Desicritics Author: Vinod Joseph

All Visitors are Gods, But Some Visitors are Higher Gods

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:23:23 EDT

Recently, an Indian I know suffered verbal abuse of a racist nature at a public place in the UK. Commiserations from friends and well-wishers flowed in. Amidst all the support and handholding, which were all on the usual lines (not every Brit is racist, it’s the recession which makes people so nasty, don’t let a sicko disrupt your life), one comment stood out and set me thinking: ‘We (Indians) treat these people so well when they come to India.’

My initial reaction was to agree with that comment. I could think of so many instances when I used to work in Mumbai or study in Bangalore when I have gone out of my way to help foreign visitors. I have taken detours so that I could walk visitors to destinations they had trouble finding. I have spent valuable minutes answering questions in painstaking detail, questions on everything ranging from why Indians defecate in public to why Indian trains are usually late.

My initial reaction was buttressed by this blog post by Peter Foster, one-time Telegraph reporter based in Delhi who has very recently moved to Beijing with his family. In his post, Foster tells us of a recent experience in Beijing where an old man saved his life (from his kids) by doing some carpentry work for free. Foster goes on to wonder if he would be just as helpful to a newly arrived Chinese immigrant in London asking him for help in broken English.

So, on the fact of it, one gets the impression that Indians and other Asians and possibly even Africans are very helpful and friendly towards foreign visitors whilst nasty westerners are not. But is this true? Is this the full story, the whole truth?

How do Indians treat illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India? You might well say that an illegal immigrant does not deserve any respect or warmth. Fine (though throwing them out of the country without even the semblance of a trial is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do), let’s look at the case of Nepalis in India. How do we treat them? I have known restaurants in Colaba (Mumbai) which has a small floating population of working class Africans, treat poor African customers shabbily (the treatment Indians reserve for servants) and at peak times, even turn them away. African students in India are frequent targets of racist abuse as are people from India’s north-east.

Arabs are legendary for their hospitality, (force) feeding their guests even after they say No, even when they don’t have enough food for themselves. Hospitality is supposed to be a duty and a matter of honour. However, this hospitality rarely extended towards the hundreds of thousands of Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and African workers in Arab lands.

In short, the fabled Indian or Arab hospitality is restricted to prosperous, white Western visitors. This phenomenon can be seen throughout Asia.

Bhutan is a country which strives for Gross National Happiness rather than GDP. However, it has always treated its Nepali-speaking population as second class citizens even though Nepali migration to Bhutan started in the beginning of the 20th century at the invitation of Bhutan’s rulers. Many Nepalese have been forced to leave Bhutan for refugee camps in eastern Nepal.

After the Chinese revolution, the Chinese government gave scholarships to African students to study in China. As elaborated in this article, the Chinese government’s enthusiasm for Chinese students was not shared by the Chinese populace. African students in China were frequent targets of racist abuse. Hatred towards African students was the focal point which helped galvanise Chinese students into organising themselves, which ultimately led to the student demonstration at Tienanmen Square.

Foster is right in saying that if a Chinese immigrant speaking broken English looks for help in London, he is unlikely to receive the sort of assistance which Foster (speaking broken Mandarin) received in Beijing. However, an African immigrant in China is unlikely to get more any help than a Chinese or Indian immigrant in London.

Prosperous Singapore, Hong Kong or Japan are no better than their poorer Asian neighbours in this regard.

I am not for a moment saying that a coloured person in the West who is the victim of racism doesn’t have the right to protest. However, Asians treating White people so well and treating other Asian minorities and Africans so shabbily, is a manifestation of the racism that is so deeply entrenched in the Asian psyche. In my opinion, if Asians can learn to treat all their visitors with respect and dignity, (rather than treating a few select ones as Gods and feeding them till they burst), if Asians can bury their prejudices and work with poor African countries in improving their common lot, they will be able to deal a death blow to racism.

Is the World Ready for Prabhakaran's Death?

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 01:52:35 EST

Warning: Speculation, Not Fact

31 March 2009

The Sri Lankan army has finally captured the last few square kilometres of jungle in Mullaitivu controlled by the LTTE. Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the all-powerful head of the LTTE, has been found dead in his bunker, pink froth around his lips, an empty potassium cyanide capsule on the floor near him. Dozens of surviving LTTE cadres have thrown down their weapons and melted into the civilian population that has been streaming out of the jungle, after having been kept hostage and used as human shields by the LTTE for many months. Some of the LTTE fighters who couldn’t take off their uniforms fast enough have been taken prisoner by the Sri Lankan army. A few die-hard LTTE men and women seem to have escaped from the dragnet with the intention of continuing their fight. It is believed that both Pottu Amman and Prabhakaran's eldest son Charles Anthony Seelan have survived, but it is not clear who will be the numero uno in the 'Prabhakaran-less' LTTE.

There is pandemonium among LTTE supporters in Sri Lankan Tamil enclaves in London, Toronto, Paris and various other parts of the world. Many Sri Lankan Tamils who had till then been coerced into making regular contributions to the LTTE’s coffers have stopped making those payments. Fighting has broken out among gangs of LTTE supporters for control of the many millions of dollars, pounds and euros stashed away in multiple bank accounts. More importantly, a tussle is going on for control of the many corner shops, petrol stations, motels and restaurants owned by LTTE front men all over the world. Open street fights have broken out among LTTE supporters in places like East Ham in London, Rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis and Metro Gard du Nord in Paris and Scarborough in Toronto.

The scale and magnitude of the fighting and theft has taken western law enforcement agencies by surprise. Even though the crackdown on LTTE’s fund raising activities started some years ago following the branding of the LTTE as a terrorist group, and has picked up speed in recent times, western police forces have never been too keen to dig deep into the Sri Lankan Tamil community for fear of hurting cultural sentiments, though it’s well known that LTTE supporters within the Sri Lankan Tamil community have forced members of this community in the UK, France and elsewhere to donate money to the LTTE’s coffers. LTTE supporters have also been involved in various other money making scams.

31 December 2009

The Sri Lankan government is yet to make good its promise to devolve power. Even though Prabhakaran is no more, small groups of LTTE have continued to resist from their jungle hideouts. Since the devolution of power is yet to take place, Sri Lankan Tamils continue to sympathise with the LTTE and its off shoots.

So far there have been three suicide attacks in Colombo and tourists continue to stay away from Sri Lanka.

30 June 2010

Shanmugalingam Sivashanker, also known as Pottu Amman, former head of the LTTE’s intelligence wing has broken off from the LTTE which is now led by Charles Anthony Seelan, Prabhakaran’s eldest son and formed his own group, which he said will be true to the ideals promoted by V. Prabhakaran. Pottu Amman has denounced Charles Anthony Seelan as a traitor who is not committed to Tamil Eelam and is misusing donations made by overseas Sri Lankan Tamils. There have been minor skirmishes between the two groups.

20 February 2011

Following intense pressure from various western countries and India, the Sri Lankan government agreed to convert itself to a federal system where Tamil dominated areas will have considerable autonomy. However, Tamils in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka have demanded that the East be kept separate from the North since Tamils from Northern Sri Lanka ‘discriminate’ against Tamils from the East. Colonel Karuna, the ex-LTTE leader from the Eastern Province, has threatened to take up arms once again if Tamils from the East are forced to be subservient to those from the North.

Back to the Present

I’m sure none of us would want to see the possibilities detailed above to materialise. It is not too late to take remedial action. Western law enforcement agencies ought to prepare themselves for the infighting that is bound to break out immediately if Prabhakaran were to die or be captured and the iron discipline he wields over the LTTE disappears. LTTE supporters in the west have accumulated vast amounts of money and control many businesses and properties. A detailed dossier of LTTE front men and front organisations and LTTE controlled businesses must be prepared. Any property of business or bank account that is derived from terrorism or terrorist activity can be confiscated by the government. However, I would call upon the governments of Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and any other country where LTTE front men hold assets, to donate the proceeds of those properties for the rebuilding of Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka.

India and all western governments ought to insist that the devolution of power to Tamil dominated provinces of Sri Lanka take place immediately rather than later. Both financial aid and military assistance to the Sri Lankan government should be tied to such devolution of power. If the Sri Lankan government fails to make good its promise in this respect, peace will continue to elude Sri Lanka.

To Censor Or Not: Bloggers' Duties and Liabilities

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:52:50 EST

Recently a young blogger from Kerala named Ajith got into some serious trouble after having started an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut. Anonymous commentators posted nasty and vile comments on Ajith’s ‘I Hate Shiv Sena’ community website. The Shiv Sena’s youth wing filed a complaint with the Thane (a city on the outskirts of Mumbai) police station against Ajith following which charges were brought against Ajith under sections Sections 295A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Fearing arrest, the young blogger approach the Kerala High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. Later, Ajith approached the Supreme Court for an order quashing the criminal complaint filed against him. The Supreme Court ruled against Ajith and directed him to travel to Thane and face the charges filed against him.

My initial reaction on hearing of this was on the same lines as my friend Jo who has written an article on this issue here:

However, on reflection, I have come to conclusion that the Supreme Court of India was absolutely right in its ruling.

My reasons are as follows:

Section 295A of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 506 of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: -And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Though Sections 295A and 506 sound reasonable, they can be (and are) interpreted to cover a wide variety of sins. It is interesting to note that the Indian Penal code of 1860 was created by the British Parliament for its Jewel in the Crown which had mutinied in an unprecedented manner just three years ago (in 1857).

Over sixty years after independence, the IPC has not seen many amendments. As we all know very well, it is not the Supreme Court’s job to make the law. It only interprets the laws that are made by the representatives of the people in the legislature.

Let’s assume that Ajith were a journalist who writes a regular column in a newspaper. Also, let’s substitute the Shiv Sena for an individual Mr. X who is mild and meek and has difficulty melting cheese in his mouth. What would be your reaction if Ajith were to write an article in the newspaper saying that he hates Mr. X, who is the scum of the earth and should ideally be lynched. Would Mr. X have a cause of action against Ajith? You bet he would! Ajith would be liable for both criminal intimidation and defamation.

One of the fundamental principles of law is that every one is equal before the law. Though the intention behind such a principle is to ensure that the weak and the meek do not lose out to the strong and the dominant, the law cannot discriminate against the strong and the powerful either. This would mean that even a nasty piece of work such as the Shiv Sena should have equal protection of the law from criminal intimidation and defamation. If Ajith were to write a newspaper article against the Shiv Sena defaming it and criminally intimidating it, he would be liable under the IPC. The publisher of the newspaper would also be liable.

In this instant case, it was not Ajith who wrote those nasty comments, but some anonymous individual. However, Ajith is in the position of the publisher of a newspaper who is responsible for whatever is written in his newspaper. It is true that the internet is a free medium where everyone has the freedom to express himself or herself. However, there is no reason to take the view that rules regarding defamation or intimidation shouldn’t apply to the internet.

Bloggers and website owners should ensure that no one publish comments on their blogs or websites unless the blog-owner or website owner has approved the comment. Even DesiCritics should, in my opinion, follow this approach, rather than edit comments after they are made.

Finally, let me add this. It seems unbelievable that the Shiv Sena, a party that has specialised in intimidating and harassing minorities in Mumbai should file a complaint against a teenager in a faraway state merely on the basis of comments published on his Orkut community website. I’m sure that the Shiv Sena has not been intimidated by Ajith’s orkut community. It has surely been defamed, but one of the defences to a charge of defamation is that the alleged statement or writing that caused the defamation is ‘true’.

I’m sure that there will be hundreds of lawyers in Mumbai who are happy to defend Blogger Ajith (now a cause celebré). However, travel to Thane Ajith must, as directed by the Supreme Court of India, and answer those ridiculous charges.

Can the Suspension of Civil Rights Ever be Justified?

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:13:47 EST

I was moved to write this piece after reading an article by Irfan Husain, a Pakistani journalist who divides his time between London, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Husain writes about the situation in the Swat Valley of Pakistan where civil society has ceased to exist. The Taliban have chased the administration away, closed down girls’ schools and imposed the Shariah (beheading, floggings and all) on an unwilling populace. Husain wonders if in such a situation the suspension of civil rights will be justified. If those fundamentalists inflicting so much damage on the common Swat resident are to be tried under normal laws, most will get away since it will be very difficult to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, assuming a judge can be persuaded to try them.

Husain asks his readers in anguish: “So we return to the dilemma of how to treat these people: are they citizens who deserve the same rights as the rest of us, or do we subject them to the rigours of the benighted law they seek to impose on society? If we descend to their level of barbarism, do we not become their mirror image? And yet, if we play by conventional rules, we run the real risk that they will win.” You will find Husain’s article here.

I found myself asking the question, should we ever agree to relax the rules of civil society that most of us take for granted? The basic rules of civil liberty are as follows: no punishment without a fair trail, and not until one’s guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, no detention for a period of more than a few days without charges being framed and legal representation provided, a right to be freed on bail during the trial period, unless there is a very good chance that the detainee will flee, and the right to not to be tortured or have to suffer degrading treatment while in custody.

Every once in a while, there arises a situation, usually involving insurgency or terrorism, when a law is enacted suspending these rights to some degree. There can also be a situation where the government turns a blind eye to the informal suspension of these rights.

At the height of the Khalistani insurgency in the Indian state of Punjab in the 1980s, scores of people ‘disappeared.’ Usually they were suspected militants who could be tried and punished only with a great deal of difficulty, even if they were captured alive. It was convenient for the government to do them away using hit squads who also used that opportunity to settle personal scores and make some money. I’m sure many honest mistakes were also made. All this meant that many, many innocent people died in Punjab, though militancy was stamped out.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, if Indians were to be asked, was the Indian government right to have done what it did in Punjab, what would the answer be? Presumably at that time, the Indian government thought that such a hard-nosed approach was the only way of quenching the militancy. It thought that it had a choice between losing Punjab and using hard-nosed tactics. From anecdotal evidence, I feel most Indians would say that the Indian government took the right approach. I am not too sure, but I too just can’t bring myself to say that the Indian government was wrong.

The situation in Swat is much worse than that which prevailed in Punjab in the 1980s. The state has definitely withered away. Many Pakistanis have more than a sneaking sympathy for the mullahs, though they would personally not want to be under the Taliban. Coupled with the common man’s disdain for what is perceived to be a weak and corrupt government, Pakistani society has not been effectively mobilised to meet the Taliban’s threat.

Let’s assume that Pakistan can be so mobilised and that most Pakistanis would support a harsher approach, one where anyone with suspected ties to the Taliban is arrested or abducted and imprisoned or killed without a trial. Would such an approach be justified?

If the Taliban were to come to power, they would take away the civil rights of everyone in Swat. If there is a harsh crackdown on the Taliban, many fundamentalists who would otherwise not be punished will be killed after suffering torture. A few innocents may also die. I know this will be controversial, but I feel that if it is a choice between losing control of Swat to the Taliban and suspending civil rights, I would prefer the latter.

Generally, when civil rights are suspended, an enactment such as the Patriot Act or Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) is enacted, after which security forces lower the standards to a level even below what’s provided in the enactment. After the 9/11 attacks, the US government and its allies have arrested many suspected fundamentalists from all over the world, put them in detention in various places including Guantanamo Bay and tortured some of them using a variety of procedures such as stress positions, exposure to cold and heat and cultural shocks. Is such treatment justified? I would argue that it is.

Before I justify my response, let me tell you that my response is a very subjective one and is largely determined by my values, education and cultural background.

The threat from Islamic fundamentalists is very real. The fundamentalists do not subscribe to the values of civil society. Western society and non-Islamic chunks of the developing world are especially vulnerable to the fundamentalist since they all have many citizens who are disenchanted with their current situation and are willing to support the fundamentalists. Intelligence about the fundamentalists is very poor and precision arrests etc are not easy. Even more difficult is the obtaining of proof that will stand up in a court of law.

It is all very well to argue that the disenchanted sections of society must be integrated and intelligence must improve and that the state should never stoop to the level of the fundamentalists. The reality is different. We know that such an improvement will not happen within the required time. More importantly, the chances of a genuine secularist being arrested and detained on suspicion of being a fundamentalist are not very high. In fact, they are pretty low. No, I’m not talking of time spent at airports clearing security. I’m talking about the chances of an individual being picked up from home and sent off to Guantanamo without a trial.

Again, water-boarding and stress positions are definitely torture, but do not constitute third degree torture in my dictionary. If the authorities have a suspect who might have information that could prevent a terrorist attack or help capture other terrorists, I don’t see anything wrong in using such tactics to force a confession out of such person. A lot has been written about how torture doesn’t work. Silly me, but if torture doesn’t work, why is it so widely used? It is widely used, because it usually works.

If Mr. X is captured, water-boarded and discloses verifiable information such as having hidden a bomb in a particular place, you know that torture has worked. If it turns out that there is no bomb in that place, you know that it didn’t work. If one doesn’t like the idea of torture, one should take the morally high position that torture shouldn’t be used even if it works, rather than say torture doesn’t work. The Americans also used cultural shocks to force confessions, such as interrogators insulting the Quran or having female interrogators touch the detainees. As far as I am concerned, I don’t consider such tactics to be torture though someone else might feel they are worse than third degree methods.

The actions of American secret service agents have been conducted largely in accordance with the Patriot Act and various internal regulations and memos. They might not stack up in a court of law which applies the usual high standards of care and proof. However, I don’t think any one was harmed just because he failed to pay a bribe or had a personal enmity with a federal agent. The war against Islamic fundamentalism is one we just can’t afford to lose and for this reason, I feel that civil rights can be suspended. I can’t think of many other situations where civil rights can be suspended.

I don’t think the Sri Lankan government is justified in imposing a White Van culture in the south of the Island. I don’t think the Indian government would be justified in following this approach in fighting the Maoists in the east of India. I do think that this approach can be followed in Jammu and Kashmir against foreign mercenaries there, though I wouldn’t support the use of such tactics against Kashmiris from Indian Kashmir.

Once again, these are very subjective views and can be controversial. A different person may say that the Maoist threat is greater and they should be dealt with greater seriousness. In any event, I can tell you that I wouldn’t want to be in the place of one of those many innocent human beings who are caught up in such insurgencies and suffer for no fault of theirs so that people like me can stay and secure.

An Open Letter to President Obama on the Israel-Palestine Issue

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:17:54 EST

Dear President Obama,

How do you do, Sir? Today is your 21st day in office and you must be busy with your bailout package for all those undeserving banks. However, I’m sure you have an eye on the Israeli election results. Exit polls have shown the ruling Kadima party in the first place and dramatic gains by Likud, its conservative rival, which is a close second. Avigdor Lieberman’s right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu is in third place and Labor, Israel's founding party and Kadima's current coalition partner is fourth.

Assuming Kadima comes to power and Tzipi Livni becomes Israel’s Prime Minister, you will be dealing with a hawkish bunch of people who have repeatedly failed to make the compromises that are necessary to bring peace in the middle-east. The worst aspect of this election is that Yisrael Beiteinu, much more rightwing than even Likud, is doing better than Labour.

Please don’t get me wrong Mr. President. I have always supported Israel’s right to exist. Israel was validly created by a UN resolution. Israel was meant to be predominantly Jewish and it is right in encouraging Jews to migrate to Israel. However, Israel wasn’t meant to be entirely Jewish. The UN resolution which created Israel did not allow it to carry out ethnic cleansing of Arabs. Israel’s treatment of its Arab minority has been shameful. Its treatment of Arabs in the occupied territories has been even worse. Further, building Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is something that can never be justified. Arabs in Israel are discriminated against and are second-class citizens in their own country. Israel’s economy is not in a good shape. To be very honest, Israel has survived till date mainly because of the unbelievable levels of US aid it has received over the years.

Though Israel has shed its socialist past and has many world class companies and entrepreneurs, Israel still relies on US aid to get by, mainly because of its very high defence budget. Mr. President, I’m all for ensuring that Israel continues to survive. However, Israel must be forced to make concessions to the Palestinians. Now that (relatively) secular Palestinian organisations like the Fatah are weak and unpopular among Palestinians, Israel will have to make its peace with Hamas and Hizbollah.

To begin with, Israel must allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state. No, I’m not talking of Jordan, though it may have more Palestinians than Jordanians. This Palestinian state should include not only the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but should also have its capital in East Jerusalem. All Jewish settlements must be withdrawn from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Mr. President, if there is any force on earth which can force Israel to make this concession, it is the United States of America.

The US of A has many levers with which it can force Israel to change. Withholding of financial aid is definitely one option. Not sharing US military technology with Israel is another. Israel may become weak in the short run, as a result, but in the long run, it will be stronger. Mr. President, to Save Israel, it must be made weak

Yours sincerely,

A blogger from the World Wide Web

Two Intelligent Men

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:11:55 EST

Avid blog-readers would have noticed the presence of two very intelligent men in the blogosphere for some time.

One of them, Mr. Bahukutumbi Raman (Mr. B. Raman for short), has been writing columns for various magazines (especially Outlook) for some years now. Mr. B. Raman used to be with the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency, where he headed its counter-terrorism division for more than a decade till his retirement in 1994. Presently Mr. B. Raman is the Director of the Institute For Topical Studies in Chennai. Mr. B. Raman’s blog can be found here.

The other ‘intelligent’ gentleman is Colonel Hariharan. Col. Hariharan’s blog informs us that he is a retired military intelligence professional with nearly three decades of experience in South Asian countries. Colonel Hariharan tells us in this very touching post of the time he spent in Sri Lanka as part of the IPKF.

Colonel Hariharan’s blog can be found here.

Mr. B. Raman’s articles tend to be very factual, with an abundance of information of the sort that is not usually available to lay persons. In that sense, they are a delight to read. For example, this article on the situation in Tibet is filled with facts with very little of Mr. B. Raman’s own opinions. However, there are other posts which contain Mr. B. Raman’s opinions and views. For example, in this post, he says that there is an urgent need to tighten Sonia Gandhi’s security due to threats from the LTTE.

Col. Hariharan’s posts are very different from Mr. B. Raman’s. They don’t contain as many facts, (other than what’s available in the public domain) and focus instead on conveying Col. Hariharan’s opinions on various issues. I can assure you that they are a delight to read. Here, you’ll find Col. Hariharan lamenting the fact that red tapism prevented the Defence Ministry from utilising its budget to the full, with the result that it had to surrender sixteen thousand crore rupees (that’s US dollars three hundred and twenty million) as unutilised money.

I think it is wonderful that Mr. B. Raman and Col. Hariharan have started blogging since their articles give lay persons access to expert analysis. So far, I think I have read every article written by each of these gentlemen. I don’t have any disagreement with anything that Col. Hariharan has written. I can’t say the same for Mr. B. Raman. In this article Mr. B. Raman argues that it would be in India's interest to help Sri Lanka destroy the LTTE's military capability, but not its political strength. Mr. B. Raman says that the current crop of LTTE cadres had no role in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. He argues that India should make a distinction between the ones involved in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination and the others. This is in line with his view expressed in this post calling on the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora and the LTTE cadres to overthrow Prabhakaran.

I don’t agree with Mr. B. Raman’s views. The LTTE is not the only Tamil movement in the picture even now. Leaders like Douglas Devananda of the Eelam People's Democratic Party and S. Thondaiman of the Ceylon Workers Congress are around. The Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal formed by Colonel Karuna is a political force in the East. Further, if Prabhakaran were to be captured or killed, the LTTE will cease to exist. The LTTE is centred on the cult of a supreme leader and without Prabhakaran, the LTTE cannot survive. I really don’t see why India should try and save the LTTE even if only as a political movement. Mr. B. Raman goes on to say in the same post that the ‘Indian political class never understands the importance of identifying and preserving our strategic assets in the neighbourhood. Jawaharlal Nehru let go our strategic assets in Tibet. I.K.Gujral, who was the Prime Minister in 1997, unwisely and in a moment of misplaced generosity let go our strategic assets in Pakistan. Manmohan Singh, the present Prime Minister, has let go our strategic assets in Nepal and Sri Lanka. It could be a great tragedy.’

What does Mr. B. Raman mean by ‘strategic assets’? Does he mean assets which give India the ability to cause trouble in a neighbouring country? For example, if the LTTE were to survive (on India’s patronage), greatly weakened, but with the potential to be re-armed, and Sri Lanka were to do something that is not to India’s liking, say, it were to cosy up to China, India could rattle sabres by threatening to re-arm the LTTE.

Is that what Mr. B. Raman has in mind? But it is exactly this attitude and approach that created the Sri Lankan mess in the first place! No country, however small or weak it may be, likes to be at the mercy of another country. India will not have a single friend in its neighbourhood if it follows this approach and tries to create ‘strategic assets’ in neighbouring countries! Mr. B. Raman says Nehru let go of India’s assets in Tibet. I don’t claim to have Mr. B. Raman’s expertise or knowledge, but I don’t think Nehru did anything of that sort. Under Nehru, India did not give much importance to defence and cut defence spending, as a result of which, we were unprepared for the Chinese assault in 1962.

I believe that during I.K. Gujral’s time, India stopped arming Baluchi militants. Were they a strategic asset for India? If India were still doing that, could India have used them as a stick to beat Pakistan with? Could we have told Pakistan, ‘you stop causing trouble in Kashmir, we will stop causing trouble in Baluchistan?’ I doubt if it would have worked, since the trouble in Kashmir is caused by militants outside Pakistan’s control. On the contrary, the enormous sympathy which Indian received after the Mumbai attacks wouldn’t have materialised if the international community believed that India was causing trouble in Baluchistan.

As for Nepal, the average Nepali doesn’t have much love for India since India continued to prop up the monarchy long after it lost the people’s support. India stopped supporting the monarchy only after its downfall became inevitable. It cannot be said that India voluntarily gave up its assets (the monarchy) in Nepal. Having said all that, I do hope that Mr. B. Raman continues to blog and write articles and express his views which are very interesting, whether one agrees with them or not.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton on the Sri Lankan Issue

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:35:08 EST

Dear Ms. Clinton

Congratulations on your new role as the Secretary of State for the new administration headed by Barack Obama. The world has extraordinary expectations for the new team in Washington D.C. I’m sure that you have a long ‘to do’ list with each item ranked in order of priority. Doubtless, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan are up there on top of the list. My objective in writing this letter was to bring to your notice yet another geography that is in equally dire straits. Sri Lanka. I’m sure that Sri Lanka is somewhere on your list, though small island nation that it is, it is unlikely to rank very high.

Ms. Clinton, it’s possible you’ve heard this story before, but let me repeat it nevertheless. Sometime in the mid-1960s, just after Singapore broke off from Malaysia, a delegation from Singapore travelled to Sri Lanka. The Singaporean delegation was so impressed with Sri Lanka’s development, that they wistfully wondered when Singapore would ever catch up. The Singaporeans needn’t have worried. They hadn’t factored in Sri Lankan chauvinism or short-sightedness. The Sri Lankans started to follow a Sinhala-first policy. Schools started to teach only in Sinhalese. The Sinhalese got priority in jobs. And the Tamils started a movement for an independent state. I should actually say movements and not movement. There were many Tamil organisations and many leaders. The Indians (with unbelievable stupidity) gave the Tamil fighters not only moral support, but also military support, in the form of weapons and training.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam emerged as the most prominent of the various Tamil groups. Displaying unbelievable ruthlessness very early on, they decimated all other Tamil groups. They also killed off all Tamil leaders who spoke up against them. They perfected the art of suicide bombing. They also recruited women and child soldiers on a very large scale and continue to do so even now.

Soon India harvested what it had sowed. An Indian Peace-Keeping Force (“IPKF”) sent to Sri Lanka in good faith to effect a peace treaty brokered by India ended up fighting the LTTE. The IPKF returned to India after taking over a thousand casualties. It was India’s Vietnam and Afghanistan combined. For good measure, the LTTE killed India’s ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

The LTTE is headed by the ruthless Velupillai Prabhakaran (also spelt as Pirapakaran or Pirabhakaran), a veritable Pol Pot, second to none in sheer megalomania and ruthlessness. Thanks to Prabhakaran, the LTTE is unwilling to settle for any thing other than total Independence or Eelam. Various peace proposals offered to the LTTE have been rejected. At times, the LTTE has taken part in peace negotiations, but has always used the cease-fire to regroup and rearm. The LTTE tolerates no dissent. Though it does not claim to support or endorse or oppose any religion, in 1990, Prabhakaran decided that Sri Lankan Muslims are not trustworthy and evicted over a hundred thousand Muslims from areas controlled by the LTTE in northern and north eastern Sri Lanka, such as Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mullaittivu and Mannar. The LTTE is one of the few guerrilla organisations in the world capable of holding territory and fighting a conventional battle. They have a naval wing – the Sea Tigers. They have a fledgling air force, the Tamil Eelam Air Force. They have the Truth Tigers, a bunch of videographers who follow the LTTE’s frontline fighters and record the fighting, at enormous risk to themselves. The LTTE have even tried their hand at developing a submarine wing!

The LTTE is supported financially and otherwise mainly by the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora living across the world. For example, there are over 300,000 Tamils in the UK, of whom the majority are of Sri Lankan origin. Many of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora support the LTTE since they have family members living in areas under the LTTE’s control. They are a few Sri Lankan Tamils, like the writer Shobasakthi, who are willing to speak out against the LTTE.

From September 1998 when the LTTE captured Kilinochchi from the Sri Lankan army until February 2002 when the most recent ceasefire agreement came into effect, the LTTE had a bull run on the battlefield. The captured the Elephant Pass in April 2000 and soon had the whole of northern and most of north-eastern Sri Lanka (with the exception of Jaffna which they lost in 1995) under their control. The Sri Lankan government was on the ropes.

During the cease-fire, divisions between Sri Lankan Tamils from northern Sri Lanka and those from the north-east came to the fore. 1n 1994, Karuna, the second-in-command in the LTTE, a Tamil from the north-east, defected from the LTTE with many of his fighters. Traditionally, north-eastern Sri Lanka has provided the bulk of conventional fighters to the LTTE, though Tamils from northern Sri Lanka formed the aristocracy within the LTTE. After Karuna left the LTTE, the LTTE started to weaken. In the November 2005 Presidential elections, Sri Lanka got a President who could give Velupillai Prabhakaran a close run in a brutality contest. Percy Mahinda Rajapaksa has been single-minded in his determination to defeat the LTTE. He has boosted defence spending and clamped down on civil rights. Within a short while of coming to power, Rajapaksa restarted military operations against the LTTE. Despite occasional setbacks, the Sri Lankan army has had remarkable success against the LTTE. They threw the LTTE out of the eastern provinces, which used to be Colonel Karuna’s fiefdom. They have recently captured Kilinochchi, the civilian headquarters of the LTTE and Mullaithivu town, the LTTE’s military headquarters. Paranthan, a strategically important town on the A9 Road from Colombo to Jaffna has been taken. The A9 Road itself is now entirely under the government’s control. And the LTTE is now bottled up in the jungles of Mullaithivu, in an area of around 300 square kilometres.

As the LTTE retreated from Kilinochchi, they forced the entire civilian population of Kilinochchi to flee with them. A similar fate has met other civilians in areas under the LTTE’s control. Right now, over 250,000 people are held as human shields by the LTTE in the small and rapidly shrinking 300 square kilometres area under their control. The people under the LTTE’s control are, as may be expected, not allowed to leave the forests and escape to areas under the government’s control. Since the Sri Lankan army is ferociously targeting the LTTE fighters based in this location, many civilians are also getting killed along with LTTE cadres. Though the Sri Lankan army says it is doing its best to minimise civilian casualties, it is unlikely that the Sri Lankan government will pull its punches when it has its adversary on the ropes.

Even if the LTTE loses all its territory, it is likely to continue as a guerrilla organisation that launches hit and run raids. The chances of the LTTE giving up insurgency altogether is very unlikely, unless that is, its leader the elusive Velupillai Prabhakaran is caught or is killed or he commits suicide using the cyanide vial he carries around his neck. It is in this respect that that I feel the United States of America can make a huge difference. Velupillai Prabhakaran is in all probability hiding in an underground bunker in the jungles of northern or north eastern Sri Lanka. The LTTE are past masters at camouflage. So far, even though 6 air strips used by the Tamil Eelam Sir Force have been discovered, not a single one of the micro light aeroplanes used by this fledging Air Force has been found. The chances are that Prabhakaran’s lair will also remain uncovered, unless the United States of America were to step in.

Unmanned predator drones flown by controllers in Nevada have killed scores of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s North Frontier Province. If the US could spare a few of those drones for a few months and have them target northern and north eastern Sri Lanka, it might make the difference between life and death for those 250,000 Sri Lankan Tamils used as human shields by the LTTE. If a predator drone were to locate Prabhakaran’s whereabouts and pass on the information to the Lankans, leading to Prabhakaran’s death, the LTTE will fall apart. To quote Prabhakaran’s biographer M.R. Narayan Swamy, ‘'He is their brain. He is their heart. He is their god. He is their soul, and the whole organisation runs around him.’ Without Prabhakaran to motivate them, brainwashed LTTE cadres will not be able to make the sort of inhuman sacrifices which have made the LTTE such a deadly adversary. Rumours already abound that Soosai, who leads the Sea Tigers and Shanmugalingam Sivashankar (who goes by the name Pottu Amman), the Head of the LTTE’s intelligence wing and the Black Tigers don’t get along. On top of it all, Prabhakaran apparently wants his son, Charles Anthony Seelan to take over from him. Soosai and Pottu Amman don’t obviously like that. It is therefore very clear that the only way to end Sri Lanka’s civil war is to either kill or capture the evil Prabhakaran. Doing so at the earliest will save the lives of many soldiers, LTTE cadres including many underage fighters and hundreds of civilians.

Ms. Clinton, you might at this stage, wonder why the US should support the Sri Lankan government when the Sri Lankan President does not respect human rights and actively harms journalists. My response to that is that Sri Lanka is a democracy where the people have the opportunity to vote for change every five years. The LTTE on the other hand is a dictatorial organisation that does not believe in individual rights. Also, it goes without saying that if Sri Lanka were to breakup, India will follow suit. South Asia, already one of the poorest parts of the globe, will be in turmoil.

Sri Lanka has the potential to be the most prosperous nation in South Asia. Despite such a debilitating civil war, Sri Lanka scores well above other South Asian states in terms of literacy, women’s health, child care and the like. Ending the civil war in Sri Lanka will make a world of difference to so many Sri Lankans, especially Sri Lankan Tamils. As I have just mentioned, the Sri Lankan government does not have a stellar record when it comes to respect for human rights or respecting press freedom. Also, the Sri Lankan government is yet to commence a process of devolving power to the Tami speaking regions of Sri Lanka. Before assisting the Sri Lankan government in locating Prabhakaran, the United States ought to insist (and obtain guarantees) that the Rajapaksa government will start the process of devolution immediately. Tamils should be equal partners in a new Sri Lanka and journalists should be able to do their jobs in peace, without fear of intimidation or harassment. Those responsible for the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga should be brought to book.

Dear Ms. Clinton, you have the power to do all this. So, please do pick up the phone and ask for a few predator drones to be sent over to Sri Lanka.

Yours sincerely

A blogger from the World Wide Web

Should Mental Illnesses Be Disclosed To Employers?

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:53:21 EST

It was widely reported in various British newspapers yesterday that the Cheltenham Borough Council is to sue its former Managing Director Christine Laird for having “misrepresented and misstated” her fitness for employment on an application form. Cheltenham Borough Council’s suit for a million pounds accuses Christine Laird of "fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation" in concealing her depressive illness in her job application and the fact she had been taking anti-depressants for several years. Part of the job application involved filling up a medical questionnaire and (I’m guessing here) most probably Christine failed to tick the box for mental illness.

Christine Laird started to work for the Cheltenham borough council in February 2002. She held her job until 2005. Four months after Christine started her new job, the Liberal Democrats captured power. Andrew McKinlay, a Liberal Democrat became the Head of the Council. Apparently Christine and Andrew never got along. Christine’s tenure was marked by a series of bitter disputes with the Council and Andrew McKinlay, with allegations and counter-allegations of inappropriate, unhelpful, obstructive and bullying conduct. While employed by the Council, Christine Laird filed 25 official complaints with the Standards Board for England, of which only one was upheld. From June 2004 until the time she left the job in 2005, Christine was absent on full pay on account of ‘stress’.

Now the Council is seeking over a million pounds in damages from Christine for not having disclosed her medical details. The damages claimed includes a projected cost of £450,000 to the Council on account of Laird's ill-health pension entitlement, £96,000 towards legal costs on account of previous court proceedings, and £175,000 for cover while she was off sick.

The issue which interests me greatly is this: Should job applicants be forced to disclose details of their mental illnesses on job application forms? Let’s assume that Christine Laird is being sued solely because the Council woke up one morning (after she had quit) and found out that she was suffering from depression while working for the Council and even earlier. Let’s suppose that the animosity between Christine and Andrew McKinlay has not influenced the Council’s decision to sue her and claim a million pounds in damages.

It is accepted that lying on one’s CV is a ground for termination if discovered. However, do applicants also have a duty to disclose every detail that an employer may want to know? If one were to say that job applicants who are facing a broken marriage should disclose it on their resumes, one would be met with howls of laughter, notwithstanding the fact that a broken marriage can be as much disruptive to doing one’s job as depression is.

I do believe there is some merit in the argument that applicants should disclose all details that may have an impact on their job performance. The flip side on this is that, anyone who discloses an existing mental ailment is very unlikely to be hired, irrespective of whether the illness is serious or not.

Depression apparently affects approximately 19 million Americans, or 9.5% of the US population in any given one-year period. Depression is called the common cold’ of mental illness since so many people suffer from it. Various famous personalities such as Abraham Lincoln have suffered from depression, though to be honest, most of the famous ones who suffered from depression have been writers and artists, callings where a mental imbalance may not cause as much harm as it would to a bureaucrat or a doctor or an engineer. Obsessive-compulsive disorder or OCD is another mental illness that is very common. Apparently it is the fourth most common mental disorder and 2% of the world’s population suffers from it.

I would argue that until society starts to accept mental illness as just another ailment, the mentally ill should be allowed to conceal their illness provided they have been advised by a qualified doctor that they are capable for holding a regular job. If not, so many mentally ill people with minor ailments will be at risk of not getting suitable employment if they are honest in their applications. If they are dishonest and things don’t work out for them at work (for reasons which may not be linked to their illness) and their employer gets to know of the employee’s illness, the employer will be able to claim damages from them.

Obama, Terrorism and Kashmir

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:44:51 EST

Pakistan is a problem for Obama, a big problem, much bigger than even Palestine. This is not only because Pakistan is a frontline ally in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but also because Pakistan is under the grip of Islamic fundamentalists who control vast swathes of the country. As Pakistan officially cooperates (in varying degrees) with the American government in its fight against the Taliban, its population turns more and more anti-American. Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus has very close links with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamists. The US has no chance in hell of dismantling the army-ISI-Islamists link unless the Kashmir problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the common Pakistani. In the eyes of the average Pakistani, the Kashmir dispute necessitates a strong Pakistani army, strategic depth in Afghanistan and links with insurgents willing to become martyrs in Kashmir. If the Kashmir dispute is resolved, Pakistan’s rulers (Zardari or anyone else in power) will find it easy to crush Islamic militancy in Pakistan and divert Pakistan’s resources to Afghanistan.

For that reason, Obama will find it irresistible to try and persuade India to solve the Kashmir dispute. When I say resolve, I mean a resolution that is to the satisfaction of the common Pakistani. India has already had a taste of such interference when a couple of weeks ago, British foreign minister David Miliband wrote in a British newspaper (the Guardian) that “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders”. Miliband got a lot of flak for saying what he said, both in India and even from British journalists. It is very much possible that Miliband’s article was in anticipation of Obama changing the US policy on Kashmir.

India has always taken the stand that Kashmir is an internal issue and that it will not permit third party mediation. I wouldn’t say that India should change its stand if Obama were to request India to do so. Over twenty years of militancy have vitiated the atmosphere so much in the valley. Kashmir is no longer a territorial dispute, but is a part of the global fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Also, the only resolution that will be acceptable to Pakistan is accession to Pakistan. India should continue to resist any outside interference in Kashmir. However, India must also prepare to withstand pressure from the United States and the adorable Mr. Obama.

What Would We Do If We Cared More For Indian Poor?

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:09 EST

Close on the heels of Slumdog Millionaire, Dean Nelson, the Telegraph’s South Asia editor who is based in Delhi, asks a very pertinent question: Why doesn’t India care more for its poor? Dean’s question assumes that Indians don’t care for India’s poor as much as they ought to. I think that there is a great deal of truth in this question. I believe that Indians are as much charitable as people anywhere else in the world, which is not saying much. However, considering the enormous rich-poor divide that exists in India and the number of people who live in absolute poverty, Indians ought to do a lot more if they are to make a difference to India’s poor.

For a moment, let’s imagine that Indians have decided they want to do a lot more for the poor than they do now. What do you think they should/could do? I have listed below the top three things that came to my mind.

No more tax evasion: I believe that private or personal charity is no substitute for institutionalised welfare measures by the government. The biggest obstacle to alleviation of poverty is the lack of resources. One may dispute Dean Nelson’s claim that Indians don’t do enough for India’s poor, but one cannot deny that Indians are among the biggest tax evaders in the world. It is not only individuals who evade taxes, but also Indian corporates. In this respect, I think that MNCs in India have a better track record for paying taxes incident on them than our home-bred businesspeople. To cite a reported example, in June 2007, the BBC carried a news item which said that a single McDonald's restaurant in Ludhiana was paying INR. 1crore (10 million) in value-added tax, which amounted to 90% of the VAT collected from all VAT paying restaurants in Ludhiana district, even though it had only 10% of sales in that district.

Land Reforms: If we are to stop poor villagers from migrating in such large numbers to our cities, we need to make our villages relatively attractive places for people to live. I mean, they must be attractive relative to the fetid, rotting slums one finds in Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi, Chennai etc. I have often wondered, what would motivate a farmer who is used to free, open spaces, clean air and an outdoor lifestyle to migrate to a city like Mumbai and live in a slum where he either lives on the pavement or shares a stinking room in a shanty? In all probability, the answer lies in one word: starvation. The slums of Mumbai and Kolkata may stink, but people don’t die of starvation out there. Surely, all we need to do to make villagers stay in their villages rather than migrate to cities is to make sure they have enough to eat. I am no expert on Indian villages and the myriad problems they face, but I do know that the biggest obstacle to helping our farmers is the lack of land reforms. We need to redistribute the land in our villages so that every Indian farmer has a piece of land to cultivate and feed himself and his family.

Till recently, it was accepted that larger farms led to greater productivity. We were constantly told that small and fragmented landholdings led to inefficiencies in production. The West, we believed, was able to produce more because it had large farms which could use automated farming technology. Recent studies have shown that this is not so. Economies of scale don’t apply to farming as they do in other sectors.

Beggars and Street Children: For every few beggars on our streets, there is a beggar-master behind them, a beggar-master who pays a bribe to the police. Every child living on our streets is under the control of an adult who pays a bribe to the police. A part of these bribes finds its way to the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians. It’s easy to say that corruption in India is so widespread that it can’t be made to disappear. However, Indian policemen are perfectly capable of getting things done if they are given the right kind of orders. Have you noticed how efficiently slums are being demolished in Delhi in preparation for the 2010 Commonwealth Games? If Delhi is not clean and tidy enough for the 2010 Games, middle class India will demand an answer. There will be hell to pay in the next elections. Our politicians have told the cops that the slums must go. The cops have regretfully told the slumlords that they must move on, that they can’t be bribed anymore. The same can be done for beggars and street children throughout India if the middleclass demands it.