tamils would simply have to adjust to the new ground realities.

The Sri Lankan Tamil parties were alarmed by these legislatorial moves, which weakened the Tamil position in the island. The moderate Tamil parties requested the federalization of Sri Lanka with reasonable linguistic, cultural, administrative and religious autonomy for the Tamils. But in sovereign Sri Lanka, some Sinhalese parliamentarians were severely distrustful of Sri Lankan Tamil intentions in general and considered even Tamil demands for reasonable autonomy as a step in the direction of Sri Lankan partition in the future. The geographical proximity of Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka placed fear and suspicion in Sinhalese minds that India, through the province of Tamil Nadu, could provide shelter to Tamil autonomists and agitators and exert influence upon Sri Lanka.  Sizable Sinhalese politicians were opposed to the ceding of any ground to even flexible Tamil parties.

As legislatorial means were not achieving the aim of even Tamil autonomy, Tamil terrorism was born. Outfits such as LTTE denounced the Sri Lankan democracy and labelled the Sinhalese parliamentarians as bigots, who would never give dignity to the Tamils. Bellicosity against Colombo was the only method to attain Tamil Eelam. Terrorism commenced, which led to the murders of moderate Tamil politicians as well as of the nationalist Sinhalese administrators. The Tamil terrorist outfits were responsible for these murders as well as for attacks on Sri Lankan security personnel. The rejoinder from Colombo to contain Tamil secessionism was stormy. Unfortunately, the Sinhalese rage was such that thousands of innocent Tamils were pulped in this state rage. The detestation among the Sinhalese parliamentarians for the Tamil terrorism became so strong that even requests from moderate Tamil parties for autonomy within one Sri Lanka became anathema to Sri Lanka.

Rajiv Gandhi’s active intercession to resolve this crisis in India’s neighbour demonstrated to the world that India was, at last, embracing assertiveness in its foreign policy. India intervened militarily in June 1987 to terminate the humanitarian disaster in Jaffna when it was under Colombo’s military blockade during Colombo’s struggle against Tamil separatism. However, the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of July 1987, formalized by the then Sri Lankan President, Jayewardene, and the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi, was an apt example of proactive diplomacy aimed at tranquilizing a searing Sri Lanka, conserving Indian strategic interests there, preventing a foreign power from emerging in Sri Lanka to get a foothold there.

Of course, the Accord also laid down the conditions explicitly for the reinstatement of ethnic tranquillity in Sri Lanka. The Accord had provisions that expressly granted considerable autonomy, federalism and democracy to the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka. It was an accord that had the ingredients of peace and success provided there was political will on both sides. The Accord also assured Sri Lanka that its territorial integrity would not be diluted in any way and that its oneness would be intact. The principal Sinhalese demand that there be no disintegration of Sri Lankan unity was also assured by the Accord. It was a fairly model Accord for sowing the seeds of sereneness in a violent region.  Also, the Accord was legislated by the Indian Parliament and was given the go-ahead by Jayewardene.  The Accord also permitted a large number of Indian soldiers to travel to Sri Lanka to carry out military operations to curb the Tamil militancy, to disarm the terrorists and to create conditions agreeable for the democratization of the mainly Tamil northern and eastern Sri Lanka. The merger of northern and eastern Sri Lanka into one administrative unit was also enshrined in the Accord. The Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) was in Sri Lanka with the presidential consent of Sri Lanka to kill the menace of Tamil terror and to bring about tranquil contact between the Tamil secessionists and the largely Sinhalese Sri Lankan Parliament to create a peaceful solution of the ethnic war.

The writer supports the IPKF and its military activities in Sri Lanka. The IPKF was, on several occasions, trapped by the bloody slyness and disingenuousness of Tamil terrorists and, on other occasions, by the inharmonious ultra nationalism of sections of the Sinhalese population. The ultranationalist Sinhalese, on occasions, cooperated surreptitiously with the LTTE cadres to bring about the downfall of the IPKF. These ultranationalists wanted the ouster of the Indian military from Sri Lankan soil. Sinhalese ultra nationalism was convinced that Tamil terrorists and autonomists have to be defeated heartlessly by the Sri Lankan military alone devoid of foreign intervention. The IPKF, therefore, inadvertently, maimed certain innocent Sri Lankans, who were callously utilized by the LTTE, at times, as shields in their battle against the IPKF.

The IPKF wasn’t a unilateral military venture by a domineering India. It happened with the unambiguous approval of the Sri Lankan executive, headed by Jayewardene.  But the IPKF performed certain commendable tasks such as the enhancement of the damaged infrastructure in the embattled zones of Sri Lanka, the provision of assistance to Tamil victims of the civil war, democratization of the Tamil areas and the induction of reasonable serenity in the erstwhile gory areas of Sri Lanka’s north and east.

The LTTE targetted Sri Lanka’s main international airport and the adjoining military base in July 2001, destroying 13 aircrafts. Photo Sena Vidanagama / AFP / Getty Images

That Rajiv didn’t back the cause of Tamil Eelam was right. The writer believes that independence for Sri Lankan Tamils and the breakup of Sri Lanka on account of Indian military conduct would have only emboldened the LTTE. The LTTE was a dictatorial organization, which had systematically annihilated all the opposition to it. Moderate as well as fundamentalist Tamils, who disagreed even slightly with the LTTE, were bumped off by the LTTE. Through this mercilessness, the LTTE had emerged as the ‘champion’ of the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka. There is a serious possibility that the LTTE would have institutionalized its autocracy in a sovereign Tamil Eelam. An independent Tamil Sri Lanka would have forged strong bonds with Tamil Nadu, which could have increased the numerical strength of the admittedly tiny Tamil secessionism in India. The dormant Tamil secessionism in India could have been inspired by the LTTE’s attainment of a sovereign Tamil state and may have advocated aggressively the merger of Tamil Nadu with Tamil Eelam or independence for Tamil Nadu. The LTTE, in all probability, would have been the autocrat of Tamil Eelam and could have extended nefariously its support for Tamil secessionism in India. India would then have had to deal with a potentially serious linguistic problem. Also, in the 1980s, the Indian forces were bravely battling against the venomousness of Khalistani secessionism in Punjab, which had clandestine Pakistani endorsement. So, India couldn’t afford another secessionist disturbance, small or large.

The writer deems that an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka would have been a calamity for Indian strategic interests. If the Indian military had broken up Sri Lanka, ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would never have forgiven India for partitioning Sri Lanka. India would have lost all its influence in the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ then and would have no strategic toehold there today. China would have inundated Sinhalese Sri Lanka militarily, strategically, economically, etc. ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would be taking advice from Chinese diplomats on how to deal with the ‘Indian enemy.’ Pakistani espionage agents and Islamabad would have seduced ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ that would have been seething with victorious Indian military aid for Sri Lankan Tamil secessionism. A battered, bruised, furious and humiliated ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would have thrown itself in the arms of India’s foes, China and Pakistan. China and Pakistan, with their invidiousness, would have been at our doorstep as ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ in Sri Lanka’s west and south is closer to the Indian mainland geographically.

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended.  The LTTE was culpable for scores of political assassinations in Sri Lanka, killing of blameless Sinhalese and destruction of Sinhalese Buddhist sites. LTTE was a frighteningly barbarous organization. Peace has come back to Sri Lanka. It would be prudent if the moderate Tamil parties arrive at an agreement with Colombo on the devolution of administrative powers to the Tamil areas in the Sri Lankan north and east. Again, this provision is enshrined in the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.

The assassins of Rajiv deserve zero mercy from the Indian executive. Our judiciary has gifted them the death penalty. The verdict must be honoured. Anti national and base politicking over this issue, as has been observed, is a sorrowful reminder of the parochialism that can emerge in India’s polity. India lost its PM because of a gruesome assassination. The LTTE plotted and carried out it. It had the depravity to assassinate our PM. Monstrous behaviour merits no clemency.
 

Kartikey Sehgal

Indians have a lot to learn from the Norway blasts and murders. Indians – that’s you, the middle-class to urban category; the rest of the Indians don’t have to think so much – they have to look for food and survive.

Norwegian police arrested 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing extremist who rocked Norway in twin attacks Saturday. Breivik is responsible for Friday’s bombing and youth camp massacre in Oslo, Norway. source

Such attacks will happen when society is closed for discussion. When political correctness and the elitist idea of status quo takes over the society and shuts it to reality. India is one such society.

Everything gets covered in India under the blanket of secularism. Society likes to feel comfortable. When it pours, they hide under the umbrella of certain words; secularism, peace, Gandhi – without understanding any of them.

India is closed. And attacks such as the ones seen in Norway may happen anytime in India. Already, we are reading about the trials of Swami Aseemananda and Sadhvi Pragya for their alleged involvement in acts of terror. It was expected that these incidents would be a chance to understand the psyche of the Indian people, a part of which is being seen through movements by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev. But. No.

The media is content to give it the name of ‘Hindu Terrorism’ and most of the ensuing discussion is an argument over the term. That’s all what the discussion is really about. Both sides keep fighting over the term and nobody checks out the anger.

What is this anger. What is the story? It is this:

There is a growing number of Sikhs, Hindus, Parsis, Buddhists and even Muslims who are tired and angry and willing to take action over terrorism. They do not trust the government and the police. They do not want to be slaughtered pigs. They hate it when a politician tells them that nothing much can be done about terrorism. They hate it that after every attack, the media and the politicians begin their ‘oh but there’s also saffron terrorism’ trite. They hate the media.

They realise that the only way to be heard is to do exactly what the terrorists do. Blow people up. Blow the Muslims up. And if non-Muslims get killed, then consider it collateral damage; exactly like how the terrorists consider the death of Muslims as collateral damage.

And how does it really matter what name you give this phenomenon; terrorism or reaction or revenge. It’s happening and it might kill you. You might end up as collateral damage. That’s all your life would be worth. You should take the media and society to task. And that happens when you critique (as I mentioned in my previous story about the newspaper DNA) and when you distance yourself from the romance of peace and secularism. The media is happy to use these terms because they are either mentally inept or lazy.

Remember, Netherlands has Geert Wilders who prevents the occurrence of Norway like attacks by speaking for the people who are tired of crimes perpetuated by the immigrants. America has a-rate intelligence services.

India has neither. It is a closed society, and attempts at opening up are brushed under the carpet of secularism by a toothless media.

 Kartikey Sehgal

Black leather shoes that casually stepped on a child’s yellow faeces spoke better of India’s problems. The faeces had more character than the men.
At best, these people will offer you condolences should you lose somebody in a bomb blast. That would be insufficient, considering that these are people with no vision, who choose to live in dirt and muck… What can they possibly offer you intellectually or spiritually.  

“Would you like to visit Dadar and Opera House together? I could get my camera. Will be a good journalistic exercise.”

I wrote to Ananth Venkatesh. We met the following day.

The journalistic exercise involved conversations between Ananth and I. Somehow, everything external to us seemed obvious; a woman and daughter feeding grains to pigeons; people rushing to work; media vans stationed near the blast site; malnourished humans begging or selling flowers; filth and dirt; faeces mixing with rain-water, stamped upon by the booted middle-class men. Common to all these was a sense of detachment.

There was no pressing need to speak to people. The roads and puddles were silent informants. Black leather shoes, that casually stepped on a child’s yellow faeces spoke better of India’s problems. The faeces had more character than the men. They were dirty, untouchables – and their personality was known to me. The personality of the huddling men, however, was difficult to grasp. They are men who want to be free of terrorism, or at least they don’t want to die. Do they want to live? That’s not clear. They see no relation between hygiene and terrorism. Between cleanliness and life. It would be fair to say that they want to get along; finish their quota of years. And only that.

These survivors are detached. That’s how they survive the depravity of the local trains, step on someone’s faeces and move on. It’s not that they didn’t feel angry. They did. Until they discovered detachment. Just like the early Indians did when first Muslims and later the Missionaries lorded over them. ‘I see no problem if I am detached’. This is the philosophy they preach to their children. This is what gets them respect in social circles as wise men. Life goes on, they say either ruefully or romantically. They don’t deal with problems; they just move away from them. These Indians, animatedly bickering over blood and deaths. Wondering why no one does anything for them. From among these people governments are formed. You tell this to them and hear their response.

They accept. They accede defeat. And so there is no more clause for discussion. They are saint-like. They know how to contort their facial muscles and express regret. For them the matter is over. That wickedness emanates from them is acceptable to them. If you don’t press them further, they will not offer you solutions.

“We have been staying/working here for God knows so many years. It has always been like that.” And then comes the winning statement. “Sabko apni padi hai” (Everyone is concerned about his self”)

He is right, this trader. The government is concerned about itself. Like the people. And they do a shoddy job at that. They don’t know how to look after themselves either. They have no vision. But looking inward is easier, even spiritual – so they say.

At best, these people will offer you condolences should you lose somebody in a bomb blast. That would be insufficient, considering that these are people with no vision, who choose to live in dirt and muck despite engaging themselves in crores of rupees of business. What can they possibly offer you intellectually or spiritually. Therefore, you are on your own in this modern Mumbai society. A defeated society that shelters under the umbrella of ‘spirit of resilience’, as the media terms the defeat.

If someone you love dies, then you cannot depend on the people and the government. These islanded people. You are on your own; unless you want to be one like them – a band of brothers wallowing in self-pity and momentary anger.

[The proposed series on feminism and male ego will be published after the completion of the current topic]

Ananth Venkatesh

Osama was slaughtered in Pakistan. He had been residing in Pakistan for some time. His compound was located close to the Pakistani military centre. Obviously, it doesn’t take too much cerebral effort to determine that sections within the Pakistani services were safeguarding Osama.

This is a classic case of Pakistani ‘two-facedness’. The difference is that, before 9/11, Pakistani duplicity skinned and drained India largely. Hence, the influential nations in the world were unconcerned or, at best, indifferent, believing Pakistani terrorism in India to be linked only to the broader Indo-Pak disputes. 9/11 changed the perception of the West. It made the West realize the poisonousness of terrorism and its strong roots in Pakistan.

It is evident that Pakistan continues to control certain sections of the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan and to make life there miserable for the American and NATO militaries. These segments of the Taliban would then be stage-managed by Pakistan after the NATO withdrawal from Afghan territory. Pakistan would utilize these factions of the Taliban to entrench itself in Afghan politics subsequent to the American departure from Afghanistan.

The Pakistan of the fairly secular Mohammad Jinnah has become a celestial territory for Islamic terror. Terrorist outfits, of differing degrees of ferociousness, are housed in Pakistan. Pakistan has targeted them selectively by capturing only some anti Western terrorists. Pakistan has let off the hook malignant tumours such as Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, etc. It has not initiated any action against these anti Indian terrorists.

The truth is that Pakistan will never punish these dastardly individuals for their crimes against innocent Indian civilians via terrorist attacks in India. Pakistan regards these corrupt terrorists and their terrorist organizations as assets that can be utilized to enfeeble India. Only one solution can undercut Pakistani espionage and its military and compel it to think twice before harming India. This solution has been stated before. India needs to be inspired by the victorious Israeli pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, who had killed defenceless Israeli sportspersons, at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

I deem that the possibility of an extremist takeover in Pakistan is very real. It may not happen in the near future but, after a few years, extremists could seize Islamabad. That would be a calamity as war could erupt between nuclear India and Pakistan. It wouldn’t be unsurprising if the Americans resort to regime change in Pakistan then to install a moderate leadership.

India needs to confederate with America and the West to position severe and undying pressure on Pakistan for its disingenuousness in tackling Islamic terrorism. I am an impassioned votary of meaningful Indo-U.S. ties. India needs to deepen its bond with America even more after the slaughter of Osama in Pakistan. The common foe of India and America is Islamic terrorism, sizable chunks of which are housed in Pakistani territory.

If a situation arises in the future, in which Pakistan has to be ‘remedied’, India should have a say in how to remedy that unsteady Pakistan. The overly rosy predictions about Pakistani stability from Indian politicians such as Mani Shankar Aiyer are irksome and dangerously misleading. It gives commonplace Indians an inaccurate portrayal of Pakistan and its intentions.India needs to understand that tranquil means alone cannot make Pakistan combat anti Indian terror. The threat of force from India has to be displayed secretly and prudently to Pakistan.

Ananth Venkatesh

The slaying of the international terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, and the liquidation of his confederates by the American Special Forces have ceased a gory chapter of Islamic terrorism. Osama was a vile terrorist, whose ideology was responsible for the engenderment of a slew of young Muslim terrorists globally. One interesting facet of Osama is that his blood-spattered fundamentalism disseminated through the Muslim world because of his monetary assets and apparent charismatic persona.

The American military intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s to uproot the Communist Soviet forces stationed there led to the arrival of militant Islamists and their prominence. The Crescentic extremists such as Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama and others were backed by America monetarily and militarily to oust the Soviet troops from Afghan territory.

Whether the Soviet occupation of Afghan land was illegitimate or lawful depends on your ideological leanings. I, for one, deem that Afghanistan was politically wobbly and ripe for foreign intervention in the 1970s. Such was Afghan administrative brittleness then. I believe that the Soviet Union had valid arguments to justify its military intervention in Afghanistan as a military pact was formalized between the Afghan government and the Soviets in 1978, which allowed the Afghans to request Soviet military assistance to maintain stability in the country.

America had ideological and strategic reasons to oppose the Soviet presence in Afghan areas as America feared that the Soviets would undercut American influence in the Persian Gulf and would acquire access to the Indian Ocean by subduing a weaker Pakistan. Therefore, military and fiscal aid was offered to the Afghan religious rebels by the U.S. to topple the Soviet lordship in Afghanistan.

Pakistan, it needs to be remembered, enacted a crucial role in funding the operations of these Islamic rebels in Afghanistan. Pakistan, then governed dictatorially by General Zia, also coached the Afghan insurrectionists about the usage of lethal weaponry supplied by America and its friends.

However, no one had thought then that these anti communist Afghans would convert themselves into venomous terrorists opposed to global tranquillity. Osama, Zawahiri and several others, who were subsidized by America and Pakistan in the 1980s, entrenched themselves during the Afghan Civil War in the 1990s and became sadistic masters of Afghanistan under Taliban headship.

America should have stayed put in Afghanistan even subsequent to the Soviet withdrawal and ensured a proper governmental transition that would have thwarted the utter chaos that engulfed Afghan life during the ghoulish Civil War in the 1990s, which led to the macabre slaughter of President Najibullah in 1996. Hence, it is imperative that America stays the course in Afghanistan this time and not depart from the country in a hurry. One doesn’t need the reinstatement of the terroristic Taliban in Kabul.

Also, let us not forget that America didn’t implement a 9/11 or 26/11 in Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban. It was the Al-Qaeda, sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its chief, Osama, who plotted and executed the carnage that occurred on 9/11. America was attacked savagely by Osama and the Al-Qaeda. It is only natural that a self-respecting country like America would act decisively and determinedly to bump off an implacable enemy like Osama.

On a personal note, copious credit needs to be showered upon the American soldiers, who assassinated Osama and his henchmen in Abbotabad in Pakistan. They have served the world well. Never forget that Al-Qaeda and its fraternal terrorist entities such as Lashkar, Jaish, etc. have vowed to carry out ceaseless destruction in the non-Muslim world. Their objective is the Islamization of the world, which would involve the decimation of the non-Muslim way of life. Certainly, their version of Islamic is barbaric. Barbaric is an understatement.

Overview

The recent popular demonstrations against the autocratic governments in the countries of the Islamic world such as Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen are indicative of the profound discontentment and disillusionment that has penetrated the psyche of the ordinary Mohammedans there.

Rationales Contributing To The Political Wobbliness In The Muslim World

1) Lebanese Hezbollah

Hezbollah, which is a Shiite organization, exists politically as well as militarily in the ethnically sundry Lebanon. Hezbollah, which is subsidized as well as armed clandestinely by the Iranian espionage establishment, is particularly potent in southern Lebanon, which borders northern Israel.

Israel and Lebanon have certain territorial disagreements such as the status of the Shebaa Farms. Hezbollah has refused to silence itself militarily till the last Israeli soldier departs from Shebaa Farms, which is regarded as Lebanese territory by Hezbollah. Israel, however, has voiced that Shebaa Farms is within Syrian territory and has prolonged its occupation of the Shebaa Farms as Syria and Israel are not at peace.

The hostility between Hezbollah and Israel was amply evident in 2006 during their destructive war subsequent to the military belligerence and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Hezbollah has not been deactivated militarily hitherto, which was demanded by the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1701 that attempted to cease the military animosity between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah continues to be a threat to Israel and regional stability as it is endorsed by Iran, the orthodox President of which, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has never endeavoured to conceal his dislike for the Jewish State.

There is absolute political wobbliness in Lebanon at this stage as there is a fledgling national government, the creation of which was compelled subsequent to the departure of Hezbollah from the previous administration headed by Saad Hariri. His Dad, Rafik Hariri, the respected former Lebanese PM, was liquidated in 2005 and the inquisition into Rafik’s assassination by a UN tribunal, which is likely to indict members of Hezbollah for the assassination, is broadly believed to be the rationale behind Hezbollah’s disengagement from Saad’s government.

2) Powerful Iran And Regional Destabilization

Iran has a dodgy record on nuclear proliferation as a consequence of its links with the Pakistani nuclear scientist, AQ Khan, and its own notorious atomic program has never ceased to spawn suspicion in the West as well as in the UN and the IAEA, the latter being the atomic supervisory entity of the UN.

There is a strong likelihood that Iran intends to develop atomic bombs, with its strategy being to sport the diplomatic façade, while surreptitiously accelerating its military atomic program.

Iran, it is suspected, desires to lengthen the period of nuclear discussions with the West, while going ahead with its atomic program simultaneously. It is difficult to believe that Iran is interested in a peaceful nuclear program as it has refused to discontinue uranium enrichment and has not illustrated to the global nuclear inspectors all its atomic reactors. Also, numerous rounds of atomic discussions between Iran and the West have failed to arrive at a compromise, notwithstanding the incentives tendered by the West.

Economic sanctions against Iran can only work up to a certain point, beyond which a decisive decision will have to be taken by the UN and America on the fashion to cripple the nuclear program. It would be safe to articulate that espionage agents from the West and Israel are operating surreptitiously to destabilize the Iranian atomic program as some prominent Iranian atomic scientists have been killed recently. As the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated, no entity is powerful enough to thwart America and its allies from perpetrating a military strike against their foe. Surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear centers by America or Israel are a possibility. Israel possesses the audaciousness to carry out such a strike as was seen in 1981 when Israel vanquished the Iraqi ‘Osirak’ nuclear reactor.

There is opposition in Iran to the current government as was viewed in 2009 subsequent to the dubious presidential election, which brought about Ahmadinejad’s Presidency again. The supporters of the reformist Iranian political opposition, led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, have alleged that the presidential election of 2009 was defined by fraudulence, in which Mousavi was the winner. However, there was a severe onslaught thereafter on the opposition by the establishment of Ahmadinejad.

It is pretty unambiguous that Iran, a Shiite nation, is looked at as a hazardous force by the Sunni Islamic world such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Mohammedan countries of the Gulf. Wikileaks divulged the degree of antagonism to and distrust of the Iranian nuclear program in the Sunni world. Shiite Iran is considered as a powerhouse in the Islamic world, notwithstanding years of sanctions against it, which is spawning apprehension in the Sunni community. Sectarianism in the Islamic world has been bloody for ages and has become gorier now subsequent to the emergence of Sunni terrorist groups such as Taliban and Al Qaeda, which have massacred innumerable Shiites as well as the Shiites’ religious shrines.

3) Dissemination Of The Extremist Islamist Venom In Pakistan

Pakistan, which is the epicentre of transnational terrorism, is a country inundated by the toxicity of Islamic terrorism such as that of the Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda.

It has been voiced for years that influential ideologues of the Al Qaeda are lodged in Pakistan in a restive city like Quetta. The power of the extremists in Pakistan is mounting, which has been witnessed over the last three years in the unrelenting suicide attacks and vehicular bombs’ detonations that have decimated Pakistani society.

There is democracy in Pakistan, but a very fragile one, under the amplifying pressure of the fundamentalist mullahs. The recent grisly liquidation of the Pakistani Punjab’s Governor, Salman Taseer, (also ‘Federal Minister for Minorities’ Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2, 2011) known for his philosophical liberalness, exhibited more glaringly the percolation of the extremist poison into the Pakistani society.

Taseer was shot down by his bodyguard, who was envenomed by Taseer’s excoriation of certain facets of the Pakistani anti blasphemy, which had found a Christian Pakistani female guilty of perpetrating blasphemousness against Prophet Muhammad. Denunciations of the severity of this law by Pakistani lawmakers have been almost inaudible, presumably, due to the dread of the Pakistani fundamentalists, many of whom glorified the assassin of Governor Taseer and discharged zilch commiserations for the deceased Taseer and his kith and kin. Attempts to modify the anti blasphemy statute legislatively by politicians such as Sherry Rehman (of the Pakistan People’s Party, which governs Pakistan) have come to nothing, which typifies the burgeoning powerfulness of the Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

Today, Pakistan is, despite the sincere efforts of some broadminded lawmakers, in a political path that has been deviating from the way forward emphasized by the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was, arguably, a steadfast secularist, who enacted a partial role in the partition of the mammoth undivided British India.

Pakistan is a keynote player in the international battle against Islamic terrorism and has enacted a constructive role partially by seizing and slaying numerous fanatical Islamists, who have bloodied Pakistan as well as launched attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan to undermine the international troops there, who have been battling against the armed Taliban terrorists, many of whom have received ideological indoctrination on Pakistani soil along with schooling on the way to employ the weapons.

Mubarak certainly shouldn’t quit now. The Egyptian Parliament should, first of all, amend the constitutional provisions to make the imperfect Egyptian democracy more perfect.

Egypt may very well become a democracy but a dysfunctional one characterized by internecine and interparty political squabbling, which could very well make a weary Egyptian populace desperate for stability, which could tilt their support towards the IB.

The bloody protests on the Egyptian streets against the continuation of the Presidency of Hosni Mubarak have become an international topic, with detailed analyses of the uprising against Mubarak being provided in leading global newspapers and television stations. However, let us take a look briefly at recent Egyptian history.

1) Recent Egyptian History:

Egypt has been governed dictatorially by the National Democratic Party (NDP) since 1978, the chief of which has been Hosni Mubarak since 1981. Mubarak had occupied the Egyptian Presidency in 1981 in the aftermath of the assassination of Anwar El Sadat, who was the dictator of Egypt subsequent to the passing away of the revered Egyptian autocrat, Gamal Abdel Nasser, in 1970.

Mubarak, as the Vice President, had resolutely backed Sadat in his endeavors to forge Arab and Egyptian tranquility with Jewish Israel, which was widely despised and loathed by numberless Arabs ever since the Israeli creation in 1948 on territory inhabited by the Muslim Palestinians for centuries. Sadat was mowed down in 1981 by the Egyptian militant Islamists, who were in a state of enragement subsequent to the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the Israeli-Egypt tranquility treaty in 1979, as these two momentous pacts had procreated the Egyptian diplomatic acknowledgement of Israel and vice versa, the abrogation of the warlike state between the two nations. Crucially, the pacts also consisted of an Israeli pledge to disengage from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula that had been subdued by Israel in 1967 during the June War that produced Arab defeat by Israel. The entire Israeli military as well as civilian infrastructure in the Sinai was demolished, with the entire zone being returned to Egyptian sovereignty by April 1982.

2) Hosni Mubarak And His Constructive Contributions:

Therefore, it is necessary to highlight that Hosni Mubarak has been the guarantor and provider of considerable stability and sereneness on Egyptian soil. The threat of Islamic terrorism has existed on Egyptian soil ever since the 1970s on account of the opposition to the Egyptian governmental closeness to the West and to the Egyptian diplomatic recognition of Israel. The terrorists have manifested their lethality on several occasions such as by maiming the tourist industry, which is one of the principal strengtheners of the Egyptian economy. 58 foreign tourists were slaughtered in 1997 in the Luxor massacre. There were explosions in 2004 in the Sinai, detonations in 2006 at Dahob. Cairo was bombed by the Islamist extremists in April 2005, with Sharm el-Sheikh, the well-liked resort city, being victimized lethally in July 2005.

Mubarak has been a loyal ally of the West and America, with America having expended millions of dollars in military aid to the regime of Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak has ensured administrative stableness in Egypt against the possibility of the fundamentalist Islamic Brotherhood (IB) conquering Egypt.  He has been an authoritarian bulwark for the West in the Middle East against the threats posed by extremism, which has penetrated, devastated and debilitated areas of the Mohammedan world.

continued on the next page