Desicritics Category: Politics: War on Terror

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.

CUPE Canada is Anti Peace and Pro-Hate

Vijay Sappani — Sun, 1 Mar 2009 01:28:17 EST

I am disappointed with CUPE and Sid Ryan for their anti-Semitic action against Israeli Universities. In a conflict there is always difference of opinion. There is death, destruction and havoc in the lives of millions of civilians like we see in the Israel- Palestine conflict. Many of us hope to see an end to the conflict and bring permanent peace to the region.

The crisis is geographical, religious and historical that most of them are biased towards their side, making it difficult. It is always expected that those in academia have cooler heads and the best place to preach peace are educational institutions on both sides of the border.

CUPE is attacking the very nerve that can bring peace to the region. Instead of calling for a boycott, CUPE should encourage more collaborations with Israeli and other universities in the middle east. We should encourage joint chairs in our universities with those in Israel and middle east.

CUPE should foster peace, love and learning , not hatred, war and anti-Semitism. Maybe Sid Ryan should attend one of the events at Shalom-Salaam and learn from them. If you can't help bring peace, don't at least hurt.

The Crisis in Sri Lanka: Canada's Role

Vijay Sappani — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:52:23 EST

As Sri Lankan military forces try to overrun the last remaining strongholds of the LTTE rebel group (better known as the Tamil Tigers), how should Canada respond?

Canada once had a low-profile relationship with Sri Lanka. But that changed after the country's 1983 pogrom, when thousands of Tamils and Muslims were killed. More than 250,000 Sri Lankan Tamils have come to Canada as refugees since then, making Canada home to the largest Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora in the world. Meanwhile, the Tigers -- who once controlled large swathes of the island nation -- have engaged in an on-again, off-again war with the Sri Lankan government. Understanding the history of this conflict is critical if Canada is to help develop a solution for the conflict.

Following its independence from Britain in 1948 (at which time the country was still known as Ceylon), Sri Lanka's Sinhalese-dominated government introduced several laws to institutionalize discrimination against the minority Tamil population. In 1972, Buddhism was made the primary religion of the state, and discriminatory laws were passed against religious minorities (most Tamils are Hindu). Sinhalese rioters during this period attacked temples and churches, killing hundreds. That led to the formation of many small Tamil militant groups, one of which was the Tamil Tigers.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the West paid only modest attention to Sri Lanka's internal conflict. But since 9/11, the country is seen in a different light. The Tigers -- a conventional military force that has perpetrated acts of terror -- have been banned in 31 countries, including Canada.

The Tigers and the Sri Lankan government have had several rounds of peace talks, but the guns remained truly silent only for a short while. In 2002, the two sides entered into peace talks brokered by Norway, with both parties agreeing to the establishment of an autonomous Tamil region in the northern part of the country. Unfortunately, both groups violated the terms of the agreement, and Sri Lanka finally called off the talks in January, 2008.

Since then, Sri Lanka's army has scored many battlefield victories. But ultimately, there can be no military solution to the conflict: Even if the Tigers lose all their bases, Sri Lanka's government will not be able to defeat the Tigers as a guerrilla force. In the meantime, civilians continue to be caught in the crossfire between a racist government and a rebel force that is militarily outgunned and shunned internationally.

If a negotiated political solution is to come about, the Tigers must clarify their acceptance of a Tamil nation within a united Sri Lanka, and commit to disarm. For its part, the government of Sri Lanka must agree to treat the country's Tamils in a more humane and equitable fashion. The current stage of the conflict -- in which an alarming number of civilians have died at the hands of government forces -- only reinforces Tamil concerns in this regard.

The international community must convince the Sri Lankan government and Tigers alike to arrive at a permanent resolution through peaceful negotiations. Canada could play an especially important role. In fact, our federal system (which could be a model for Sri Lanka) and our large Tamil diaspora makes us a credible candidate to lead the peace talks

The question is: Do we have an appetite to see the world beyond Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, this could be Canada's moment.

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.

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.

Sri Lanka-LTTE War: The Shifting Semantics of a Political Solution

Kalugu — Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:15:49 EST

On Sunday, 31st January, the Red Cross said in a statement that the Puthukkudiyiruppu hospital in Vanni region received two direct hits from Sri Lankan Army shelling. "We're shocked that the hospital was hit, and this for the second time in recent weeks," said Paul Castella, head of the Colombo delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). "Wounded and sick people, medical personnel and medical facilities are all protected by international humanitarian law. Under no circumstance may they be directly attacked." The hospital, which has some 500 inpatients, is one of the few still operating in the region.

A "handful" of United Nations staff are working around the clock to save a growing number of children caught in the crossfire, a U.N. spokesman said Saturday. Children as young as 4 months old were being treated in local hospitals for shrapnel injuries and other "wounds of war," spokesman James Elder told CNN.

The 48 hour respite announced by the government has ended as an act of eye-wash while 80 innocent Tamil civilians have been killed and 230 have been injured in the said 48 hours and that too within the government declared ‘safety zone’ in Vanni. During this 48 hour safe passage assured for the civilians which ended on Sunday, about 70 civilians crossed over to the government held areas. The LTTE announced that it will neither encourage or stop the civilians from moving to any area they feel as safe but will protect the civilians that stay in their territory. Most of the 250,000 civilians appear to be staunch supporters of the rebel movement that they have decided to stay in the rebel held areas.

Meanwhile Sri Lankan Government officials accused aid organizations and foreign media of sensationalizing civilian casualties. In an interview to local media as reported by The Guardian, the defence secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, highlighted the role of ambassadors of Switzerland and Germany, and television networks CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera in his criticism of foreigners, accusing them of being biased towards the LTTE rebels. "They will be chased away" he said. In the newspaper article, he singled out the BBC correspondent reporting from Colombo, Chris Morris, saying that "if he does not act responsibly and attempts to create panic, I will have to chase him out of the country"

The Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora in a show of solidarity held large scale protests last week in Toronto, Canada and London, UK that gained live coverage in the local media. The protests were reported as something that these cities have never witnessed.

About 80,000 individuals took part in the Human Chain protest in Toronto, Canada and shouted slogans supporting the independence of Tamil Eelam and immediate ceasefire.

In London, UK about 130,000 individuals, mostly Tamils took to the streets also calling for Independence for Tamil Eelam. Few British parliamentarians who were present during the protests, spoke to the crowd. British Parliamentarian Mr Keith Vaz said "Over there across the road is the Indian Embassy. We urge the Indian government in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi to call for peace, to call for democracy".

It is ironic to see a Britisher asking India to honor Mahatma Gandhi.

In Chennai, India, more than 10,000 activists of political parties and social outfits, including a large number of students and youth, on Saturday bade an emotional farewell to Muthukumar, who had set himself ablaze for the Sri Lankan Tamil cause. They chanted slogans seeking recognition for an independent Tamil Eelam, hailing LTTE supremo V Prabhakaran and condemned India for its alleged support to Sri Lanka in the ongoing war.

Meanwhile, the newly-formed Sri Lankan Tamils' Protection Movement, comprising several political parties, announced a state-wide general strike on February 4 and black flag processions on February 7 demanding a ceasefire in the island nation. The strike will coincide with Sri Lanka's Independence Day.

Apprehending student unrest across Tamil Nadu over the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka, the state government on Saturday night closed all government and private colleges and hostels for an indefinite period. Elsewhere in Tamil Nadu, protesters torched a state-owned bus near Vellore, while 225 people were arrested in Thanjavur when they tried to lay siege on the Air Force station. They were protesting against the alleged use of the Air Force station for sending arms to Lanka.

As the international pressure from governments and Tamil diaspora mount on the Sri Lankan government, more analysts are making note that an Independent Tamil Eelam is now a political solution where as a united Sri Lanka has become a military one. The shift in the semantics does indicate that a military victory over LTTE as speculated by the Sri Lankan government may probably not end the crisis.

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

Terrorism and Its Objectives

Suresh Naig — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:13:47 EST

Irrespective of who the terrorists are, whom they are against, what their operations are, and how they do what they do; they all depend on a group of persons, whose job is to find “why” of it. God alone knows, why these persons go to such pains, to eloquently find “why terror exists”. In crime investigation, usual pitfall is to miss the obvious and hunt for the obscure. When terrorists operate from obscure locations doing the obvious, the job of these obvious personalities is to find obscure reasons for their existence.

The reasons for the existence of terrorism, hypothesized by these persons inebriated with over dose of books, might appear as indisputable as the existence of Yeti and God. No one has seen, yet many would like to believe in its existence. The “why” is an important element in creating heroes, as we have witnessed in many masala movies. A pick-pocket in a movie gains sympathy and turns out to be a hero, when a strong why is emphasized for picking the pockets. It might be to save some hungry children, or with the intention of distributing his booty to have-nots in a slum. However the person, who had lost his wallet in a bus, might have an ailing mother whose medicine depended on the missing wallet, would be obscured from the viewers, skilfully by the script writers. In the absence of reasons, otherwise known as the why of it, any act would turn out to be demonic or villainy. Attributing reasons for any act of terrorism is a subtle justification, glorifying the act.

Though the act of terror has only one purpose, the reasons aimed at its justification are varied and ingenious. Recently we have seen Ram Sena and MNS activists striking terror at Mangalore and Maharashtra. Ram Sena resorted to terrorizing hapless day-time boozers in Mangalore to save Indian culture according to its leader Prasad Attavar, Whereas MNS resorted to terror to save their mother tongue Marathi, according to Raj Thackerey.

We are made to believe that LeT and JUD are resorting to unabated violence for the cause Kashmir, according to their leaders, corroborated by British foreign secretary Miliband, LTTE is resorting to hi-tech violence to save their sisters and mothers getting raped by Sinhalese, according to some hyper active ethnic fanatics, Hamas is launching rockets to save their narrow strip from US supported Israelis, and Al-Qaida had resorted to creative strikes against USA, to save Islam from the infidels. It would be great injustice, if I fail to include Maoists in terrorists list who are out to save socialism from capitalists.

We have also seen enough beating around the “Bush”, for the unwanted terrorism in Iran in search of the elusive WMD (weapons of mass destruction), also several small time terror attacks carried out by “manic minions” belonging to different outfits towards saving something or the other, and we have even witnessed acts of terror in saving one God from the other God, as in Kandamal, Orissa.

Most of the terrorists have not achieved the obscure objectives, but certainly all of them have achieved the obvious objective, of instilling fear into a nation and society. Pakistani terrorists have achieved a rare distinction of instilling fear into two nations simultaneously. Democratically elected government of Pakistan is impotently inept in cracking the whip on these terrorists’ outfits, for the fear of getting toppled by armed coup. All the other nations including India, want to save the impotent democracy in Pakistan, for the fear that its nuclear capabilities would fall into the hands of the terrorists.

Let us accept the obvious reason for the existence of terrorism, which is nothing but instilling fear into the society, than wasting our time in chasing the obscure reasons, concocted by the spin doctors. Once we realise this simple logic, we would refrain from justifying any acts of terrorism, however compelling or lucrative the reasons might be.

Friends Don't Let Friends Torture and Murder in the Name of National Security

ENSAAF — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:42:12 EST

As Indians gathered for Republic Day celebrations this week to mark the adoption of the Indian constitution, the international human rights organization Ensaaf and the Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) released a joint report that presents verifiable quantitative findings suggesting that Indian security forces actually have very little respect for the rule of law and human rights. The report, “Violent Deaths and Enforced Disappearances During the Counterinsurgency in Punjab, India,” adds scientifically defensible evidence to the litany of charges against Indian security officers for systematically perpetrating human rights violations for decades across all corners of the country. The report also has implications for exactly how President Obama should explore the US’s “rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India,” which he declared in a public statement on Republic Day.

After analyzing six sources of information comprising over 21,000 records relating to the Punjab counterinsurgency between 1984 and 1995, the report found a strong correlation between the increase in counterinsurgency deaths reported by the police and human rights violations reported by the victims’ families - meaning that the patterns of frequency for both events closely matched each other. The analysis specifically reveals a strong correlation between enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions reported by the victims’ families and “encounters” reported in the local newspaper. These observations are consistent with claims by human rights organizations that reported “encounters” concealed targeted extrajudicial killings by security forces.

The correlations strongly undermine the claims by the Indian government and security officials that human rights violations were “random excesses” perpetrated by a few officers. The data establishes that there’s nothing random about it – as security forces intensified their operations, reports of disappearances and extrajudicial executions correspondingly increased.

The pattern is also consistent with claims that security officials were more concerned with the body count than with actually identifying and capturing terrorists. Security officials in Punjab were rewarded with cash and promotions based on the number of dead terrorists they produced. As one Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Punjab told human rights investigators:

Before a meeting with [former Director General of Punjab Police K.P.S.] Gill, 300 to 400 Sikhs used to die in Punjab. Every SSP had to report: I have killed 14. The other who said “I have killed 28”was appreciated more. The third SSP, who had to outsmart the first two, had to report 31. The night before the meeting with Gill, the Sikhs used to die so that the SSPs could vie with each other in showing their anti-terrorist achievements (Kumar, et al., Reduced to Ashes, pp 107-108).

Given the empirical findings suggesting systematic abuses in Punjab, the government can no longer cover-up the facts or justify their acts with the rhetoric of national security. We need to have honest and clear answers about the policies and practices of security forces, not only in Punjab, but also in places like Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Assam, and Nagaland, that lead to these pandemic abuses. A debate on the issues raised by the report is even more urgent in light of the new amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA), 1967, and the establishment of a National Investigating Agency (NIA), exclusively meant to probe acts of terrorism in the country. These measures give security forces greater powers to detain suspects, frequently the precursor to extrajudicial violence, and put blind faith in the very people who seem to consistently abuse the powers given to them. According to the Asian Center for Human Rights, four people a day die in police custody and jails in India.

We should, therefore, all be concerned when US President Obama expresses blind solidarity with India within a week of condemning the use of torture and closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center, while India is revamping its own draconian laws. The US undoubtedly should be a strong friend and ally to India. This friendship, however, must include engagement on the rule of law and the primacy of human rights, irrespective of the circumstances, and condemning the widespread use of torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings that currently pass for national security policy in India.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ensaaf and Benetech report, “Violent Deaths and Enforced Disappearances During the Counterinsurgency in Punjab, India,” as well as and accompanying photo essay and podcast, is available online.