Desicritics Category: Politics: Terrorism

Peace is the Business of the Fearless

Desh — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:46:50 EST

"Pakistan's Image" is a strange animal.

If one were to believe the rhetoric that goes in the media is Pakistan and fanned by some ministers (like Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, minister of state for shipping) [1], one would come to believe that India's sole obsession is with sullying Pakistan's Image. Because of this one reason it conducted:

- Mumbai Attacks on ITSELF, killing its own citizens and hurting its tourism and other industries.
- Lahore Attack on Pakistan, killing Pakistani citizens hurting Pakistan's cricket now.

So, no matter who gets killed and where he or she gets killed, the sole and the greatest motivator for such killing remains - Pakistan's Image.

One would assume that this elusive thing that India is after, namely "Pakistan's Image", must be really a spectacularly shining and exquisite commodity that everyone wants to own... and if one cannot own, as ostensibly India may not, then it is a strong enough reason for us to go ahead and dent it. Such is the clamour for image like that Pakistan has been able to build for itself in the 60 years of its existence through a series of failed democracies, junta rule, and export of terrorism and Nukes.

Victimization Plea

Now, lets look at the Islamic world as a whole and you will see a similar pattern... the constant blaming on the "other" and rejoicing in the magnanimity of one's own "victim status".

The furthering of Victimization plea in the Islamic world is so prevalent that no matter where an upheaval occurs, somehow the culprit is someone else. Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan - wherever there is a fight, its always the "other" side which is guilty, and after the Muslim blood. The Muslim fighter obviously by most of the Islamic scholars' (who matter and affect the common perception) analysis is just "defending" himself or herself.

Different Upbringing?

In fact if one were to seriously take the extent and regularity of the Islamic rhetoric, then it would almost seem that whenever any child is born in the world, the mother repeatedly suggests to the child "Well, the milk can wait my kid, first let's start plotting on how to kill or hurt a Muslim.. and if you cannot hurt "them".. let us try and see how we can kill ourselves... so at the very least their "Image" gets sullied!!". followed by Smirks... and evil smiles of violent satisfaction..

The situation on the "other" side is obviously as pious as pious gets. The kids from the villages of Sudan to the poor neighborhoods in Pakistan to the mountains of Afghanistan, are taught on how everyone is so nice.. and no matter which religion a person believes in, their Gods and beliefs are as pious as our own and so we must love all. Of course if anyone hits us.. we will take the hit and throw stones at them, NOT because we have not been educated enough to create anything sophisticated enough, but because we are peaceloving and born VICTIMS incarnate!

Give Moderates some "Space" Plea

There is another line of argument by the moderates. That they need to be "strengthened" to bring about a change in the Muslim world and so one should not challenge the Islamic hardliners or hit them, because then they "lose the ground" on which to argue for "peace".

This was also the argument that I saw repeated ad nauseum on Fareed Zakaria's program last Sunday. And, in my view, it is the most nonsensical argument I have ever heard! It shows an utter lack of understanding of sociological history and lessons from peaceful revolutions. Whenever there has been a revolution or societal change in the history of mankind - in modern times, by Dr. Martin Luther King, or by Gandhi and by moderates in India in general during the Independence Struggle - it has been brought about by people who had ZERO help from outside.. and more importantly had ONE common factor - FEARLESSNESS.

Peace is the business of the FEARLESS!

Timid, dependent and the needy of external props and doles cannot, have not, and will never be able to bring about any change! Worse, they keep strengthening the apetite of the Violent and the Gory and extend their might. We saw that under Hitler, we saw that under Saddam and we are seeing that now.

And there is a reason why the FEARLESSNESS is central to Peaceful initiatives. The Violent and the Gory live and govern by FEAR. Fear is the central tenet to all those who want to bring about violence to bear upon a situation. And they back it up with a strong ideology. The Violent of Islam have used the tenets of Quran and Hadiths for that. Hitler had his own ideology based on hatred for Jews and Aryan superiority. So, every Violent group has two main things to perpetuate violence and bloodbath:

- Fear-based rhetoric
- Firm "commitment" to an Ideology

The only way to fight such a mad group is to challenge BOTH: FEAR and Ideology. You cannot ask for "concessions" in any of these two. The fight has to be ruthlessly honest and comprehensive in its depth and breadth. Anything short will be only a failure. No one can teach anyone on how to challenge a defunct and inherently counterproductive ideology, only one's own intellect and honesty brings one to that point. Fearlessness is the ONLY partner on that journey.

Reference Links:

1. Pakistan minister blames India for Sri Lanka team attack

That Sinking Feeling

thedeskjockey — Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:39:11 EST

A day after the terrible attacks on Sri Lanka cricketers in Pakistan, the emotion has perhaps settled a little, but the strange sense of hopelessness has not. As I sit today reading through the details coming in through various outlets, it feels that there is no way you can be ready for this despite 60+ years of terrorism. And while I grow weary at the renewed finger pointing across the border (haven’t we had enough of that in the last 4 months?), a couple of things don’t make sense to me at all

1) Why would the terrorists, who have unashamedly killed innocent women and children before, have any qualms about killing high profile cricketers? If their intent is to destabilize the ruling powers, anyone is fair game. So where does the confidence on cricketers being safe, come from?

2) Why is it important to stage cricket games to prove a point? When did cricketers become diplomats or statesmen for their countries? And what if the tour had gone without incident? All it proves, and has proved in the past, is that the security was tight or the terrorists didn’t think it worthy enough of their time. It doesn’t automatically make Pakistan a safer place, nor does it force other countries to reverse their decisions. This leaves the door open to just one disturbing possibility – money.

The Indian team luckily or prudently decided not to tour Pakistan. And the thought of seeing Tendulkar’s and Dhoni’s name substituted for Samaraweera and Paranavithana fuels the worst of what-if fears in us. However, the biggest losers in this are Pakistan cricket and the state of Pakistan as a whole. And somehow, I feel sad for the people living in the country; saddled with the worst of regimes, facing the worst of uncertainties, and living in fear of the worst of the backlashes from the rest of the world.

Several years back, when I was still in university, I had the pleasure of having a Pakistani as my neighbor. Now like the average Indian who viewed their country through the same blood tainted lens the politicians paint for us, I was a little vary and perhaps remained even a little distant to him. However like all guys in general we bonded one day over a glass of vodka (which I was surprised that he was willing to drink despite his religion), a guitar and a lot of good food. And while discussing various topics in general, we inevitably came to the subject of tensions between our countries. And he made a few points that touched me immensely. He said, “I am proud to be a Pakistani, yet there is no one who appreciates that”. “People here in the US have sympathy for the Iraqi, muted admiration or fascination for the Iranian and are just in plain awe of the Indians and Chinese. But when I mention that I am a Pakistani, they reserve their contempt masked by patronizing dismissal only for us”. And he continued by saying that one day, he wanted to see his own country stand tall for its achievements and not its dubious relationships. He said that the average Pakistani is yearning to be a citizen of the world and not unofficially belong to the official “Axis of Evil”. And finally I asked him if he would ever marry an American and he said he would, if she would convert to Islam. What about an Indian? He said he could never return to his country. And that saddened me because I might have given the same answer regarding marriage to a Pakistani. As much as we would like to break our shackles, we still feel incredibly burdened by our past.

That is precisely why I don’t feel the necessity to call out the hollowness of calls to visit the country. Neither do I want to succumb to the urge to wrap this situation in an incredibly funny yet disturbing way. Because the fault does not lie with the people making these calls. Because as much as we are led to believe that Pakistan’s failure lies in harboring and nurturing terrorism, that notion is fundamentally wrong. Their failure lies in its inability to give the average citizen the opportunity to flourish and prosper in this world. Its failure lies in its inability to clearly define a vision for its country. And its failure lies in ignoring the basic pillars that build a successful state of governance – education, infrastructure and economy. By allowing the military to rule the roost at the forefront or behind the scenes, they pretty much guaranteed that they would always make the wrong friends – the Taliban, or make friends for the wrong reasons – the USA.

And not all countries are completely successful at containing terrorism and unrest. India’s extreme economical progress masks a lot of its own problems with the Hindu fundamentalists and Naxalites. Even the USA with all its mighty technology and prosperity could do nothing to contain the widespread crime, rioting and looting in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Eventually, when you remove hope from a person, he/she very rapidly descends down a path of destruction. Now apply that to a significant majority of a country’s population and you get one giant terrorist state.

In the wake of these attacks, it is obviously easy to want to isolate Pakistan from the rest of the world. However an isolated Pakistan is not only ripe for the taking for the likes of JeM, LeT, Harkat and the Taliban, but it also means that India would become the new Israel – having Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and Sri Lanka as our neighbors.

And that possibility is a lot more disturbing than the current state of affairs.

Attack on Sri Lanka Cricketers - The New Wild Wild West

BangaloreGuy — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:06:42 EST

In a rather sombre nod to the Indian Government's very correct decision not to send Indian cricketers to Pakistan, Sri Lankan cricketers faced attack from terrorists in Pakistan(link). This is no ordinary thing - Sri Lankans are no strangers to terrorism, but in the history of their nation their cricketers have never been attacked. Not even by the LTTE - another 'terrorist' organization - in the 25 years of their struggle.

The brazen attack by the terrorists, and their scooting from the place of attack without *anyone* being caught points to the inside hand as well as to the danger India faces from Pakistan.

Talk of dismembering Pakistan is seen to be as per official circles something that will destabilize India, India's growth, and increase chances of loose nukes - in the hands of terrorists, but the brazen attack symbolizes that whether the Indian, American, Pakistani or any other government wants it, Pakistan is getting dismembered. Piece by piece, between the Army that both serves cannon fodder and arms to the terrorists, and the terrorists themselves. Pakistani civil society - if there's such a thing is just a non-actor. And its mostly the terrorists who are gaining the upper hand.

If it was Swat the other day that was bartered away, then the Lahore attacks - even to a city not so much a stranger to bomb blasts (link) - indicates that the terrorists aren't done yet - and are targetting more higher profile targets everytime.

If India hasnt planned for loose nukes yet, this is the time. Prepare for the scare an attack is going to generate, prepare to take out Pakistani nukes - and for the short term up the security at major events.

Mumbai 26/11 showed up the intelligence lacunae, its great to have a 10,000 page chargesheet, but not worth much if the info on them isnt followed up. Sure, police reforms, political reforms will take time. But India's people and its leaders have to stand up now (link).

The enemy is at the gates.

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.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 2

MA Khan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:59:23 EST

I am responding below to Mike Ghouse's reply to Part 1 in this debate. I regret that I wasn't able to respond with immediacy.

Let me start by addressing Ghouse's favorite argument regarding the Quran, which I encountered in his emails and postings in Websites quite a few times. He frequently says that, in the colonial era or before, the Westerners intentionally mistranslated the Quran to harm Islam. "The Quran was mistranslated three times (by Europeans)", he asserts. Thereafter, Muslim rulers (as pious as the Saudis, who are main sponsors of translations of the Quran) also embarked on the same mission to mistranslate the Quran, obviously to harm Islam and Muslims, as Ghouse would have it. "The Kings on the Arabian lands had to fool their people too to get their support", as he puts it.

To him, these translators distorted the Quran so badly that, by reading it, Muslims are becoming terrorists all over the world in the name of Islam--the religion of pristine peace and tranquility. Let me first ask Ghouse a few questions:

1. First, what is his scholarship, expertise in Arabic, to judge translations of the Quran of most famous scholars like Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Dr. Muhshin Khan et al.? May I ask, if Ghouse, probably an India-born student of business/commercial studies, is fluent in Arabic or understand Arabic at all?

2. Secondly, would Ghouse sit in Saudi Arabia and dare distorting the Quran intentionally. I can assure Ghouse that the kind of "gross distortion" he accuses other famous translators with, if he does the same level of distortion of whatever kind sitting in Saudi Arabia, he would not last a day. Well, Ghouse may even give a try of the same at Islamabad, Khartoum, Cairo or Kabul. His is unlikely to last much longer, if at all. Let me inform readers that Muhshin Khan and his co-translator, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, taught at the Islamic University of Medina, the city of Muhammad, where Islam was born. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, another brilliant translator, was sponsored by the Saudis.

3. Thirdly, Ghouse has found a good translator in Muhammad Asad (d. 1990), an Austro-Hungarian Jews, who converted to Islam and later ended up in India, where, in the company of fanatic Allama Iqbal, he became a scholar of Islam. "Go to Mohammad Asad's translation of Quran, it is one of the most accepted translations", he asserts. In fact, Asad's translation is not correct enough for Ghouse, as he say: "If I live longer, Insha Allah, God willing, I will do the translation to reflect the intent of the Quran".

Although Asad's credential in Arabic was undoubtedly good, he had no real training in Arabic at its crown centres of Baghdad, Cairo, Saudi Arabia, which scholars like Muhshin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali had. Moreover, born in a Jewish Rabbi family and well-acquainted with developments of the 20th-century Europe, I leave it to readers to reflect on how his background could have influenced his English rendering of the Quran and on Ghouse's wisdom of picking Asad as a more reliable translator.

4. Fourthly, does Ghouse want to tell us that all the Imams, Muslim clerics--from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world--who keep spewing hatred on Quranic justification, read the Quran in English translations? Do Arabs like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, late al-Zarqawi and all those Islamic terrorists read the Quran in Arabic? Ghouse would obviously have us believe so.

I must point out another great point of this sagacious Islamic scholar, Mike Ghouse. The University of Southern California [probably with association of CAIR, MSA (Muslim Students of America] etc., hosts the Compendium of Islamic Text, which says:

There were about 360 idols around the Ka`abah. He pulled them down with his sword while reciting: "And say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.'" (Al-Qur'an, 17:81) Also "Say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood neither creates anything new nor restores anything.'" (Al-Qur'an, 34: 49) The idols tumbled on their faces.

On the basis of such info, Wikipedia notes that:

In 630, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conqueror, and he destroyed the 360 idols in and around the Kaaba.[28][29] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says "Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish."[28][29]

But to Ghouse, this information is all false. That means leading Islamic organizations in American, like CAIR and MSA, are out to harm Islam and Muslims, too. It is false even when most of the greatest classical scholars of Islam say so. Ibn Ishaq [Karachi, p. 552], Muhammad's first pious biographer, says that after capturing Mecca, Muhammad ordered the destruction of all idols of the Ka'ba, shouting out: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish".

But to Ghouse, those greatest were ignorant or were out to harm Islam and Muslims. So, where lies truth? Who knows the truth? It is Michel Wolfe, a non-Muslim filmmaker of our time and the producer of the film "The Message". When Ghouse asked Wolfe, the latter replied, as Ghouse puts it: "From his (Wolfe's) understanding the idols were 'removed'", not destroyed, the latter remark being "blatantly misleading".

Allah or Muhammad probably paid a visit to Wolfe lately to furnish him with the correct information. He has no other way to discover this truth. I wonder how Ghouse's wisdom failed to ask Wolfe as to how he discovered the truth.

Nonetheless, the moral of the story is: You can take over a temple and remove there idols therein, not destroy them. Idolaters of the world can drive this message of Ghouse home.

Now let me turn to the Quranic verses Ghouse has addressed. I will not respond to his comments on other religious scriptures, because my expertise doesn't lie there. I have spent the last 5-6 years researching Islam extensively, on which I am confident of commenting. If other scriptures have violent content, they incite violence too.

In explanation of verse 7:179, despite whatever unnecessary things he has written, Asad's translation still says that the Kafirs, such as Hindus, "are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way". That means a non-Muslim, heedless to Allah's messages, is worse, more evil, than animals like cattle, which the original author put as: they are "like brute beast." I need someone explain what's the difference between the two. Therefore, the claim of the original author that "In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals" is roughly right, although he would been accurate had he said "kafirs [Hindus] are worse than animals (cattle)". That's what Asad affirms and Ghouse agrees.

Why does Ghouse not give a fitting treatment to his non-Muslim neighbors deserving of animals like cattle, nay, worse than cattle as Asad puts it. I grew up in the countryside, we raised cattle. Worse than cattle around us were foxes that grabbed our chickens or spoiled sugarcane plantations. We used to kill them at the first opportunity. Tigers, hyenas, wolves are worse than cattle, too. What treatment would Muslims render, if they happen to come across animals like these in their neighborhood? Heads of the kafirs should roll.

Concerning my quoted verse 4:56, Asad's translation basically say the same thing: For those rejecting Islam, "We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems) shall, in time, cause to endure fire: [and] every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering [in full]..."

This horrible cycle of punishment--that a Hindu, Christian or Jew deserves--would continue for eternity; so vile a people are they. No doubt, Allah's psychopathic punishment would surpass the barbarity of Hitler by infinite folds. Again, the original author is accurate in emphasizing that Allah has intense hatred of non-Muslims.

I will now touch upon three verses that Ghouse did not address. First verse 3:56:

"...moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come."

The question of how Allah will punish the kafirs in this world? Not by Himself but through the hands of his followers, aka Muslims. Muslims must engage the vile unbelievers in Jihadi wars and inflict grievous punishment on them; and those, who perish in the process, will receive Allah's succor in paradise (loaded with eternal virgins of immaculate beauty) as says the Quran [Quran 47:4]:

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Next verse 8:13:

"Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them".

The message is crystal-clear here. This means, Muslims must endeavor to take hold of those vile unbelievers, who oppose Allah and Muhammad mission (i.e., reject Islam) and "cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers." Allah's clear words are enough; nothing more is needed to be said on this.

Let me move on the last verse 9:111:

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.."

This can be accurately dubbed as the verse of 9/11 attacks. Life of Muslims has been purchased by Allah for fighting in Allah's cause (i.e., Jihad), in which they must slay and be slain. That is, they must wage Jihad and try their best to slay the kafirs. Obviously some Jihadis would be killed in such holy wars. But this death in Jihad battles, called martyrdom, is no loss for Muslims; instead, it the greatest, the most desirable, thing ever can happen to a Muslim; because, this martyrdom gives him a ticket for straight landing in Allah's paradise. Getting a ticket to paradise, believe Muslims, is the central aim of their every action in this world.

Some master deceivers of Islam would tell us that Jihad means struggling with the self, which will help them gain paradise. I hope, some of them will come forward and explain to us as to how struggling with the self would result in slaying the kafirs and getting killed in the process. Probably Ghouse can enlighten us on that.

Let me emphasize that Ghouse has done little research on the Quran. Moreover, he is either a good-hearted person with little knowledge of Islam or he is on a mission of deceiving the gullible kafirs. The fact that he said, "However, the verses that have been quoted "as from Quran" are actually manufactured a 1000 years ago and the neocons have been recycling it to malign a religion, that is their business and livelihood", means that he is undoubtedly out to deceive his willing audience.[ED: ASSERTION]

Has Ghouse torn away those pages of his Quran that contain these manufactured verses of brutality?

Let me emphasize to the reader that engaging with ignorants or deceivers takes us to no meaningful enlightenment on the subject. Therefore, I may wish to conclude this debate here, unless Ghouse comes forward with some solid, well-researched, arguments that deserve a response.

However, if readers are keen to get a full picture of the incitement of violence (i.e., Jihad) in Islam, I urge them to get a copy of my just-released book, Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery

I am getting some very encouraging assessments on the book from experts, including top professors (see in the link). I believe this book will have strong humanizing impact on Muslims (the radical ones), while help everyone understand why the world today is mired in the horror of terrorism.

What if the LTTE Had Won The War?

Suresh Naig — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:05:10 EST

If one believes the vociferous proponents of LTTE belonging to sundry political parties of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Eelam on the terms of LTTE would be a paradise on earth. Though we all know it remains as a distant dream, there is nothing wrong in visualising a Tamil Eelam where the LTTE would be the authority and its supremo Velupillai Prabakaran would be the supreme authority.

On forming a separate nation, Tamil Eelam carved out of northern Sri Lanka, LTTE would change its name to PET an acronym for Party of Eelam Tamils, conveying to everyone that PET is the only Tamil political party in the nation. All other political parties in the new nation would be given a choice to amalgamate into PET democratically. No doubt all parties would follow it, for it will not be a choice but a dictum and as usual it would be celebrated by the cronies of Prabakaran in Tamil Nadu.

Prabakaran would reject the demand of his followers to assume the office of President in Eelam, more out of fear of facing the crowd, Press and opposition, which would again be celebrated with much fanfare in Tamil Nadu, comparing him with Mahatma Gandhi. The president of Tamil Eelam with independent powers to say “yes” to Prabakaran would assume office, with his ears stuck to the ground listening for orders from the bunker. The President would be assisted by a council of ministers, with adequate powers divested from them. First Independence Day of Tamil Eelam would be celebrated unfurling the flag of the nation, which would depict the smiling face of Prabakaran in the centre. The flag would be hoisted by Prabakaran, which would be witnessed by huge gathering of people in Jaffna, on a gigantic screen specially erected for the purpose. The flag would be hoisted by Prabakaran in an undisclosed location, followed by a speech. When the Press, presses for a press meet with Prabakaran, it would be arranged after much deliberation and elaborate security arrangements.

All the media persons would be advised to assemble in Jaffna, two days prior to the press meet. Media persons, mostly from Tamil Nadu would willingly subject themselves to the security drill, where every orifice of a person would be thoroughly searched, before clearance. When some media persons with self esteem object to this inhuman security drill, they will be politely shown the door and while exiting they would be booed by the persons, cleared for the press meet.

Before the broadcast of Press meet under strict surveillance of security persons, where every media person would be blindfolded before reaching the “undisclosed” location of the meet, the “Hero” of Tamil Eelam would invite the wrath of all the other media, depicting him as a coward, scared to meet the people and the Press. For most “Heroes”, ego is sacrosanct than principles, Prabakaran will realise that running a nation is too difficult than running a terrorist organisation. Running a nation has unwanted responsibility of accountability, where every dime and every corpse has to be accounted for, unlike a terrorist organisation. He would realise belatedly that a terrorist leader has absolute powers than responsibility, whereas a leader of a nation has curbed powers with more responsibility.

He would also realise that his heroism is still a saleable commodity in Tamil Nadu; he would opt to fill the void left by Veerappan in the vast jungles of Sathyamangalam, to liberate Tamil Nadu from the oppressive Indian Republic. Most of the political parties of Tamil Nadu would extend their support to him, because like Veerappan, it is always advantageous for them when Prabakaran is confined to a Jungle.

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 1

MA Khan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:01:56 EST

Mr. Mike Ghouse (MBA, MCom), claims his Website, is by a Speaker, Thinker & Writer on Pluralism/Interfaith, Terrorism, Islam, India & peace. He is a well-known Muslim activist based in Dallas and a prolific contributor to many Websites, including Desicritics. I have been confronted by him (also noticed him confronting others) on a few occasions, including once in Desicritics, that the Quran is a book of peace and that there is no violent verses in the Quran.

Recently a Hindu writer, in an e-mail group, commented on why Muslim terrorists bomb and cause harrowing carnage in Indian cities---such as Bangalore, Ahmedabad etc.---one after another that:

“In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals and hence He instructs the Muslims to mount any kind of torture and atrocities on them, kill them, burn them and their houses, take their women and children as captives and rape their women and so on. So the Koran says:

• “We have created, for hell, many genii (races) of men...and they are like brute beasts” (7.179)
• “Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast them to be broiled in the hell-fire, so often as their skins shall be well burnt, We will give them new skins in exchange, so that they may taste the sharper torment” (4.56)
• “Whosoever followeth any religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him in this life, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish” (3.85)
• “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers” (8.12)
• “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13)
• “moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56)
• “they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77).
• “They (believers) shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” (9:111).”

In response, Mike Ghouse as usual threw in his challenge:

It is time to get over the propaganda that has been dished out over the years. There is no such verse in Qur'an, if you have the list produce me one. Not what is handed down to you, but the one you can point to? Remember, finding the truth is one's own responsibility. You have an open challenge here. Let’s clean the slates and live in peace, one person at a time.

Terrorism is committed by individuals and not religions, these are the dirty games played by individuals donning the mask of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or any one. They have everything to gain to upload hatred between people.

Although I deal with violent aspects of the Quran in my Website, previously I couldn’t take on Ghouse’s challenges because of the scarcity of time. This time I have taken it up. Ghouse has agreed to an open debate with me, which we have agreed to publish in Websites. Since, we both have published in Desicritics and come from that part of the world and that the debate started concerning Islamic terrorism issues in India, Desicritics is the best place to bring this debate to readers.

In this first installment, I am initiating the debate and hope Mr. Ghouse will soon do his part to continue the debate through.

Dear Mike Ghouse,

I am, hereby, taking up your open challenge and opening the debate here.
The said Indian writer has produced a set of Quranic verses, which obviously incite violence. You can see it yourself and still, you deny that there are no violent verses in the Quran. These verses have obviously been picked from the Quran according to my checking of six different translations. May I now ask you the following questions:

1. Why do you think that these verses do not exist in the Quran?
2. If you think that they exist in the Quran, why do you think that they do not incite violence?
3. Allah himself urges Muslims to ‘strike terror into the heart of the infidels’ [8:12]. Why do you disagree with Allah? Who knows better? You or Allah?
4. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad also said: “I have been victorious with terror.” Why do you disagree with Prophet Muhammad? Do you know better than the Prophet? Why do you think that Prophet Muhammad lied?

Let our debate start from here. I wait for your response. Once the debate is completed we will publish it on websites.

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.

Analysing India's Defense Preparedness

Sandeep Bansal — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:42:21 EST

The tempers have risen in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The attacks brought a renewed attention to India's defense preparedness and capabilities. Even as I am writing this blog, Pakistan is expected to give its reply to the Indian dossier. As per the reports, there is nothing new in the reply and Pakistan is going to simply deny the Indian charges. Surely, the coercive diplomacy hasn't yielded any major results.

So what are the other options before India. According to the Asia Times Online article, the military option is certainly not there. Not just because of threat of Nuclear weapons but because of the lack of preparedness. In fact the article mentioned above claims that it was Indian Army that had backed out of a full scale. This isn't something new that we are hearing. India's last major military conflict was Kargil, about 10 years. Kargil review committee had also raised several questions. the Israeli Ambassador in New Delhi, Mark Sofer, has said that his country had assisted India in 'turning around' the situation during the 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan.

Kargil war was a narrow miss for India. It happened between May-July 1999. Had we not received Israel's support, the outcome wouldn't have been the same. Especially because winters were fast approaching and it would have been virtually impossible to continue with the conflict because enemy had an advantage of height. This would have given adequate time to the Pakistanis to build adequate defenses. Israel is surely a key ally for India, and it wasn't really a co-incidence that there were not too many harsh statements from Indian Govt in response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

If we look back at even earlier times, during the 1962 War, India did not fully use its air-power even though it was much more advanced than the Chinese and could have easily slowed their movements.

But have we really learned anything from the past and are we prepared for the future challenges? Sadly, the answer is a NO. India's defense modernization plan is stuck under red-tape and numerous delays. For example - Following the Bofors Gun scandal, no subsequent Govt. had the guts to acquire this gun even though it has proved its worth and was even instrumental during the Kargil conflict.The Arjun Tank, LCA and other important project with the DRDO are miles away from induction. Even the recent BrahMos missile failed its induction test.

India has historically depended on Russia for its arms supply. However, lately there has been blatant arm-twisting by the Russians on the Gorshkov and the LCA engines. It is therefore important for to move out from the Russian claws. The Russian weapon systems are no more cost effective, while their quality control and delivery schedules have always been unreliable.

India's defense spending recently fell below 2% of its GDP, far below 3-3.5% of GDP which is considered to be safe. This is much lower when compared to its neighbors such as China and Pakistan who spend close to 5% of their GDP on defense. China recently got the capability to shoot down spy satellites and also successfully sent a man to space. On the other hand, India's space program continues to largely civilian oriented. China has already build up a good road infrastructure along its borders with India and thus is in a much better prepared.

Turning attention to our internal security, the situation is once extremely bad. Naxalism continues to remain the biggest threat. But we are not tackling it politically. Chattisgarh will raise an elite commando unit on the lines of the Greyhounds(Source). But this wouldn't solve the real issues. The Bangladeshi refugee continue to remain a big security threat for us. Many of them have been in the country for almost 30 years and have even acquired voter cards. Unfortunately, this matter is being politicized by the so called secular forces. Most of the Bangladeshi refugee are Muslims and thus are steady vote bank for them. Other than BJP, none of the parties have really raised this issue. POTA which was brought in by the BJP was branded as anti-Muslim. Now the Congress Govt. has brought in a new anti-terror law, which not quite different from POTA.

I can understand that we are a developing nation and have only a limited budget when it comes to defense spending, but surely we can spend the money allocated to defense in a much more efficient manner. Moreover, at least on matters such as defense and internal security, our politicians should show some amount of consensus.