The Pioneer |
18, 2009 | Coffee Break
Nurturing terror with US dollars
Kanchan Gupta
Commenting on America’s response to the multiple terrorist strikes of 9/11, the most spectacular of which was Mohammed Atta and his fellow jihadis flying two passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and reducing the glittering chrome-and-glass symbol of American power to twisted steel and rubble, Gen Pervez Musharraf writes in his memoir, In the Line of Fire, “I was chairing an important meeting... when my military secretary told me that the US Secretary of State, Gen Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting and take the call. Powell was quite candid: ‘You are either with us or against us.’ I took this as a blatant ultimatum... I told him we were with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country against it.” Gen Powell’s pronounced pro-Pakistan bias was no secret in the first Bush Administration. It is possible that his colleagues were not too sure whether he had been blunt enough while delivering what Gen Musharraf was to later correctly describe as a “blatant ultimatum” to Pakistan. So a follow-up message was sent, this time through a person who had little time and lesser patience for niceties. “When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. In what was to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director-general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we would be bombed back to the Stone Age.”
It is anybody’s guess as to whether the Americans would have carried out their threat had Gen Musharraf cast Pakistan’s lot with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But being the crafty man that he is, Gen Musharraf decided to play along with the Bush Administration by pretending to be a ‘staunch’ and ‘steadfast’ ally in the war on terror, and thus get the West to acknowledge Pakistan as the ‘frontline state’ deserving of military and civilian aid, which has since run into billions of dollars, most of it contributed by the US. Seven years after Gen Powell asked Gen Musharraf to choose between America and the terrorists, and Mr Armitage made sure Pakistan chose to support the US, there is little or nothing to show for the military and non-military aid. Oversight audits have revealed that much of the money meant to modernise the Pakistani Army to fight terrorism in that country’s badlands has been pocketed by its top brass through the rampant use of bogus vouchers and fake bills.
As for non-military aid, it is obvious that generous cash transfers from Western capitals to Islamabad have not helped prevent Pakistani society’s descent into Islamic fanaticism and jihadi bloodletting. Gen Musharraf had promised to reform the education system by cleansing school curriculum of the regressive elements introduced during the Islamisation drive of Gen Zia-ul-Haq, shutting down non-registered madarsas run by rabid mullahs, and modernising those seminaries which are recognised by the Government. For all his talk about “enlightened moderation”, Gen Musharraf did nothing on this front; by the time he ordered his troops to storm Lal Masjid and its two madarsas, including Jamia Hafza, in the heart of Islamabad on July 8, 2007, thousands of clones of this Deoband-inspired seminary of hate had sprung up across Pakistan. Many more have mushroomed in the last two years and each one of them preaches a simple, one-sentence message: “Jihad is your salvation.”
Distinguished Pakistani scholar and columnist Pervez Hoodbhoy, in an article, “The Saudi-isation of Pakistan”, published in the latest issue of Newsline, laments how radical Islamism and mullah-driven Arabisation are furiously gnawing at the innards of a tottering Pakistani state. He says although the Government admits to the existence of only 13,000 madarsas with 1.5 million taliban, the real number is likely between 18,000 and 22,000. That would mean millions of taliban being indoctrinated by hate-mongers for whom Islam means being in a state of constant war with those who refuse to submit to oppressive Islamism that militates against human liberty, equality and dignity.
The preaching of hate and the teaching of ‘virtues’ of jihad are not limited to Deobandi madarsas alone. Such has been the all-pervasive influence of state-sponsored Islamisation since the days of Gen Zia’s dictatorship — contrary to popular belief Benazir Bhutto did nothing to reverse the trend after the dictator met a justly deserved fiery death (those with an evil mind insist the CIA did him in), nor did Mr Nawaz Sharif bother to halt the onward march of radical Islam while Gen Musharraf tricked the Americans into believing he was working on education reforms but it would require a few more million dollars, please — that private schools have now begun adopting offensive textbooks. Rezaul Laskar of PTI has filed a report from Islamabad which is worth quoting verbatim: “Thousands of Pakistani schoolgoing children are growing up learning that the Urdu equivalent of the letter ‘A’ stands for Allah, ‘B’ for bandook (gun) and ‘J’ for jihad. Though not officially prescribed for pre-schoolers, books printed by Iqra Publishers are being used in several regular schools and madarsas across Pakistan. The three examples of Allah, bandook and jihad are not the only ones which sound like a ‘blueprint for a religious fascist state’. The Urdu letter for the ‘T’ stands for takrao (collision), ‘K’ for khanjar (dagger), H for hijab (veil) and ‘Z’ for zunoob (sins) which include watching television, playing musical instruments and flying kites.
Which takes us back to Hoodbhoy’s lament: “Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind. The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan’s demise as a nation state.” Not given to grand pronouncements, Hoodbhoy has been cautious with his words. For, Pakistan has not only set itself on a self-destructive course, it is also headed for a catastrophe whose victims shall not be Pakistanis alone. Tragically, the Americans refuse to read the writing on the wall. If the Bush Administration erred in trusting Pakistan, the incoming Obama Administration has compounded that error by promising to treble aid to a criminal state whose ruling elite, both military and civilian, is a complicit partner in promoting a particularly virulent form of radical Islamism. Little does the Pakistani elite realise that it too shall be devoured by the beast it is nurturing with American dollars.
TALK BACK
The Pioneer |
January 14, 2009 |
Edit Page
Blame Hamas for this terrible war
Kanchan Gupta
Here’s the latest news from Gaza, as monitored from wire services: Israeli Defence Forces on Tuesday pushed deeper into Gaza City, overcoming resistance from Hamas fighters, and by nightfall were a short distance from the heavily crowded city centre. As on the other days of the armed campaign launched by Israel on December 27 to destroy the terror apparatus of Harkat al-Muqawamat al-Islamiyyah, better known as Hamas, several buildings were destroyed, Palestinians were rendered homeless and many lives were lost on Tuesday. An Associated Press report, filed from Gaza, evocatively described how the intense fighting on the streets and the shelling sent “terrified residents running for cover”. According to hospital officials, “more than 900 Palestinians, half of them civilians, have been killed” in the 18-day-old war. That’s a huge death toll, given the fact Gaza is only a strip of land, less than a dot on the disputed map of West Asia.
It is no doubt distressing to watch television footage and photographs of dead Palestinians half-buried in the rubble of what were their homes. But it is equally distressing to watch Israelis cowering in bomb shelters in Sderot and Ashkelon as Kassam rockets are fired by defiant Hamas jihadis from Gaza, undeterred by the collective punishment that is being meted out to Palestinians. Before we accuse the Israelis of indulging in wanton killings, as is the fashion of the moment, we should pause and consider some harsh truths.
It is by now clear that true to the tradition of Islamist jihad, Hamas fighters have been callously using Palestinian women and children as human shields. For instance, a senior Hamas commander, Nizar Rayan, rather than come out of his home and boldly confront the Israeli soldiers in the streets of Gaza, locked himself in his bedroom with his four wives and 12 children. In the event, he was killed along with his wives and 10 children. There is also incontrovertible evidence to prove that Hamas gunmen have taken shelter in UN-run schools from where they have been firing at Israeli soldiers, daring them to shell the compounds teeming with refugees.
The civilian casualties would not have been so high had Hamas been less cynical and half as brave as jihadis claim to be. Surely Israel cannot be blamed for Hamas’s cowardly deed of using civilians, especially children, as human shields to protect their own miserable lives. That apart, this is a war which Hamas has invited upon itself; so long as it did not force an end to the six-month ceasefire negotiated by Egypt and which came into effect on June 19, 2008, Israel did not respond despite repeated provocations by way of a daily barrage of Kassam rockets fired at Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon.
Even at this stage, when Hamas’s terror infrastructure has been crippled and Arab countries have refused to up the ante against Israel as they do not wish to be seen as supporting an organisation of Islamic fanatics who have caused immeasurable damage to the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue and virtually undone the tremendous progress that had been made since the Annapolis peace conference of November 2007, Mr Ismail Haniya and his cohorts refuse to agree to a UN-brokered ceasefire. Given the belligerence of Hamas’s shadowy Damascus-based supreme leader, Mr Khaled Mashal, it would be unrealistic to expect Israel to pull back and pull out of Gaza.
Hizbullah’s intransigence and unrestricted growth have shown that UN Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on for those who refuse to be reconciled to the existence of Israel. The Charter which guides the terrorists of Hamas remains unamended and calls for the total destruction of the Jewish state. And so shall it remain till such time Hamas ceases to exist. Mr Mashal has made this point more than once, asserting, “Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong.”
It is, therefore, not surprising that Hamas should have rejected the January 8 UN Security Council resolution calling for an “immediate, durable, fully respected ceasefire in Gaza leading to full withdrawal of Israeli forces”. Nor does it make sense to berate Israel for ignoring the Security Council’s pious words since that would amount to conceding Hamas the right to behave in any manner it pleases without fear of retribution, collective or otherwise.
This has, however, not prevented UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon from embarking upon a peace-making tour of West Asia (he is scheduled to be in Israel on Thursday) to tell both Hamas and Israel that the Security Council resolution should be “respected fully”. Mr Ban Ki-Moon, faced with the first serious crisis after he assumed office, would do well to go through Hamas’s record of violating every possible agreement and breaking all promises it has made to Arab Governments, especially the Government of Egypt, to which it owes an enormous debt of gratitude but has not hesitated to let down repeatedly. The elaborate network of tunnels that has been set up by Hamas and its collaborators in Syria to smuggle Iranian arms and explosives from Sinai into Gaza has left President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt looking increasingly less in command. Yet, had it not been for Mr Mubarak’s restraining hand, Israel would have snuffed out Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s dreams along with the quadriplegic mullah in March 2004.
It is anybody’s guess as to how the war against Hamas — it is not a war against Palestinians just as the war against terror is not a war against Muslims — will play out in the coming days. If Egypt is able to convince Israel of its ability to tame Hamas and put an end to the smuggling of arms and explosives from Sinai into Gaza, and Saudi Arabia underwrites the next hudna, then Mr Ban Ki-Moon may well succeed in his mission. But it will at best be a temporary pause in hostilities as Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated its ability, thanks to Iran’s patronage, to recover from severe military and political setbacks. For anything more permanent, the Palestinians must come to a decision on the future of the state they crave for but are unable to hold together.
There are three possibilities now that Annapolis is history. Jordan can resume charge of West Bank and Egypt can look after Gaza, thus effectively converting the two-state solution to a three-‘state’ arrangement with Palestine as a moth-eaten entity. Second, Palestinians can restore the supremacy of Fatah and let Abu Mazen arrive at an honourable final settlement with Israel, thus breaking free of their cursed past. Third, Palestinians can condemn themselves to a never-ending war which will fetch them nothing but death and destruction. At the end of the day, it is their choice, not Israel’s.
TALK BACK
The Pioneer |
11, 2009 | Coffee Break
Lost and found in Kashmir Valley
Kanchan Gupta
Café Turtle, above Full Circle, an old-fashioned book shop with crowded and crammed shelves in New Delhi’s Khan Market, is a great place to meet friends, provided you get a table on the balcony. There was a time in the not-so-distant past when you could enjoy a smoke along with your coffee. That was before Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss forced the Government to make smoking a punishable offence and send cops after habitual offenders. If only such diligence had been applied in cracking down on other offenders, for example Pakistanis who, bored with life in their wretched country, decide to take a short cut to jannat teeming with houris in heat via India, then Mumbai would have been spared a visit by Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab and his fellow butchers. But who’s to tell Mr Ramadoss that it is dreadfully stupid to declare smokers as criminals and frightfully silly to ban smoking in open air spaces of restaurants and cafés, for instance the lawns of the Lodhi and the balcony of Café Turtle?
So, I was alarmed at the prospect of spending at least an hour without lighting up — it’s easy to beat the no-smoking rule on flights by falling asleep as soon as you are sure the plane has taken off without overshooting the runway or plummeting into a housing colony — when I agreed to meet Basharat Peer, author of Curfewed Night, at Café Turtle. Nothing can be worse than drinking cups of coffee without inhaling nicotine drenched smoke. At least for smokers. In the event, it turned out to be a very pleasant afternoon. I had planned for a quick cup of coffee and may be three quarters of an hour of desultory conversation on my way to work. By the time we left the place, I had had two large cups of coffee without lighting up even once and the conversation had lasted for more than two hours. That’s Basharat Peer for you: Charming, witty, brimming with ideas and yet not full of himself as authors of first books that fetch them rave reviews usually are. There’s something about his humility which is both rare and touching. He was not trying to be nice; he is genuinely nice.
Curfewed Night is by no means a profound book that provides a deep insight into what’s happening in Jammu & Kashmir. It is not a clone of other books on the troubled State that are really potted history but whose writers masquerade as know-all scholars. It is a journalist’s account of how separatism and militancy have impacted the lives of the people of Kashmir Valley, not quite a diary of events but an honest, simple rendering of gathered experiences. Shorn of adverbs and adjectives, his prose is sparse yet lyrical; he wields his pen with as much precision as a master surgeon wields his scalpel. Obviously his stint with Foreign Affairs, of which he was an Assistant Editor till recently, has taught him more than a trick or two about how to write prose as it should be written in English: Dry and rare.
Basharat Peer has put together personal stories, weaving a narrative that draws readers from the margins to the centre of the tale. It leaves you wondering whether you were there when all of it was happening: Young Kashmiris, with the same dreams and desires as those of youngsters in any other part of the country, being lured into the world of militant Islam, crossing the Line of Control to be trained in terrorism, and returning to wage a futile war against the state. You want to reach out to the woman who watches her son being forced to hold an exploding bomb. There’s nothing comical about a militant barely out of his teens yearning for a swinging evening in a discotheque or to be part of the happening crowd. You feel one with the tragedy of innocent lives lost; but this is what jihad is all about. Basharat Peer sees Kashmir Valley from the perspective of a Kashmiri returning to his ravaged land after many years. That perspective is unaffected by the sorrow of others who have suffered equally, if not more. For example the Hindus who were forced to flee their ancestral land. Or the Muslims who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, comprehend the harsh language of the separatists and had to pay with their lives.
It’s a stark portrayal, often bleak, of life in Kashmir Valley during the worst phase of separatist violence. But at no point is Basharat Peer judgemental. There are no definite conclusions, no pompous assertions, and no certitudes. It’s delightfully ambiguous, a narrative that meanders, much like the rivers and canals of the Valley, lazily from one story to another. It’s real, but the reality is not emphasised — with his craftsmanship, he doesn’t need to. I asked him about the underlying ambiguity of Curfewed Night. “I can’t be certain... That’s how people are, they are full of contradictions. I too embody contradictions,” he says. The book is about his “strongest memories” of childhood spent in Kashmir Valley, it’s about something that has had a “profound impact” on him. This explains why his observations are so intense. “The slogan of azadi had an impact on my generation of Kashmiris. We thought it could happen. But it didn’t,” Basharat Peer adds after a pause.
He is not impressed by media’s magnification of Islamists baying for blood while waving the flag of jihad. “Television tends to magnify. All of the Valley is not about the Dukhtaran-e-Millat type, clad in burqas. The new generation is not isolated, it is far more politically aware and the overwhelming majority is far more modernised than ever before,” he says, and then offers an interesting explanation for the countervailing force of modernism that is emerging in the Valley: “We went out (like many other young Kashmiris from well-off and accomplished families, he was despatched to study outside the State when trouble broke in the early days of militancy) and actively sought modernisation. We have been exposed to a life vastly different from what it was in the Valley then. Now when we return to the Valley, we carry this (modernism) with us... You can’t imagine how things have changed. Young boys and girls have access to the world through the Internet, they are reading newspapers and magazines of which we had at only heard, if at all, when we were growing up...”
For Basharat Peer, writing Curfewed Night was exhilarating as well as cathartic. “I had to get it out of me to move on.” That’s a nice way of saying goodbye to a part of your life, of growing up and entering a brave new world where the imagined romanticism of azadi is just that and no more, far removed from reality.
The Pioneer |
4, 2009 | Agenda Cover Story
Joy Bangla
The December 29 general election in Bangladesh has resulted in the rediscovery of the soaring spirit of 1971, when a nation was born after a bloody liberation war
Kanchan Gupta
After two years in power, the military-backed interim Government of Bangladesh, which everybody thought would stave off polls till it was forced to hold them, has delivered on its promise: An absolutely free and fair general election has been held, resulting in the rediscovery of the soaring spirit of 1971 when a nation was born after a bloody liberation war. The Awami League’s sweeping victory, reducing the Islamist-pandering Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to an irrelevant rump, reminds us of a similar electoral victory nearly four decades ago when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman swept the polls and staked his claim on Rawalpindi, only to be denied his right. That rejection of West Pakistan’s suppression and loot of its eastern wing led to the liberation struggle of 1971 and the birth of Bangladesh.
But the collaborators, the razakars and their patrons in the Jamaat-e-Islami, had their sweet revenge, first through Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s assassination and then by propping up tin pot dictators. The return of democracy was truly short-lived. Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League Government bungled its way to defeat in the 2001 election. What followed was not only the repudiation of the spirit of 1971 but also an assault on the idea of Bangladesh. ‘Joy Bangla!’ was replaced by the Jamaati war cry of ‘Amra shobai Taliban, Bangla hobey Afghanistan!’ In a sense, the loot of Bangladesh during the five years when Begum Khaleda Zia’s BNP was in power in alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami became an incidental issue in the December 29 election; what dominated the people’s choice was their preference for a secular, liberal society, rooted in Bengali culture and tradition. The thumping vote for the Awami League is a tribute to the memory of the martyrs of Ekushe February when students rose against the forcible imposition of Urdu in 1952 and the mukti joddhas (freedom fighters) of 1971.
In his popular column which appears in Star Magazine, published by the liberal Dhaka-based newspaper, The Daily Star, ‘Chintito’ has captured the true message of the election result: “Who wants to be on the side of killers, rapists, looters and conspirators? … A standing ovation is due to our valiant freedom fighters, led once again by the brave sector commanders, who unleashed an unarmed war on the war criminals. For the handful of connivers, who tried to wickedly postulate the supreme sacrifice of millions as a civil war, the nation has spoken: 1971 war criminals do exist, and they shall be punished on this soil sanctified. Their political defeat is only a breaking of the ground…”.
The reference is to the Jamaat-e-Islami being wiped out in this election. Its cadre and affiliate jihadi organisations had unleashed a reign of terror between 2001 and 2006 when the BNP-Jamaat coalition was in power. ‘Bangla Bhai’ — executed for his jihadi perfidies by the interim Government — became the sinister face of the ‘Islamist Bangladesh’ that the Jamaat aspired to create through brutal force. Hindus were targeted in villages; men were murdered and women raped; temples were demolished with triumphant glee. The traditional celebration of the Bengali New Year, ‘Poila Boishakh’, was banned, as was paying homage to Bangabandhu Mujibur Rahman. Women were forced to wear the burqa and thousands of madarsas were opened with the help of foreign Muslim ‘charities’. In a comic display of aping their role models, Islamists owing allegiance to the Jamaat and its associates took to wearing the ‘Pathan suit’ and draping the Arabic kaffiyeh around their shoulders. The study of Arabic was vigorously promoted and a new genre, ‘Islamic music’, was added to the repertoire of Bangla music.
The neo-Taliban of Bangladesh thought they had won the battle for the country’s soul. But they have come a cropper in this election. Of the 38 seats it contested, the Jamaat has been able to win only two. In 2001, it had won 18 seats, and propelled the BNP to victory in many more by transferring its vote. That success has now been reduced to a footnote of history. “Two miracles happened in Bangladesh a few days ago. First, over 80 per cent of Bangladeshis voted in one of the most peaceful elections in its history. Secondly, Bangladesh, the second largest Muslim majority country in the world, voted for a party that believes in secularism by giving it 85 per cent of the Parliament seats,” says Prof Asif Saleh of Dhaka University. This is not an exaggeration. Stalwarts of the Jamaat, including its Amir, Matiur Rahman Nizami, and general secretary Ali Ahsan Mojahed, have been defeated in what was considered their ‘strongholds’. Of the two Jamaatis who have won, one contested against the official BNP-Jamaat candidate, and possibly got through because of the split in the vote.
If Bangladeshis have rejected the Jamaat for promoting fanatical Islam, they have punished the BNP for allowing the Jamaat to turn Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s dream into a seemingly unending nightmare. Also, the BNP has paid for its corrupt ways. Begum Khaleda Zia ruled from her home, ‘Hawa Bhaban’, and chose to shut her eyes to the sufferings of the masses. As prices of essential commodities rose to unaffordable levels and hoodlums roamed the streets, her sons Tarique and Koko looted the country in the most brazen manner. No deal was signed, no agreement finalised without their approval, which followed only after 10 per cent of the total amount had been paid to them. People would scathingly refer to how Gen Zia-ur Rahman, the dictator who was killed in a failed coup, had left his begum and sons only a ‘broken suitcase’, and how they had come to accumulate huge riches by abusing power and office.
It is, therefore, not surprising that Begum Zia, who now claims that the December 29 election was “stage-managed” to ensure the Awami League’s victory, should have suffered such a massive political setback. The BNP, which had won 193 seats in 2001 with a vote share of 40.97 per cent — .84 per cent more than that of the Awami League — has been able to scrape through in 29 constituencies this time; its vote share has plunged to 32.74 per cent, compared to the Awami League’s remarkable 49.2 per cent.
Sheikh Hasina Wajed has reason to celebrate her comeback. After all, it is not often that a party wins 85 per cent of the seats. Moreover, there was a time when it appeared that she had become a spent force, a liability for the Awami League rather than an asset. But she has proved her critics wrong. With the Awami League’s 230 seats, she does not need allies for a majority in the Jatiya Sangsad. But she will have to carry her alliance partners along with her, namely Lt-Gen HM Ershad’s Jatiyo Party and five members of Left parties.
But once the celebrations are over, Sheikh Hasina will have to get down to the task of fulfilling her promises and rebuilding Bangladesh. Most important, she will have to ensure transparency in governance and keep the Islamists at bay. As Bangladeshis will readily admit, theirs is not an easy country to govern. The mess that was inherited by the interim Government has been cleared to a large extent, but a lot more remains to be done.
Sheikh Hasina’s ‘Vision 2021’, which aims at creating a modern nation which is prosperous, stable and forward-looking, has received wide support from young Bangladeshis, who comprise 32 per cent of the voters. The generation which has come of age after the birth of Bangladesh, wants the country to move ahead by tapping its human resource, which is vast and varied. They have neither the time nor the inclination to tread the path of Islamic revivalism and fundamentalism. It is this generation which will keenly watch how Sheikh Hasina performs in office this time.
Simultaneously, she will have to complete the unfinished agenda of the liberation war — the trial and punishment of the collaborators so that they get their just desserts and are never able to take the country to the brink of disaster again. Sheikh Hasina owes this to the generation of 1971. And, it is necessary to re-establish the supremacy of Bangla culture and tradition, rooted in liberalism and tolerance, which together define the idea of Bangladesh. For Lt-Gen Ershad, this will be an opportunity to redeem himself and bury his not-so-pleasant past.
A last point: Sheikh Hasina has to be mindful of not repeating her mistakes of the past, especially pandering to powerful individuals in the Awami League who are also massively corrupt. That is on the domestic front. On foreign policy, she will have to work extra hard to mend relations with India, which had taken a nosedive during the BNP-Jamaat combine’s rule when Begum Khaleda Zia had unleashed a virulent hate India campaign. Sheikh Hasina’s post-election statement, that she will not allow Bangladeshi soil to be used for staging terrorist attacks on the country’s neighbours, is a welcome declaration of intent. The proof of the pudding is in its eating: She will now have to walk the talk.
With Sheikh Hasina taking charge of Bangladesh, the interim Government will stand dissolved. But the people of Bangladesh, as well as the victors of this general election, owe a debt of gratitude to those who stepped into the breach and prevented the country from descending into Islamist violence and political chaos. Agreed, the interim Government’s ‘minus two’ formula for cleansing Bangladeshi politics of malcontents didn’t quite work. The two begums remain the two poles of that country’s politics.
Yet, had it not been for the interim Government, there would not have been a free and fair election. To it goes the credit of striking off one crore bogus names from the electoral rolls that had been included by the BNP when it was in power, and issuing a photo identity card to every adult Bangladeshi. The vigorous prosecution of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats launched by the interim Government helped restore the people’s faith in the system and the judiciary.
Above all, the interim Government helped restore and revive Bangladesh’s secular ideals. It amended the election law to bar parties and candidates who subscribe to an Islamist agenda; it made it mandatory for parties and candidates to swear by the liberation of Bangladesh as an absolute and final deed (forcing the Jamaat to swallow its spiteful propaganda); and, it kept the most venal of the lot out of the electoral race.
We can almost hear the resonance of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s stirring slogan, “Joy Bangla!”, once again.
The Pioneer |
4, 2009 | Coffee Break
A just war against Hamas in Gaza
Kanchan Gupta
The rally organised by the CPI(M) in Delhi last week to protest against Israel’s bombing of Hamas establishments in Gaza was both comical and revealing. There was a crowd of mullahs in skull caps, their hennaed beard neatly combed, waving placards with an assortment of printed slogans, the least offensive of which said “Israel is the real terrorist”. And there was CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat, clearly a class apart from the mob she had gathered to denounce ‘Zionist aggression’. If the rally was aimed at instigating people to rise in protest against the justly deserved punishment being meted out to Gaza’s Islamofascists for whom peace is a five-letter dirty word forbidden by the perverse ideology of Harkat al-Muqawamat al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), otherwise known as Hamas, then it singularly failed in achieving its goal. For a change, barring professional protesters and European busybodies — most of whom, like the CPI(M)’s mullahs at home, nurse a hatred of Jews — the world would like to see the organisation and its top leaders, including Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyah and Mahmoud Zahar, neutred if not liquidated.
But if the rally was meant to instigate the United Progressive Alliance led by the Congress into castigating Israel, Ms Karat’s effort was not entirely wasted. Displaying the deep-seated bias of its political masters, the Ministry of External Affairs has issued a statement, expressing its ‘disappointment’ over “the use of disproportionate force ... resulting in a large number of civilian casualties on the one hand and the escalating violence on the other”. The statement gratuitously adds, “This continued use of indiscriminate force is unwarranted and condemnable. The Government of India urges utmost restraint so as to give peace a chance as the peace process may well get derailed irreversibly by Israel’s attack in the Gaza strip and continued violence.”
It is pathetic that a crippled, effete and politically-compromised Government that cannot protect its citizens from the repeated depredations of Islamofascists, an irresolute regime that whimpers as Pakistan kicks India in the face, should worry about “the use of disproportionate force” by Israel to protect its people from Hamas’s deadly attacks. These are not well-meaning words advocating restraint, but words that have been craftily selected to send a message of encouragement to those who kill and destroy in the name of Islam — a message of solidarity with fanatics in Gaza and elsewhere, for instance those whom the CPI(M) rallied in an extraordinary show of unity between Marxists and Islamists. Progressives, it would appear, are now at peace cohabiting with fundamentalists who wish to supplant the banner of liberty with the standard of jihad. A Government that commiserates with Harkat al-Muqawamat al-Islamiyyah cannot be seriously seeking the prosecution of either Jaish-e-Mohammed or Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. By criticising Israel’s decision to exercise its right to act in self-defence against a hostile neighbour, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Government of India, such as it is, has forfeited its right to defend the sovereign entity called India. In a sense, the sudden spurt of anti-Israel statements, strident and hostile in tone and content, explains the shameful non-action of the Government, more specifically the Prime Minister and his men, in the face of grave, unpardonable provocation by the ideological brothers of Hamas in Pakistan and their patrons who dominate the Pakistani establishment. The robust response that was expected of mighty India after the fidayeen attack on Mumbai and the resultant slaughter of innocent civilians is now being carried out by tiny Israel against its tormentors.
Death and destruction caused by war never present a pretty sight. In fact, there’s nothing called a perfect war in which the good men go in and shoot dead the bad men and both victor and vanquished celebrate by breaking bread together. In an asymmetrical war, which is forced on nations that subscribe to democracy, pluralism and open society, by Islamofascists who dream of converting the entire world into a caliphate where only the ‘believers’ shall dwell, the images we get to see are often more shocking. We are repelled by the sight of the bodies of 10 children being pulled out from the rubble of a house in Gaza after an Israeli air raid. That is the way it should be. But blinded by our bogus grief and manufactured fury over ‘civilian casualties’ in Gaza, we miss the other details of the bombing in which the 10 children died. We thus ignore the fact that the house belonged to a Hamas strongman, Nizar Rayan, who had dedicated his life to the destruction of Israel; that he lived there with his four wives and 12 children; and, that he dared the Israelis to try and target him. That’s what the Israelis did last Thursday, despatching him to the other world. Yes, there was collateral damage: His four wives and 10 of his 12 children were killed. This is the price that has to be paid by those who engage nations in an asymmetrical war, a battle among unequals which must be fought decisively and to its bitter end if the poison tree of radical Islamism is to be destroyed root and branch. If we must grieve over Nizar Rayan’s slain children, we should also grieve for the many other children whose lives have been laid to waste so wantonly by Islamofascists whose repulsive ideology justifies the slaughter of innocent people, among them Israeli men, women and children.
The truth is those at home and abroad who weep over Gaza’s ‘sorrow’ have no tears to spare for the victims of Hamas’s terrorism, the ferocity and intensity of which can be gauged from the fact that there has been a 500 per cent increase in the number of rockets it has been firing into southern Israel ever since the 2005 unilateral disengagement by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This is not dissimilar to the manner in which human rights activists in India come to the rescue of terrorists, as demonstrated by their campaign to protect the ‘rights’ of Mohammed Ajmal Amin Kasab, the ‘Butcher of Mumbai’. Must we listen to them and be distracted from achieving the larger goal of ridding the world of those who do not believe in peace and for whom faith is an expression of unbriddled savagery? Israel is doing what it believes is right; it is fulfilling its primary duty, which is to protect the lives of Israeli citizens. We can either learn a lesson from Israel’s commitment to the war against global terror and join the battle, or shut up and suffer in silence.
TALK BACK
The Pioneer |
31, 2008 | Edit Page
Coming next: 26/11 never happened!
Kanchan Gupta
The Congress appears to have embarked upon a dangerous venture fraught with disastrous consequences for the nation. If the recent assertions of Minister for Minority Affairs Abdul Rehman Antulay and party general secretary Digvijay Singh, and the Government’s official response to them, are any indication, the Congress is seeking to make political capital out of India’s sorrow through the expedient means of ‘politicising’ the issue of terrorism.
The party has been harsh in its criticism of the BJP’s perceived partisan approach towards dealing with the menace of jihad and has rudely rebuked the Opposition for criticising Government policy — or, the absence of it — that has emboldened butchers to slaughter innocent citizens, firm in the belief that the state shall neither wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of mind numbing brutality nor ensure justice is done to the victims of Islamofascism.
But facts suggest that it is the Congress which, while preaching the need for national consensus at this hour of crisis, has decided not to allow public and political opinion to coalesce into a unified stand against terror. The purpose is two-fold. First, it is hopeful of being seen, at the time of the general election, as the party which has acted ‘firmly’ and ‘decisively’ against terrorism, and thus benefit from the popular view reflected in the slogan, “Enough is enough”, heard across the country after the horrendous bloodshed in Mumbai. And, second, it wants to slyly placate Islamists at home who are distressed by the amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by letting them know that they need not fear the new ‘tough’ anti-terror law.
So, the Congress allowed, or perhaps even encouraged, Mr Antulay to voice his outrageous conspiracy theory in the most cunning manner. The Minister who has reduced the definition of minority communities to mean only Muslims, the least of India’s minorities, let it be known that Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and two of his senior colleagues were not necessarily felled by terrorist bullets during the siege of Mumbai.
When cornered by media and faced with a huge political backlash, he did not deny his comments, as is the usual norm with cynical politicians caught with their pants down. Instead, he brazenly reiterated his ‘opinion’, insisted that Karkare and the others were ‘directed’ towards Cama Hospital and their death by certain individuals, alluded to ‘Hindu terrorists’ playing a role in this sinister plot, and even indirectly exonerated Mohammed Ajmal Kasab and the other Pakistani terrorists of killing the police officers. He demanded an inquiry into Karkare’s death, saying there was more to it than what was telecast live by 24x7 news channels while all this was happening.
The Congress spokesman craftily distanced the party from the Minister’s comments while the Prime Minister, who notionally heads the Cabinet and is on the verge of completing a full five-year tenure in office without being in power for even a day, maintained an enigmatic silence. Curiously, Mr Digvijay Singh chose to speak up for Mr Antulay, claiming the Minister had been “misreported”, which is not true, and defending the indefensible: “What Antulay has asked for is a probe... What is objectionable in his statement?”
Days later, after allowing Mr Antulay to gloat over his despicable deed and revel in the support extended to him by those who unabashedly justify jihadi terror as a legitimate expression of Muslim frustration and anger over what they refuse to admit is imagined victimhood, instead of summarily sacking him and packing him off in sack cloth and ashes, the Government broke its eloquent silence by way of a statement by Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram.
If there were any expectations of the Government hauling Mr Antulay over the coals, those were belied by Mr Chidambaram who merely stated the sequence of events and concluded with an amazing balancing act: “In the days before his death, questions were raised about the genuineness of the investigations that were being conducted by Karkare in a terrorist case. After his death, questions are being raised about the circumstances in which he was killed. In my view, both are wrong and deeply regrettable.”
It is such chicanery that gives the Congress’s game away. The task of removing lingering doubts is left to party leaders like Mr Digvijay Singh. Hence, it is not surprising that the former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh should have used his visit to Indore last Sunday to make the astounding revelation that the jihadis who attacked Mumbai had “demanded the release of certain terrorists”, but the Government bluntly refused their demands.
That guests at Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident hotels and the residents of Chabad House were held hostage by the fidayeen during those 62 hours of relentless terror is common knowledge, as is the fact that many of the hostages (including all of them at Chabad House) were killed in cold blood. But at no stage has the Government disclosed that the terrorists had demanded the release of “certain terrorists” — the Minister of State for External Affairs did not mention it in the United Nations Security Council on December 9; the Home Minister’s statement of December 11 in Parliament is silent on this point; and the numerous briefings by security agencies do not reflect Mr Digvijay Singh’s assertion, “We did not compromise, rather we went ahead and eliminated them.”
Taking a cue from Mr Antulay, Mr Digvijay Singh refused to retract his statement portraying the Congress as being rough and tough with terrorists — unlike the BJP which ‘capitulated’ at Kandahar when it was in power — after it fetched protests. On Monday he told PTI: “I stand by what I said in Indore.”
On Tuesday, the Government contradicted the man who, soon after the July 26 Ahmedabad bombings, which came in quick succession to the terrorist strikes in Bangalore and Jaipur, had wondered why “only BJP-ruled States are being targeted”; his wonderment hopefully ceased after Congress-ruled Delhi was bombed on September 13. Asked for his response to Mr Digvijay Singh’s claim, Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee said there were no demands by the terrorists and, therefore, there was no question of any negotiations or rejection of those demands.
And so a pattern emerges. A Cabinet Minister raises doubts about jihadi terrorists letting loose a reign of terror in Mumbai and darkly hints that we should not discount the Islamist bunkum about the massacre being a ‘Hindu-Zionist’ plot. The Government responds with a non-response. Then a Congress general secretary says the Government refused to release ‘certain terrorists’ in exchange of hostages to prove its ‘zero tolerance’ of terrorism. The Government reacts with a rejection of ‘reports’ of any negotiations over release of prisoners.
Yet we are expected to believe that the nation is safe with the Congress in power!
TALK BACK
The Pioneer | 18, 2009 | Coffee Break 
Nothing changed for India
