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.

Ananth Venkatesh

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.

Ananth Venkatesh

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

Ananth Venkatesh
(written in August)

Kashmir of India has been under a state of belligerence over the last two months, which is heartrending. A segment of the Kashmiri remonstrators, inevitably hostile to India, has fierily invaded the lanes of pretty Kashmir, in the company of children. The national security personnel along with the provincial police have been the targets of the rage of these remonstrators. The mercilessness of these protestors is evident in their transportation of impressionable children to the Kashmiri boulevards in order to provoke the Indian security services. The presence of the unhealthily indoctrinated kids of demonstrates the depravity of the ‘mature’ protestors.

The absence of stringent action by the Indian security forces in the face of a marauding mob will only lead the security personnel to the crematoria. The police officers have to defend themselves because, if pacifism is embraced by them, their lynching will certainly be the tragic ramification.

The central and regional security personnel, as it is, execute a commission that is thankless.

Kashmir is an inseparable ingredient of India, which is a conviction that must be disseminated globally by the concerned departments of the Indian government. One fails to comprehend the sickeningly disproportionate representation bequeathed to the traitorous separatists by segments of the Indian media. The Indian administration, by signalling its preparedness to communicate with the separatists, is culpable for the transmission of a message that legitimizes the perfidious ideology of the separatists. If deliberations are conducted by the government of Bharat with the Kashmiri separatists, it would obviously be interpreted as an acknowledgement by New Delhi that there is some legitimacy in the separatist agenda.

The Indian administration must seriously ponder whether its goal is to legitimize the illegitimate standpoints of the separatists. It is amply evident that the separatists desire secession from India. The Indian authorities must dissect the worthiness of arranging a dialogue with the separatists, the secessionist slogan of which is intolerable and unacceptable.

The Indian governmental solution must obviously be unambiguous and secessionism or de facto secessionism of Kashmir should not even be considered. It must involve a thorough boycott of the separatists and of any entity that declines to adhere to the norms enshrined by the Indian constitution.

What is equally appalling is the failure of the Indian civil society, including fragments of its media, to reflect the aspirations of the Kashmiri Hindus, who represent the indigenous community of Kashmir. The Kashmiri Hindu has not been provided an opportunity to express on the Kashmir imbroglio. The expulsion and massacres of the Kashmiri Hindus by the Crescentic bigots will forever symbolize one of the agonizing injustices perpetrated by India.

Ananth Venkatesh

“Undue reliance on tranquil international diplomacy and forceless intranational diplomacy can backfire badly, thereby humiliating the national ego.”

The monstrosity of terrorists demonstrated by the recent bloodletting in Pune [Photo: top; source] illustrates the deviousness of Islamist fundamentalism. The blameless victims of the blast at a popular store of bakery in Pune are the latest in the enormous list of unfortunate Indians who have been wolfed by Islamist bigots.

India is a nation that has juddered continually due to the remorseless personality of Mohammeden violence. The appearance of an Islamist insurgency in the paradisiacal Jammu and Kashmir in the 1980s signalled the ascent of Islamist fundamentalism in India, which has been aided incontrovertibly by our western neighbour in order to solidify its extra-territorial goals.

The brutalization meted out to our security forces and the blameless villagers by the terrorists of the far left in the ‘blood corridor’ highlights the excruciatingly inept contestations of the federal government to the gruesomeness of the Communist terrorists. In this regard, credit needs to be given to the West Bengal CM for enabling the anti-Naxal operations to continue uninhibited. But the lack of adequate knowledge of the Naxal designs and the even shoddier execution of ruthless measures against the Naxalites has exposed and maimed our police personnel and our paramilitary forces. With inconvenient equipments at their disposal and the predominantly abysmal infrastructure offered to the security people, especially the constables, who have to do the bulk of the work of battling the menacing Maoists, the task before them seems insuperable. Refined weaponry and sophisticated military gadgets, often used to buttress our politicians, must be bequeathed to the departments of the police of the provinces bulldozed by these terrorists.

The technological renovation is a measure for the satiation of the police forces, which direly needs fructification. Ultimately, ruthless force will have to be employed to crush the Maoists. This will enable real development to happen in the ‘blood corridor’ since the Maoists have disrupted developmental work in villages consistently by killing, raping, kidnapping and wounding people.

In order to uphold the national constitution, the state will have to use power because the other tactic is to succumb to the Naxalite goals, which is the elimination of the present constitution, and the enslavement of India to the brand of terroristic communism. The Naxalites will never behave like the ‘moderate communists’ in WB, Tripura and Kerala by throwing themselves into the democratic arena. One must memorize that the eventual aim of the evil ‘far left’ in India is the dismantlement of democratic civilization and the installment of a regime of barbarousness, like the Stalinist regime of Communist Russia, with all of its purges and bloodiness.

Initiatives in India for tranquility with Pakistan are laudable but are appallingly idealistic. Peaceableness is an idiom with which the terrorists are unacquainted. These racists, desirous of the Islamisation of India, and their strengtheners and sustainers across the western frontier, have always interpreted the tranquil moves of India as a sign of the limpness of the soul of India. All in all, such serene ideas might augment the sale of newspapers and enable them to attract luminaries to their ‘peace functions’ [Photo: top]. But on the ground, the reality doesn’t transform.

This year, the indefatigable military personnel in J & K have encountered a ceaseless flow of barbarians nurtured by Pakistan. Encounters have led to the evaporation of the terrorists but also of our gallant ‘jawans’, who, in any case, perform a thankless vocation. Industries and factories of anti-Indian terrorism are functioning brazenly in Pakistan-held Kashmir; that is an argument backed up by credible pictographic and telephonic evidence. Not that we need American approval of our evidence, but the U.S. too has consistently, in the recent past, acknowledged the legitimacy of the Indian claims. The weak-kneed pacifism advocated by the influential members of the Indian electronic media is bamboozling and quite obnoxious. Pacifist advocacy might win you a Nobel Prize but it is the feeblest way of overthrowing the terrorists. History has manifested that a perspicacious application of power is necessary for a nation in order to instill fear in the minds of its opponents. Lamentably, our foes in Dhaka, Beijing and Islamabad have never evaluated that India is a nation that has a secret service and a polity to be feared and lauded. Can’t say the same about Mossad, can we? The answer is a resounding ’No’.

A dialogue with Pakistan is going to be fruitless. Pakistan wants the issue of Kashmir to be resolved. The only interpretation of that can be that Pakistan wants to control Kashmir in one way or the other. Surely, any other solution, which doesn’t involve the direct or indirect absorption of Kashmir, is not going to satisfy Pakistan. Joint administration of Kashmir by Pakistan and India is a solution that is bandied about by Indian pacifists and idealists, but that is like opening a route for the frightening political Islamisation of J & K, with all the vitriolic ramifications it will have for the religious minorities there, and outside the province i.e. the exiled Kashmiri Hindus. Their piteous plight must be kept in mind.

Anyway, our soldiers haven’t been mutilated and haven’t sacrificed their precious lives so that a time will come when their sacrifice and valour is disregarded by officially allowing the Pakistanis to manage the politics of Kashmir, joint rule notwithstanding.

Sincere peacefulness can be a valid diplomatic option only if the nation you converse with is eager to reciprocate with the same earnest peacefulness. The Irish Republic unequivocally condemned and refrained itself from supporting the Irish extremists (the IRA) in Northern Ireland, who wanted all of Ireland to be one. It enabled the British government to isolate and defeat the Irish terrorists. The Irish Republic enacted a constructive role in the peace process. The Irish State never strengthened the members of the terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA). One can’t say the same about the ‘quiet intentions’ of Pakistan.

One must, however, credit the sagacity of Pakistan since it has carefully satisfied American demands by periodically arresting Pakistani terrorists wanted by America. No tangible action has been taken against anti-Indian ideologues, who continue to flourish in Pakistani madrassas. A conclave organized recently by the influential terroristic ideologues to mark the ‘Kashmir Solidarity Road’ at Mall Road in Lahore had Hafiz Saeed as one of its speakers. India has declared him to be the principal mastermind of 26/11 and has reliable evidence as well. Saeed had the audacity to claim during his speech that the execution of ‘jihad’ was the only option unless India ‘unchained Kashmir’. He ranted about unshackling Hyderabad from Indian governance. We don’t want to surrender Kashmir or let the foe enter Kashmir to govern it with us in the name of peace, do we? That the Pakistani government allowed this function to take place, which glorified and warned of terrorism against India, is indicative of the disingenuousness of the Pakistani establishment.

Undue reliance on tranquil international diplomacy and forceless intranational diplomacy can backfire badly, thereby humiliating the national ego. If we continue to believe in peace when our enemies misinterpret it as a symbol of our scrawny fervour and bony zestfulness, when our rivals misconstrue it as an embodiment of our pathetic resolve to defend our motherland, then the future of India will be lugubrious. India will have to acquaint itself with the art of perspicacious projection of force nationally and externally in order to deter our demonic enemies and to make them respect us, even if it be grudgingly.

Kartikey Sehgal

Aman Ki Asha (AKA) is the new romantic buzzword between India and Pakistan formulated by mostly those people who have not suffered terrorist attacks and have their family and limbs intact. The movement, historic, has been celebrated by a 20 hour gun salute in Srinagar with instructions on laying the table and selecting the dishes coming directly from Pakistan.

According to this new peace movement, artists from India and Pakistan will get together and sing songs that were hitherto unreleased because they found no sponsors. It is expected that the sales of these songs will increase after this movement. According to sources—most of them belonging to one large media conglomerate—this movement can also bring out the next Nobel Prize winner for peace. “Both parties have packed the best sweets for one another”, said a peacewalla and added that “I look forward to having peace-tachio; ha ha”.

When asked by a journalist to explain the significance of AKA, another peacewalla announced that “it was to build people to people contact; economic, cultural, social and all of them with the aim to stop fighting and increase loving”. He was reminded that regular people of both countries were not, in any case, fighting one another and that the movement should have concentrated on politicians and military generals who were actually fighting. The peacewalla blamed the media for being political minded. “Ignore the ones who fire bullets and do dirty things. Look at the bright side of things. Kashmiri pulao, anyone?”

The Indian peace delegation was reminded that the people who carried out the Mumbai attacks were roaming the streets or claiming to be actors and that the wife of a slain police officer was wondering if her sweater was more potent than the bullet-proof jackets. The movement, if any, should have been to increase national security and promise the father of Captain Saurabh Kalia that we’d not chum up to any talks of peace until his case is solved, if it can be, considering that his son’s dead body “came back punctured with cigarette burns, chopped limbs, mutilated organs, ears pierced with hot rods and eyes gouged out”.

But Indian peace and social activists chomskied the journalists with “India invaded Kashmir” and stated that “this is the problem with India. We must look at the future and forget the past. The past is done and the future is happening. History must happen and all that”. A politician of a major party said that “the families of those killed due to terrorism must come along with us and embrace the other side and cry on their shoulder and say, “yeh kya ho gaya. yeh kya ho gaya. Vehshet gardon ne hamara sab kuch cheen liya. Par koi baat nahin, aayie sher-o-shayari karte hain”.

(Oh what has happened, what has happened! Terrorists have taken way everything from us. But no problem, let’s discuss poetry)

When the brother of a slain jawan expressed displeasure anger over the movement and the politician’s words and said that the nation that starts such movements has no shame and that after a point of time it is legitimate to kill those who kill you, he was asked to take a breath and then ticked off for “communal tendencies”.

Meanwhile, the Army was ticked off for killing a suspected militant who didn’t actually kill but just had a gun. “The Army should realise that these people have families”, a nail sharpening activist cried.

It is expected that while the AKA group cavorts across borders, the Indian Army will lose more jawans to cross-border firing. But that’s okay because for them there will be another peace movement.