India's 9/11 - Rage, Retaliation, and Restraint, Part II

An excellent indepth analysis

Agreeing with Amitabh - this is an excellent analysis. Whether I agrew with all of it, is a separate question, but this is neverless in-depth and carefully considered.

There is one point I would raise for you to think about. Terror does not arise from poverty. It arises from commitment. Example: one of the terror attacks in Israel was done by an Arab lady attorney. She walked into a restaurant with a suicide belt on and blew herself and several Israeli officers to smithereens. Whatever she was, she was not poor.

another excellent piece, and not simply because it goes beyond the "grab the bad guys, hang them high and then sit back and relax as peace unfolds automatically and everywhere." there are multiple causes of this complex issue; compounded by the fact that in many cases, those who claim to be fighting terror, but are directly and indirectly involved either in instigating it or looking the other way while benefiting from it, politically and materially.

Amitabh, Commonsense & Ruvy, thanks for your compliments.

Ruvy(#2), I beg to disagree. The Arab attorney who was a suicide bomber may not have been poor, but she was in all probability affected by the general poverty of her Arab community vis-à-vis the Jews in Israel. If the Arabs in Israel were as well off as the Jews, had the same access to education, held all their ancestral lands etc. this attorney might not have carried out that heinous act. A feeling that one's community is being discriminated against or harmed can act as a powerful motivator.

Vinod

There is nothing new in your post that has not been used in the past to get us to present day do-nothing status quo. If somebody wants to know why India remains a soft state and why nothing ever happens after every terrorist event - your posts touches upon each and every argument, cliche, platitude and justification on the book. If people are still stuck in pre-11/26 ways, this terrorist event too shall pass, soon to be forgotten, changing nothing for the better. If we are not prepared to break the will of terrorism, we might as well do nothing and start praying that terrorism may harm others but not our own loved ones.

For, one can not police every nook and cranny of India 24/7, and one can not be 100% prepared or efficient in dealing with terrorist events - terrorists have an element of surprise on their side and they can pick and choose the time and place to their advantage giving us no option but to play catchup. Terrorism can not be dealt merely at rescue level or intelligence level or aftermath punishment level because terrorists can always be one step ahead, and lay to ruin best laid counter-terrorism apparatus and plans. We have to find out what would make them afraid to engage in terrorism, we have to break their will to engage in terrorism. If we are not prepared to do it, rest it useless academic exercise.

A feeling that one's community is being discriminated against or harmed can act as a powerful motivator.

There we agree, Vinod. Arabs are discriminated against in Israel, and no matter how one tries to get around it, being a minority in any country heightens one sense of being discriminated against as well. I know you understand this, living in the UK as you do.

But, what the attorney did took commitment. What those kids did in Mumbai took commitment. They probably realized that their chances of getting out were slim to none. So this was a suicide mission for them.

Lots of people, poor or otherwise, grumble and grouch about the society around them. But only those with the commitment to act ever get anything done, whether that is something positive like serving kosher meals to wayward Jews in a foreign city, or something as heinous as the attack on Mumbai undertaken last week.

Vinod

"If the Arabs in Israel were as well off as the Jews, had the same access to education, held all their ancestral lands etc. this attorney might not have carried out that heinous act."

This assumption that grievances of Jehadis stem from lack of money, lack of economic opportunities, lack of education, lack of land is fundamentally flawed. That they would want the same things as you and I want. That if you provide them with land and power and state of their own, they would seek economic prosperity, education, arts, humanities, and all the other good stuff a typical nation would want. We have many failed Islamic states and your assumptions are unwarranted.

Vinod, if your thesis of poverty is correct, then it's also a fact that Indian Muslims are not the only minority, or religious community that is poor and has been left behind by the economic boom. You'll find plenty of non-Muslims too. So what makes Muslims extra susceptible to recruitment by Islamic terrorists?

And the fact that Jews in Nariman House were specifically targeted tells me that it's not so much about poverty.

I guess this is when most writers will start skirting around the issue of religion and the role that Islam plays. It was evident on TV too when till a week ago, personalities were shouting at the top of their lungs about "Hindu terrorists" but I doubt the word Islam or Muslim was uttered by these same TV personalities during the past few days, and any criticism is markedly muted.

Double standards or some version of Indian secularism? You decide.

Terrorism can not be dealt merely at rescue level or intelligence level or aftermath punishment level because terrorists can always be one step ahead, and lay to ruin best laid counter-terrorism apparatus and plans. We have to find out what would make them afraid to engage in terrorism, we have to break their will to engage in terrorism. If we are not prepared to do it, rest it useless academic exercise.

Kerty,

Go read my comment at Aditi's article, "Cancer Researcher on the Scene". I sense that the solution to all of this is very difficult for India to even attempt to accomplish, and you'll see why there. Frankly, the problems we have here in Israel, by comparison, are minor and are largely of our own making. Arab terror could be dealt with in short order, but our government is mortally afraid to do so.

Kerty

One of the root causes of terrorism is the sense of injustice to you or for whom you feel strong and the feel of inability to not be able to bring a change.
Poverty is the biggest cultivator/provider of terror resource at the "foot soldier level".
Poverty/suffering does not stop people from becoming doctors/lawyers ect..., it just makes it that much more difficult.
Everyone has commitment/drive.
It's how you use it.
It's an individual thing/choice.
The individual is but the "seed" of society.
Society "breeds" terror.
Terror has been around as long as "mankind".
It is not restricted to a religion, a country, an ethnic group, an individual, a state, a government ect and to do it so reduces our ability to "reduce" terror and it's causes.

Mohammad

Let us not make it a Hindu versus Muslim logic but let us not fool ourselves about where the problem is most prevalent. A young man getting paid Rs 19 lakhs a year was part of a team responsible for bomb blasts. Now, surely Poverty was not a problem, his own education and the opportunities was not a problem. Let us accept for the sake of argument that he was upset with violence in Gujarat - Does that mean he helps people kill ordinary folk (Hindu and Muslim) on the streets through bomb blasts? That is not anger, that is not revenge....that is madness. Let us not find ways to justify madness...

The argument that poverty is responsible for terror is not right. You are saying that the money for these terrorist attacks comes from middle east which is overflowing with money. The people who are paying money for terrorism are rich. So how can you blame it on poverty?. The actual terrorists were mostly educated people and they know only one way to resolve their perceived problems - kill others. They do not think of resolving their problems by peacful means because in most islamic nations democracy is not functional. And last but not the least in spite of leaving in a dangerous neighbourhood, India has done remarkable progress and they do not want their people to see this . They do not want them to see that a democracy is their way to prosperity.

Mohammad

"Poverty is the biggest cultivator/provider of terror resource at the "foot soldier level"."

Poverty is not confined to moslems alone. People from all sections of society are poor - they do not turn to life of crime or terrorism. Even if your claim that all terrorists are poor is true, all poors are not terrorists, all poors do not turn to terrorism.

Terrorism is not a crime of economics. Its is a crime of ideology. One needs to acquire a particular ideological orientation. In case of Moslems, it is Wahabi and Deoband jehadism. It does not matter of a person is poor or rich, Indian or Pakistani, educated or illiterate, young or old - ideology drives their world view that creates self-inflicted hopelessness that needs to be overcome with desperate and terrorist means.

Ruvy, there have been many times when Jews we considered terrorists. This happened during Roman times and much more recently when the British ruled Palestine and the Irgun and the Sten gang decided to make life difficult for the Brits.

When the Ottomans ruled huge chunks of southern Europe (Greece, Bulgaria and Romania), there were Christian fanatics who made suicidal attacks against the established power. In around 1212, a bunch of poor people and children from Europe marched to Palestine (as crusaders) in the hope of converting the Muslims there and capturing Jerusalem. They were all captured and sold as slaves.

The point I am trying to make is that religions go through a 'bad' phase at times. The reasons are a mix of economics, culture and geo-politics. There was a time when Islamic lands were the most civilised in the world. Right now Islam is going through a bad patch. This is not the result of any innate deficiency in Islam. I continue to believe that poverty is the prime reason why terrorism thrives. Without poverty, there might be terrorism, but it won't thrive. Committed people will have to look elsewhere for a cause. Look at what's happening in Belgium. The Walloons and the Flemish can't stand each other. The country is very likely to break up. But there is no violence whatsoever and that's because of the total absence of poverty. Ireland was violent even after it was no longer so much poverty stricken because the Catholics had a long history of being discriminated against. Also, they had experienced some very serious poverty till the mid-twentieth century

Ruvy, I agree that not all poverty stricken people will be terrorists. Commitment (or fanaticism) is necessary and some idiots will have it.

Kerty, you say that I have not said anything that hasn't been said before. You also say that ideology of the type expressed in my post is responsible for the mess India is currently in. However, you do not suggest alternatives. Will bombing Pakistan reduce the threat against India? No, it won't. Will conquering Pakistan (if it can be done that is) and occupying it stop such attacks? You can bet it won't.

Vinod,

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.

As for Kerty, he is welcome to chat with Man Singh about "innocent villagers attacked by dacoits"...

My salute to Firangi Francois.
Brown Indian, read Hindu, slaves yet to realise their worth, after 200 years of white superior christian rule. One white Italian waitress is enough for millions of Brown slaves to worship, bow, and take orders. There are not even one brown with guts in the whole Congress-UPA, who can speak out and say Hey Firangi crook woman, you are responsible for what is happening in our country, you lay off. Alas, more we are attacked and destroyed by this woman, more these brown slaves glorify that haughty woman.

We must fight these enemies within, brown Hindu slaves. These slaves are traitors inside our house. Unless we remove these traitors, we can't create peace, security and prosperity in Bharat. Once there are no traitors within Hindu society, hundreds white-skined waitresses can't seduce Hindus and control Bharat.
=====

Sonia's presence in Delhi is costing India dearly François Gautier

In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L'Aurore, titled j'accuse ('I accuse'), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.

Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.

It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress. Sometimes, one's very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India's bureaucracy and political system in full motion.

Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.

Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.

I'accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India's intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out 'Hindu terrorism', which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu 'terrorists' on Sonia's orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had "sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over" and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces' whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.

I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.

I accuse Sonia of weakening India's spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.

I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.

I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.

I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India's respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.

I'accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press' obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.

I'accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.

How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS' battle-readiness.

Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, "Go after Hindu terrorists"? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, "Go soft on Islamic terrorism"? Who wants to do away with India's nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.

Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.

Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.

Under Sonia's rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.

Source: expressbuzz dot com
02 December 2008

bharat, smoked any charminar lately? (kit kat I presume, would be too "firang" for your taste?)

Bharat -17

I feel you should be more careful about what you say about other people.

Anyway, on your point I do believe that the UPA is a disaster and time to throw them out

Vinod

"Kerty, you say that I have not said anything that hasn't been said before. You also say that ideology of the type expressed in my post is responsible for the mess India is currently in. However, you do not suggest alternatives."

The best alternative at this point is to stop regurgating same old failed arguments for a change. We need to stop creating alibi and apologetics for Jehadism. No. It is not poverty. We can now allow bogus litmus tests for having civility in society. Poverty has always existed and will never ever go away. We can not create permanent excuse for crime or terrorism because of poverty or this or that. You are trying to use terrorism to build political will to tackle poverty. That is wrong headed. We need to build political will to tackle terrorism. Lets drop all these excuses that prevent us from creating political will to tackle terrorism. The actual tactical details of how to tackle terrorism will flow from the political will. When there is a will, there will be a way. But right now, there is no political will, only excuses. Without it, nothing would matter, not even best laid laws and plans would work.

Bharat

Sonia is firing her henchmen and posing to be tough on terrorism and saviour of nation in distress. It reminds me of queen victoria in the aftermath of 1857 Mutiny against East India Company rule. Queen Victoria fired the East India company, took over its rein of India, and officially gave us British Raj. And she did it with so much fan fare that people hailed her as liberator and built her statues in India. Oh well, how little it takes to fool our intellectual elites, and even less to fool the masses.

Vinod, on your last point about not buying oil from middle-east, that's not going to stop others from buying oil from Saudi Arabia. So the money will keep on coming in, though a case can be made that at least we're not contributing to it.

Iran and Iraq are majority Shia where Wahabbi strain is not in control, so buying oil from them should be fine.

I'd suggest India start investing in solar and renewable energy. USA has realized bit of that with Obama's promise to reduce oil-dependency. India needs to go along the same route by investing in renewable energy in a big way.