UPI Asia, 22 January 2010, http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2010/01/22/toward_a_security_grid_in_south_asia/9801/
====================================================================
Abstract : A common intelligence network has become hugely necessary for South Asia, if not for the whole globe. Keeping in mind the way global terrorism is taking shape and spreading its zones, the state-actors must set aside their differences.
President Obama’s decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan and at the same time to increase the drone attacks on the tribal areas of Pakistan might have assured many regarding the quick demise of the Taliban-Al Qaeda duo in the Af-Pak region. Nevertheless, the hardened terrorists have been equal to the task. And sometimes, they have been even better then the intelligence network of the US-led anti-insurgency machinery.
The spate of attacks, starting from Abdul Mutallab’s December 25 aircraft seizure to the urban warfare in Kabul on January 18, has surely awakened many from slumber. The strikes ranged from the failure of Abdul Mutallab to blow up the Detroit-bound airplane to the moderate success of the Taliban in invading Kabul. And in between, Jordanian double-agent al-Balawi’s surgical operation in the Khost province of Afghanistan made the CIA doubt its own intelligence.
Most of the analysts, security officers, diplomats and politicians were engrossed with the Pakistan Army’s ground offensive in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). White House too was indulged in pressurizing Pakistan’s military to act in a servile manner.
Focus on military operations in FATA and its adjoining areas were mainly necessary on four counts. First, the Pakistani Taliban faction (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP) led by Hakeemullah Mehsud had stepped up its fearsome suicide attacks on major cities of Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Peshawar and even the business hub Karachi. Moreover, ‘economic-crisis ridden’ Washington was eager to pass the buck to the Pakistanis who were alleged to have been bypassing the burden. Third, a decisive blow to the Taliban in Pakistan was essential to weaken Al Qaeda which draws its support base from the Taliban. And fourth, this time round, USA wanted to use Pakistan’s infantry to catch the elusive Bin Laden, whom they had failed to capture nine years ago at the cave complex of Tora Bora.
But the overemphasis on FATA was probably a tactical mistake as Al Qaeda and its franchisees have unfolded new ways of terrorizing the world. They have started targeting weak states like Yemen, started recruiting from new mass bases like Nigeria, Somalia and North Africa, and have commenced their assault on the aviation sector. Thus, a fresh strategy against terrorism is an imperative.
And it cannot be American-specific or Pakistan-centric. It needs to holistically connect all the countries of the world which have obvious geo-political concerns regarding the menace of terrorism, be it Islamic Fundamentalism or any domestic insurgency.
In this regard, a legitimate co-ordination between different Asian Intelligence agencies can be the first positive step. This becomes more expedient in the light of repeated intelligence failures that we are witnessing. In fact, an alliance amongst the American CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, India’s RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) and Israel’s Mossad may turn out to be a fruitful venture. With time, this common body may bring in its sway security agencies of other nation-states of South Asia, and if possible of other major Asian countries.
If the anarchists can thread alliances across borders, what stops nation-states from doing the same? Well, one may say that religious fanaticism is the binding factor for the Jihadis. But then can anyone answer what is in common between the Tamil insurgents of Sri Lanka and the Maoists of India? Is it religion or is it ideology?
Rather, it is a sheer tactical measure. So, if the rebels may unite on a militaristic issue, the Asian state actors too can forge a coherent ‘Security Grid’ under the auspices of CIA.
And, in that business, the states must not act in a selfish manner. Rather, they need to disseminate information pertaining to each other’s interests, howsoever insignificant it may be to its own security calculus. Thus, discovery of a militant camp on Bangladeshi soil pertaining to India’s North-East needs to be reported without delay as it has the potential of inflicting incalculable harm not only to India, but in future even to Bangladesh. And this very fact should be comprehended by policy-makers.
Along similar lines, the leftist insurgency in India cannot be undermined by USA or Israel. The present ‘war against terror’ cannot be a ‘selected war against anti-American terrorists’; rather it should live up to its proper meaning.
Presently, South Asia stands to be the most vulnerable zone and the den of the Taliban-Qaeda duo. Hence, the nations of South Asia shall have to come forward to set an example.
It requires no guessing to predict that the most troublesome partner in such a coalition would be the ISI. With its ‘childhood enemy’ India as a party to the coalition, ISI may find it suffocating to assert itself.
Moreover, in an ‘extended grid’, the prospect of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel working in tandem shall be too much to expect in the New Year.
Skeptics and critics would argue that the fate of such a ‘Security Grid’ would be same as of SAARC. But the presence of USA in the network might just tilt the balance towards equilibrium; at least as far as Indo-Pak scuffle is concerned.
But, to achieve the above, the nation-states of Asia need to break the paranoid outlook regarding their neighbours and appreciate the greater danger of terrorism. Unless that is done; a terror-free Asia, and hence a terror-free world, would be a utopian concept in the coming decades.
28 January, 2010
Jinnah’s Tottering Pakistan
Introduction
On a discursive note; 25 December happens to be the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), the Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader) of Pakistan. And the present Zardari-Gilani government had the onus of exhibiting his birthplace to the public on that very day. Amusingly, the funds required to renovate his residence did not reach the project officials and the work that was stopped since July 2008 could not be resumed. Thus Wazir Mansion at Karachi, Jinnah’s birthplace, remained closed to the public on his birth anniversary 1.
Bludgeoning Jinnah’s vision of a pure pan-Islamic Pakistan (Land of the Pure), the Shia religious processions on the eve of Ashura (a mourning to commemorate the death of Prophet’s grandson Imam Hussein at the hands of the Caliph Yazid at Karbala in present Iraq in c 680 AD) were repeatedly attacked by terror groups in the comparatively calm city of Karachi between 26 to 28 December 2.
Security has nosedived over the last two and a half years in Pakistan, where militant attacks have consumed more than 2,700 people since July 2007 3. Moreover, the country is being pulverized under Washington’s peremptory writs to engage in the frontline war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Pakistan needs a tracheotomy.
In the following sections, this article would attempt to find an interconnection between Pakistan’s present predicaments and its roots of historical formation: examine the causality between the two events, or rather ‘series of events’.
Prologue to Pakistan
When Baba-e-Qaum (Father of the Nation) Muhammad Ali Jinnah asserted his demand for a separate nation on 23 March 1940 at the Lahore session of the Muslim League 4, did he have an iota of cognition what the future nation-state would be like? In fact, he did not even mention the word “Pakistan” in the Lahore resolution though the word had already been coined by another ‘stalwart’ Rahmat Ali almost seven years ago when he published a 4-page pamphlet at Cambridge in January 1933, bearing the appellation: “Now or Never: Are we to live or perish forever?” 5. But achieving a separate nation for the sub-continent’s Muslims was indeed Jinnah’s political tour de force.
Actually, the then Muslim intelligentsia wanted to break the psychological yoke of Hindu domination and consequent extermination. Hence, they encouraged the paroxysms of the ordinary Muslims who were co-habiting with their Hindu counterparts for centuries in a ‘more-or-less’ conducive socio-political atmosphere. One obvious reason for this healthy situation was the very fact that the rulers of most part of the sub-continent were Muslims. But the bonhomie between the two religious groups could not be totally undermined keeping in view the manner in which they joined hands to uproot the British Raj in the First War of India’s Independence in 1857 6.
Actually after the death of Aurangzeb (the last Mughal emperor), the decline of the Mughal empire set in 1707 which slowly but surely fostered the growth of local kingdoms. The sub-continent, after a period of five centuries of Turko-Mongol rule, was offering an opportunity to the Marathas, Sikhs and Jats (non-Muslim sects); not to mention the European infiltration. The consequent loss of prestige of the Muslim theocracy and nobility led the religious elite to search for political boulevards in expressing their anguish. The 1857 revolt was one: quite secular in nature, whereas the other had communal undertones.
Marring the beautiful socio-religious landscape of the mid nineteenth century was the emergence, in the background, of the dark clouds of ‘Wahabism’. It was a concept originally propounded by Abdul Wahab of Arabia (1703-92). He desired to rejuvenate Islam and to restore the socio-political order to the days of the Prophet. The idea was generated in the sub-continent by the Delhi saint Shah Waliullah (1704-63) who wanted to create ‘dar-ul-Islam’ (Land of Islam), even with the help of marauding invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan.
Though the Wahabis were well-organized and carried on their struggle for almost four decades under the able leaderships of Waliullah and later Syed Ahmad Brelvi (1786-1831), first against the Sikhs and thereafter against the Imperial Raj, they finally capitulated under the iron hand of the Raj in the 1870s. Interestingly, the Wahabis physically ensconced themselves in today’s North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) region of Pakistan with their headquarters near Peshawar (capital of NWFP).
But the flavour of Wahabism transcended territorial and temporal limits and re-emerged with the Goebbelsian demagogy of the later-day so-called elite Muslim ‘nationalist’ leaders like Sir (Dr.) Muhammad Iqbal, Z.A. Suleri and F.M. Durrani. It might be that Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of the Aligarh University (in present India), engaged in verbal duels with the Wahabis or received ‘fatwas’ (decrees by the Theocrats), but at the end of the day wanted a Islamic state after the British withdrawal from the sub-continent 7.
Thus, just after assuming power as Pakistan’s Governor-General, Jinnah’s plea to regard religion as a personal matter, not a state matter, was utterly disregarded by the rowdy ruffians as it made no sense to their logic and understanding since the call defied Jinnah’s own ‘diabolical diatribe’ once heaped against the other nationality, i.e. the Hindus.
Pakistan’s problems, ab initio
Naturally, the nascent nation-state of Pakistan was submerged under the influx of refugees from India and had to muster infrastructural strength; establishing political institutions was a sine-qua-non for the realization of those.
The most immediate problem was the continued presence of a Congress government in the NWFP, a government effective at the grassroots level and popular. As a matter of fact, the NWFP Congress boycotted the referendum for partition which helped the Muslim League win a marginal majority to join Pakistan. Led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his Khudai-i-Khitmatgars (Servants of God), this group was often referred to as the Red Shirts after the attire of its members.
Pakistan also had to establish its legitimacy against a possible challenge from Afghanistan. Kabul made the emotional claim of “Pakhtunistan”, based on the ethnic unity of tribes straddling the Durand Line 8. However, Pakistan upheld the treaties Britain had signed with Afghanistan and refused to discuss the validity of the Durand Line as the international border with Afghanistan. This resulted in a diplomatic and commercial fracas.
Fortunately or unfortunately, Jinnah passed away on 11 September 1948, barely thirteen months after independence and the mantle passed on to Liaqat Ali Khan, who tried to frame a Constitutional Government based on the British model. But the bottlenecks were manifold. First, he had to deal with the question of the autonomy of the provinces. Second, the aspect of the Bengali-dominated East Pakistan had to be dealt with; which was separated by about 1,600 km of Indian landmass. And finally, the issue of the role of Islam had to be resolved.
Commencement of Military Domination
The ‘series of discontinuous catastrophic events’ commenced with the assassination of Liaqat Ali at Rawalpindi in October 1951. And this was the period when a plethora of political parties started surfacing in both East and West Pakistan with the Muslim League gradually loosing relevance. Furthermore, this was the time when the military started to intervene in politics when in March 1951, Major General Mohammad Akbar Khan, chief of the general staff, was arrested along with fourteen other officers on charges of plotting a coup d’etat. This was termed the Rawalpindi Conspiracy. The connivers were tried and sentenced to incarceration 9.
Amidst the usurpation of state power by bureaucratic-elites and the lawyer-turned politicos, Pakistan was bestowed with a Constitution in 1956. Nevertheless, it failed to hold its forte against the onslaught of the military-ulema (theologian) nexus that developed over the years: the foremost manifestation of which came through the regime of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88).
Pakistan’s Dilemma
Among other things, two issues maintained (or jeopardized?) the vitality of Pakistan in the last 60 years or at least provided oxygen for its survival. One, the irredentist claims pertaining to the Kashmir of its ‘childhood enemy’ India; and two, the Military-Jihadi connection and the overarching influence of the secret services wing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In the process, Pakistan vacillated in a tortuous dilemma between the two extremities of being the “Land of the Pure” viz. Land of Islam and a “modern nation-state”.
Be it Ayub Khan of the 1950s or Pervez Musharraf of the 1990s or even the present military dispensation within the cloak of the ‘petticoat government’, Pakistan remained and still remains a mosaic of corruption punctuated by Madrasa-based theocratical dogmas; invariably placing the country in an anachronistic mode. Moreover, even a numbskull can fathom that the possibility of Pakistan being a ‘failed state’ is fraught with imminent dangers for the world community at large.
Perennial enmity with India forced Pakistan to embark on the peregrinations of Western Block during the Cold War era (1945-91). The acrimony with India was the paramount reason behind its active role in propping up the Madrasa-based Talibans (students).
History kept on evolving, however Pakistan clung to it.
With more than two-thirds of the population living under the poverty line, with the majority of the women still ‘un-emancipated’ and with large swathes of the landmass under the active sway of the Islamic fundamentalists who have created ‘state within a state’, Pakistan is definitely tottering to its fall.
Are we envisaging another dismemberment of Pakistan on the same lines of the 1971 formation of present-day Bangladesh? Ideologue Rahmat Ali spoke of “Bangistan” (United Bengal comprising today’s Bangladesh and the province of West Bengal in India), “Haidersitan” (the then princely state of Hyderabad before its accession to India) on a promising note, but they appeared to be ‘chimera’ at that period. Are we to see Balochistan, Punjab and ‘Pakhtunistan’ as independent nation-states or Pakistan as a truly federal state with the residuary powers with the provinces? Or do we envisage the more deadly scenario of the fundamentalists taking over a nuclear-Pakistan?
Can the military live to see another day? Whatever be it, presently the military is trying to prove its mettle, not only to Washington, but also to Pakistan’s citizenry so as to bring back the law and order situation on track. Vivisection of the country shall be avoided till USA is present in neighbouring Afghanistan, but what happens after its withdrawal? Shall there be a Mahdi 10 (redeemer) or a re-incarnated Jinnah to act as a saviour?
Conclusions
A necropsy is not completely unwarranted in this context.
Categorised by Mountbatten as ‘a psychopathic case’ and by Gandhi as ‘a maniac’, Jinnah proclaimed Pakistan in 1947 with the apparent declaration of “L’etat c’est moi” (I am the State).
Therein lay the seeds of the ‘botched situation’ which Pakistan faces today.
Jinnah’s Muslim League was so top heavy and so engrossed in inflaming passions to garner authority and territorial assignments that it failed to incorporate institutionalization and concomitant democratization. On top of that, the indelible imprint of the Bangladeshi scar ‘coerced’ the military to search for a ‘paramour’ in the Jihadi network.
Jinnah’s political base was never in today’s Pakistan; rather it was in today’s India! He used to control the League through commands. The Muslim League did not fare well in elections till 1946. The lackadaisical approach of the regional Muslim parties contributed to its success to a definite degree. Nonetheless, the League’s malicious harangue against the Congress and the cry of ‘Islam in danger’ worked wonders, albeit for the time being. When the enemy was no more, the goal was obscure. The obduracy and intransigence of Jinnah and other League leaders was good enough to form Pakistan but not to keep the country embonpoint.
The offshoots of such a policy are glaringly obvious today.
Unless the Pakistani State apparatus assumes the configuration of the “Leviathan” 11 and separates itself from the ecclesiastical; unless the civil society stands upright and unless the common man asserts himself, Hobbesian state of nature 12 looms large on the Pakistani horizon.
The then leadership of the Congress also cannot deny the burden of opprobrium. Probably, a séance has to be organized.
=====================================================================
References/End Notes
1: Quaid’s birthplace remains inaccessible, Friday 25 December 2009, DAWN.COM
2: Suicide attack on Ashura procession kills 33 in Karachi, Tuesday 29 December 2009, DAWN.COM
3: Karachi Blast Suicide Attack, Monday 28 December 2009, THECURRENTAFFAIRS.COM
4: Anita Inder Singh, The Partition of India, National Book Trust, India, 2006, p. 29
5: H D Sharma, 100 Great Lives, Rupa & Co., 2006, p. 81
6: A civil-military rebellion erupted in mainly Northern part of the sub-continent (Awadh province) on 10 May 1857 at Meerut, presently in the Uttar Pradesh province in India. Nationalist Historians have termed it as the First War of Independence.
7: H D Sharma, 100 Great Lives, Rupa & Co., 2006, p. 287
8: A G Noorani, The Durand Line, Saturday 26 December 2009, DAWN.COM
9: Pakistan, Constitutional Beginnings, Library of Congress Country Studies, US Department of the Army
10: Muslims believe the Mahdi will rid the world of error, injustice and tyranny
11: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) conveyed the image of the state as the supreme power by portraying it as a Leviathan, a gigantic sea monster. He attributed such largeness to the state due to the sovereignty associated with the modern day state.
12: Hobbes’ state of nature is that of anarchy and disorder
On a discursive note; 25 December happens to be the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), the Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader) of Pakistan. And the present Zardari-Gilani government had the onus of exhibiting his birthplace to the public on that very day. Amusingly, the funds required to renovate his residence did not reach the project officials and the work that was stopped since July 2008 could not be resumed. Thus Wazir Mansion at Karachi, Jinnah’s birthplace, remained closed to the public on his birth anniversary 1.
Bludgeoning Jinnah’s vision of a pure pan-Islamic Pakistan (Land of the Pure), the Shia religious processions on the eve of Ashura (a mourning to commemorate the death of Prophet’s grandson Imam Hussein at the hands of the Caliph Yazid at Karbala in present Iraq in c 680 AD) were repeatedly attacked by terror groups in the comparatively calm city of Karachi between 26 to 28 December 2.
Security has nosedived over the last two and a half years in Pakistan, where militant attacks have consumed more than 2,700 people since July 2007 3. Moreover, the country is being pulverized under Washington’s peremptory writs to engage in the frontline war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Pakistan needs a tracheotomy.
In the following sections, this article would attempt to find an interconnection between Pakistan’s present predicaments and its roots of historical formation: examine the causality between the two events, or rather ‘series of events’.
Prologue to Pakistan
When Baba-e-Qaum (Father of the Nation) Muhammad Ali Jinnah asserted his demand for a separate nation on 23 March 1940 at the Lahore session of the Muslim League 4, did he have an iota of cognition what the future nation-state would be like? In fact, he did not even mention the word “Pakistan” in the Lahore resolution though the word had already been coined by another ‘stalwart’ Rahmat Ali almost seven years ago when he published a 4-page pamphlet at Cambridge in January 1933, bearing the appellation: “Now or Never: Are we to live or perish forever?” 5. But achieving a separate nation for the sub-continent’s Muslims was indeed Jinnah’s political tour de force.
Actually, the then Muslim intelligentsia wanted to break the psychological yoke of Hindu domination and consequent extermination. Hence, they encouraged the paroxysms of the ordinary Muslims who were co-habiting with their Hindu counterparts for centuries in a ‘more-or-less’ conducive socio-political atmosphere. One obvious reason for this healthy situation was the very fact that the rulers of most part of the sub-continent were Muslims. But the bonhomie between the two religious groups could not be totally undermined keeping in view the manner in which they joined hands to uproot the British Raj in the First War of India’s Independence in 1857 6.
Actually after the death of Aurangzeb (the last Mughal emperor), the decline of the Mughal empire set in 1707 which slowly but surely fostered the growth of local kingdoms. The sub-continent, after a period of five centuries of Turko-Mongol rule, was offering an opportunity to the Marathas, Sikhs and Jats (non-Muslim sects); not to mention the European infiltration. The consequent loss of prestige of the Muslim theocracy and nobility led the religious elite to search for political boulevards in expressing their anguish. The 1857 revolt was one: quite secular in nature, whereas the other had communal undertones.
Marring the beautiful socio-religious landscape of the mid nineteenth century was the emergence, in the background, of the dark clouds of ‘Wahabism’. It was a concept originally propounded by Abdul Wahab of Arabia (1703-92). He desired to rejuvenate Islam and to restore the socio-political order to the days of the Prophet. The idea was generated in the sub-continent by the Delhi saint Shah Waliullah (1704-63) who wanted to create ‘dar-ul-Islam’ (Land of Islam), even with the help of marauding invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan.
Though the Wahabis were well-organized and carried on their struggle for almost four decades under the able leaderships of Waliullah and later Syed Ahmad Brelvi (1786-1831), first against the Sikhs and thereafter against the Imperial Raj, they finally capitulated under the iron hand of the Raj in the 1870s. Interestingly, the Wahabis physically ensconced themselves in today’s North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) region of Pakistan with their headquarters near Peshawar (capital of NWFP).
But the flavour of Wahabism transcended territorial and temporal limits and re-emerged with the Goebbelsian demagogy of the later-day so-called elite Muslim ‘nationalist’ leaders like Sir (Dr.) Muhammad Iqbal, Z.A. Suleri and F.M. Durrani. It might be that Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of the Aligarh University (in present India), engaged in verbal duels with the Wahabis or received ‘fatwas’ (decrees by the Theocrats), but at the end of the day wanted a Islamic state after the British withdrawal from the sub-continent 7.
Thus, just after assuming power as Pakistan’s Governor-General, Jinnah’s plea to regard religion as a personal matter, not a state matter, was utterly disregarded by the rowdy ruffians as it made no sense to their logic and understanding since the call defied Jinnah’s own ‘diabolical diatribe’ once heaped against the other nationality, i.e. the Hindus.
Pakistan’s problems, ab initio
Naturally, the nascent nation-state of Pakistan was submerged under the influx of refugees from India and had to muster infrastructural strength; establishing political institutions was a sine-qua-non for the realization of those.
The most immediate problem was the continued presence of a Congress government in the NWFP, a government effective at the grassroots level and popular. As a matter of fact, the NWFP Congress boycotted the referendum for partition which helped the Muslim League win a marginal majority to join Pakistan. Led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his Khudai-i-Khitmatgars (Servants of God), this group was often referred to as the Red Shirts after the attire of its members.
Pakistan also had to establish its legitimacy against a possible challenge from Afghanistan. Kabul made the emotional claim of “Pakhtunistan”, based on the ethnic unity of tribes straddling the Durand Line 8. However, Pakistan upheld the treaties Britain had signed with Afghanistan and refused to discuss the validity of the Durand Line as the international border with Afghanistan. This resulted in a diplomatic and commercial fracas.
Fortunately or unfortunately, Jinnah passed away on 11 September 1948, barely thirteen months after independence and the mantle passed on to Liaqat Ali Khan, who tried to frame a Constitutional Government based on the British model. But the bottlenecks were manifold. First, he had to deal with the question of the autonomy of the provinces. Second, the aspect of the Bengali-dominated East Pakistan had to be dealt with; which was separated by about 1,600 km of Indian landmass. And finally, the issue of the role of Islam had to be resolved.
Commencement of Military Domination
The ‘series of discontinuous catastrophic events’ commenced with the assassination of Liaqat Ali at Rawalpindi in October 1951. And this was the period when a plethora of political parties started surfacing in both East and West Pakistan with the Muslim League gradually loosing relevance. Furthermore, this was the time when the military started to intervene in politics when in March 1951, Major General Mohammad Akbar Khan, chief of the general staff, was arrested along with fourteen other officers on charges of plotting a coup d’etat. This was termed the Rawalpindi Conspiracy. The connivers were tried and sentenced to incarceration 9.
Amidst the usurpation of state power by bureaucratic-elites and the lawyer-turned politicos, Pakistan was bestowed with a Constitution in 1956. Nevertheless, it failed to hold its forte against the onslaught of the military-ulema (theologian) nexus that developed over the years: the foremost manifestation of which came through the regime of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88).
Pakistan’s Dilemma
Among other things, two issues maintained (or jeopardized?) the vitality of Pakistan in the last 60 years or at least provided oxygen for its survival. One, the irredentist claims pertaining to the Kashmir of its ‘childhood enemy’ India; and two, the Military-Jihadi connection and the overarching influence of the secret services wing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In the process, Pakistan vacillated in a tortuous dilemma between the two extremities of being the “Land of the Pure” viz. Land of Islam and a “modern nation-state”.
Be it Ayub Khan of the 1950s or Pervez Musharraf of the 1990s or even the present military dispensation within the cloak of the ‘petticoat government’, Pakistan remained and still remains a mosaic of corruption punctuated by Madrasa-based theocratical dogmas; invariably placing the country in an anachronistic mode. Moreover, even a numbskull can fathom that the possibility of Pakistan being a ‘failed state’ is fraught with imminent dangers for the world community at large.
Perennial enmity with India forced Pakistan to embark on the peregrinations of Western Block during the Cold War era (1945-91). The acrimony with India was the paramount reason behind its active role in propping up the Madrasa-based Talibans (students).
History kept on evolving, however Pakistan clung to it.
With more than two-thirds of the population living under the poverty line, with the majority of the women still ‘un-emancipated’ and with large swathes of the landmass under the active sway of the Islamic fundamentalists who have created ‘state within a state’, Pakistan is definitely tottering to its fall.
Are we envisaging another dismemberment of Pakistan on the same lines of the 1971 formation of present-day Bangladesh? Ideologue Rahmat Ali spoke of “Bangistan” (United Bengal comprising today’s Bangladesh and the province of West Bengal in India), “Haidersitan” (the then princely state of Hyderabad before its accession to India) on a promising note, but they appeared to be ‘chimera’ at that period. Are we to see Balochistan, Punjab and ‘Pakhtunistan’ as independent nation-states or Pakistan as a truly federal state with the residuary powers with the provinces? Or do we envisage the more deadly scenario of the fundamentalists taking over a nuclear-Pakistan?
Can the military live to see another day? Whatever be it, presently the military is trying to prove its mettle, not only to Washington, but also to Pakistan’s citizenry so as to bring back the law and order situation on track. Vivisection of the country shall be avoided till USA is present in neighbouring Afghanistan, but what happens after its withdrawal? Shall there be a Mahdi 10 (redeemer) or a re-incarnated Jinnah to act as a saviour?
Conclusions
A necropsy is not completely unwarranted in this context.
Categorised by Mountbatten as ‘a psychopathic case’ and by Gandhi as ‘a maniac’, Jinnah proclaimed Pakistan in 1947 with the apparent declaration of “L’etat c’est moi” (I am the State).
Therein lay the seeds of the ‘botched situation’ which Pakistan faces today.
Jinnah’s Muslim League was so top heavy and so engrossed in inflaming passions to garner authority and territorial assignments that it failed to incorporate institutionalization and concomitant democratization. On top of that, the indelible imprint of the Bangladeshi scar ‘coerced’ the military to search for a ‘paramour’ in the Jihadi network.
Jinnah’s political base was never in today’s Pakistan; rather it was in today’s India! He used to control the League through commands. The Muslim League did not fare well in elections till 1946. The lackadaisical approach of the regional Muslim parties contributed to its success to a definite degree. Nonetheless, the League’s malicious harangue against the Congress and the cry of ‘Islam in danger’ worked wonders, albeit for the time being. When the enemy was no more, the goal was obscure. The obduracy and intransigence of Jinnah and other League leaders was good enough to form Pakistan but not to keep the country embonpoint.
The offshoots of such a policy are glaringly obvious today.
Unless the Pakistani State apparatus assumes the configuration of the “Leviathan” 11 and separates itself from the ecclesiastical; unless the civil society stands upright and unless the common man asserts himself, Hobbesian state of nature 12 looms large on the Pakistani horizon.
The then leadership of the Congress also cannot deny the burden of opprobrium. Probably, a séance has to be organized.
=====================================================================
References/End Notes
1: Quaid’s birthplace remains inaccessible, Friday 25 December 2009, DAWN.COM
2: Suicide attack on Ashura procession kills 33 in Karachi, Tuesday 29 December 2009, DAWN.COM
3: Karachi Blast Suicide Attack, Monday 28 December 2009, THECURRENTAFFAIRS.COM
4: Anita Inder Singh, The Partition of India, National Book Trust, India, 2006, p. 29
5: H D Sharma, 100 Great Lives, Rupa & Co., 2006, p. 81
6: A civil-military rebellion erupted in mainly Northern part of the sub-continent (Awadh province) on 10 May 1857 at Meerut, presently in the Uttar Pradesh province in India. Nationalist Historians have termed it as the First War of Independence.
7: H D Sharma, 100 Great Lives, Rupa & Co., 2006, p. 287
8: A G Noorani, The Durand Line, Saturday 26 December 2009, DAWN.COM
9: Pakistan, Constitutional Beginnings, Library of Congress Country Studies, US Department of the Army
10: Muslims believe the Mahdi will rid the world of error, injustice and tyranny
11: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) conveyed the image of the state as the supreme power by portraying it as a Leviathan, a gigantic sea monster. He attributed such largeness to the state due to the sovereignty associated with the modern day state.
12: Hobbes’ state of nature is that of anarchy and disorder
15 January, 2010
Hakeemullah: Dead or Alive?
PESHAWAR: Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) Pakistan have released an audio tape of Hakeemullah Mehsud as reports emerged that the TTP chief had been injured in a fresh drone attack, DawnNews reported.
The audio recording was allegedly made Friday and sent to media outlets by unnamed Taliban militants in which the group's leader says he is alive.
The message comes after missiles from unmanned US aircraft pounded the northwest tribal belt on Thursday killing at least 15 militants, with some security officials saying Mehsud was among the dead.
In the recording, Mehsud accused the government of using the media as a propaganda tool against the Taliban.
“Sometimes they (the government) launch a propaganda about my martyrdom through the media and sometimes they say that the operation has been completed in South Waziristan. This can never happen,” Mehsud said.
He was referring to military operations against Taliban strongholds launched last year in the lawless tribal district of South Waziristan.
"I am telling the nation that drone strikes are against Pakistan's sovereignty and the rulers will be responsible for any drastic step taken by the Taliban in retaliation," said Mehsud.
Reporters familiar with Mehsud said the voice appeared to be his, but there was no mention of dates or the specific strike alleged to have killed him.
Mehsud assumed leadership of the group blamed for the deaths of thousands of people in attacks in Pakistan after his predecessor, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in a US drone strike in August last year.
Rumours also surfaced in October last year that Hakeemullah Mehsud was killed, prompting the militant chief to put out a number of statements denying his demise.
There was no way to independently confirm whether the message released Friday was recorded before or after Thursday's strike.(courtesy-DAWN)
The audio recording was allegedly made Friday and sent to media outlets by unnamed Taliban militants in which the group's leader says he is alive.
The message comes after missiles from unmanned US aircraft pounded the northwest tribal belt on Thursday killing at least 15 militants, with some security officials saying Mehsud was among the dead.
In the recording, Mehsud accused the government of using the media as a propaganda tool against the Taliban.
“Sometimes they (the government) launch a propaganda about my martyrdom through the media and sometimes they say that the operation has been completed in South Waziristan. This can never happen,” Mehsud said.
He was referring to military operations against Taliban strongholds launched last year in the lawless tribal district of South Waziristan.
"I am telling the nation that drone strikes are against Pakistan's sovereignty and the rulers will be responsible for any drastic step taken by the Taliban in retaliation," said Mehsud.
Reporters familiar with Mehsud said the voice appeared to be his, but there was no mention of dates or the specific strike alleged to have killed him.
Mehsud assumed leadership of the group blamed for the deaths of thousands of people in attacks in Pakistan after his predecessor, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in a US drone strike in August last year.
Rumours also surfaced in October last year that Hakeemullah Mehsud was killed, prompting the militant chief to put out a number of statements denying his demise.
There was no way to independently confirm whether the message released Friday was recorded before or after Thursday's strike.(courtesy-DAWN)
13 January, 2010
Uneasy Calm at Nayagarh
The following piece is part of a Book titled : "Naxalism: Issues and Concerns". It was a solicited article.
=======================================================================
It was probably any other day at Nayagarh. People were carrying on their daily chores as usual. Workers returned to home at dusk. Hardly the children or the aged or the women folk were aware of the thunderbolt that was going to strike the area, or did they know ? Whatever it was, the upshot is that the night of 15th February, 2008 remains a memorable one for the Nayagarh-ites and would continue to be so. Not unlike any commercial thriller, the Maoists pillaged the Police stations in the area, looted a huge cache of arms and ammunition and also killed the Assistant Sub-Inspector Dandapani Mishra. They had arrived in large numbers, about 500-600 in total, in trucks and on motorcycles.
Now in what way is this assault of the Maoists unique that it requires a threadbare analysis ? Moreover, keeping in mind the plethora of attacks they have had launched over the past five years, this one at Nayagarh might not be that pertinent to be ascribed so much importance; especially, after such dramatic events like that in Koraput in 2004 or the Jehanabad jail break in 2005. Agreed that such events or even the assassination bid on Chandrababu Naidu would be considered notches up in terms of intensity or ferocity, but the issue which warrants special attention here is the proliferation of the Maoists in the interior of Orissa.
And that has to be given due recognition. It is a fact that the Red Corridor passes through Orissa, but the border districts like Gajapati, Rayagada, Koraput and Malkanagiri in the south and Deogarh, Sundargarh, Jharsuguda and Sambalpur in the north are mostly affected. Penetrating so deep into the heartland not only speaks volumes of the military success of the Maoists but also signify their expanding socio-political network in the region. Moreover, the casual approach of the local administration along with the failure of their espionage system have to be held responsible for this ominous incident.
Starting from the deadly mine attack on the then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu in 2003, the Maoists have thus come far in terms of their reach and military prowess. Or it may be that they are trying to create a notion in the mind of the administration regarding their penetrative abilities by embarking on sudden guerilla attacks on towns away from their core areas. Nevertheless, the Nayagarh event was startling and it was one among the series of such field actions of the Maoists which they are carrying out with élan since the camaraderie that they achieved after the unification of the two erstwhile warring factions : Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) and People’s War Group (PWG) in late 2004; a decisive moment in the history of the Naxalite movement in India.
It all began in March 1967 with a young share-cropper Bigul Kisan, in the Naxalbari area being attacked by armed goons of the local jotedar when he had gone to till the land after having a judicial order. Oppression was thwarted by arms, autocracy of the landlord-bourgeoisie nexus was bludgeoned by a unified band of tribal-peasants : invigorated by the fiery speeches of the cult-figure Charu Mazumdar. Since then, the movement has seen several ups and downs, bitter internecine showdowns, severe State repressions as well as splits, mergers and a Mega-merger. But the central theme of the Naxalites has remained almost the same. They have viewed independent India as a multi-national country and supported the right of nationalities to self-determination, including secession. Moreover, they have clearly stated that the ruling bourgeoisie is comprador, Indian independence was fake, and that India has a semi-colonial and semi-feudal status. Thus, in order to establish a people’s government in India, Mao Zedong’s guerilla warfare tactics have to be employed and a protracted armed agrarian revolution is the only feasible solution in this regard.
Coming back to Nayagarh on the eventful night of 15th February, it would hardly be necessary to solve intricate mathematical equations to predict the future security calculus of the region. Nayagarh is strategically close to the pilgrim site of Puri in the south-east and the capital Bhubaneswar in the north-east. In fact, it was carved out of the Puri district itself in 1995. Thus a full-scale Maoist offensive on Nayagarh would act as an apparition for the nearby districts. Moreover, the incident can also have a debilitating effect on the influx of tourists to Puri. Furthermore, attacks of this class can stem the inflow of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in future. Given the predilection of the Maoists against foreign capital and POSCO’s venture at Paradip, a port barely 120 km by road from Bhubaneswar; such a hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Apart from these, it is noteworthy that the civilian casualty was remarkably low (only one civilian was killed in the crossfire). The Naxalites, as they entered the area, kept on warning the locals regarding the coming tussle and requested them to stay indoors. The modus-operandi is similar to what they had adopted in such mass operations elsewhere. This goes to show that the Maoists are trying to establish themselves as an organization against the oppressive State machinery and not against the masses. They are determined to remove the ‘terrorist’ tag. Also, it is natural that a closer contact with the masses would help the Maoists to engineer the economy of the area. The sugarcane cultivation in the region may be the focal point of attraction for the Maoists.
Hence the state and the Union administration have started to act in unison to weed out the menace before it assumes cyclopean proportions. Indeed they have to, before it becomes too late. But to only consider the Maoist problem as an administrative hindrance would be myopic. Unless the tribals and peasants are properly empowered, the Naxalite problem would persist. The top rebel leader Sabyasachi Panda : the chief architect of Maoism in Orissa since 1996, belongs to the town. Well, he has a number of admirers in the political circles of Orissa !! Before Sabyasachi Panda of Nayagarh establishes himself in the annals of Indian History as a legendary figure, the administration has to assert itself, though not in the manner of “Salwa Judum“ in Chattisgarh. Till then, an uneasy calm prevails at Nayagarh and in Orissa.
======================================================================
=======================================================================
It was probably any other day at Nayagarh. People were carrying on their daily chores as usual. Workers returned to home at dusk. Hardly the children or the aged or the women folk were aware of the thunderbolt that was going to strike the area, or did they know ? Whatever it was, the upshot is that the night of 15th February, 2008 remains a memorable one for the Nayagarh-ites and would continue to be so. Not unlike any commercial thriller, the Maoists pillaged the Police stations in the area, looted a huge cache of arms and ammunition and also killed the Assistant Sub-Inspector Dandapani Mishra. They had arrived in large numbers, about 500-600 in total, in trucks and on motorcycles.
Now in what way is this assault of the Maoists unique that it requires a threadbare analysis ? Moreover, keeping in mind the plethora of attacks they have had launched over the past five years, this one at Nayagarh might not be that pertinent to be ascribed so much importance; especially, after such dramatic events like that in Koraput in 2004 or the Jehanabad jail break in 2005. Agreed that such events or even the assassination bid on Chandrababu Naidu would be considered notches up in terms of intensity or ferocity, but the issue which warrants special attention here is the proliferation of the Maoists in the interior of Orissa.
And that has to be given due recognition. It is a fact that the Red Corridor passes through Orissa, but the border districts like Gajapati, Rayagada, Koraput and Malkanagiri in the south and Deogarh, Sundargarh, Jharsuguda and Sambalpur in the north are mostly affected. Penetrating so deep into the heartland not only speaks volumes of the military success of the Maoists but also signify their expanding socio-political network in the region. Moreover, the casual approach of the local administration along with the failure of their espionage system have to be held responsible for this ominous incident.
Starting from the deadly mine attack on the then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu in 2003, the Maoists have thus come far in terms of their reach and military prowess. Or it may be that they are trying to create a notion in the mind of the administration regarding their penetrative abilities by embarking on sudden guerilla attacks on towns away from their core areas. Nevertheless, the Nayagarh event was startling and it was one among the series of such field actions of the Maoists which they are carrying out with élan since the camaraderie that they achieved after the unification of the two erstwhile warring factions : Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) and People’s War Group (PWG) in late 2004; a decisive moment in the history of the Naxalite movement in India.
It all began in March 1967 with a young share-cropper Bigul Kisan, in the Naxalbari area being attacked by armed goons of the local jotedar when he had gone to till the land after having a judicial order. Oppression was thwarted by arms, autocracy of the landlord-bourgeoisie nexus was bludgeoned by a unified band of tribal-peasants : invigorated by the fiery speeches of the cult-figure Charu Mazumdar. Since then, the movement has seen several ups and downs, bitter internecine showdowns, severe State repressions as well as splits, mergers and a Mega-merger. But the central theme of the Naxalites has remained almost the same. They have viewed independent India as a multi-national country and supported the right of nationalities to self-determination, including secession. Moreover, they have clearly stated that the ruling bourgeoisie is comprador, Indian independence was fake, and that India has a semi-colonial and semi-feudal status. Thus, in order to establish a people’s government in India, Mao Zedong’s guerilla warfare tactics have to be employed and a protracted armed agrarian revolution is the only feasible solution in this regard.
Coming back to Nayagarh on the eventful night of 15th February, it would hardly be necessary to solve intricate mathematical equations to predict the future security calculus of the region. Nayagarh is strategically close to the pilgrim site of Puri in the south-east and the capital Bhubaneswar in the north-east. In fact, it was carved out of the Puri district itself in 1995. Thus a full-scale Maoist offensive on Nayagarh would act as an apparition for the nearby districts. Moreover, the incident can also have a debilitating effect on the influx of tourists to Puri. Furthermore, attacks of this class can stem the inflow of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in future. Given the predilection of the Maoists against foreign capital and POSCO’s venture at Paradip, a port barely 120 km by road from Bhubaneswar; such a hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Apart from these, it is noteworthy that the civilian casualty was remarkably low (only one civilian was killed in the crossfire). The Naxalites, as they entered the area, kept on warning the locals regarding the coming tussle and requested them to stay indoors. The modus-operandi is similar to what they had adopted in such mass operations elsewhere. This goes to show that the Maoists are trying to establish themselves as an organization against the oppressive State machinery and not against the masses. They are determined to remove the ‘terrorist’ tag. Also, it is natural that a closer contact with the masses would help the Maoists to engineer the economy of the area. The sugarcane cultivation in the region may be the focal point of attraction for the Maoists.
Hence the state and the Union administration have started to act in unison to weed out the menace before it assumes cyclopean proportions. Indeed they have to, before it becomes too late. But to only consider the Maoist problem as an administrative hindrance would be myopic. Unless the tribals and peasants are properly empowered, the Naxalite problem would persist. The top rebel leader Sabyasachi Panda : the chief architect of Maoism in Orissa since 1996, belongs to the town. Well, he has a number of admirers in the political circles of Orissa !! Before Sabyasachi Panda of Nayagarh establishes himself in the annals of Indian History as a legendary figure, the administration has to assert itself, though not in the manner of “Salwa Judum“ in Chattisgarh. Till then, an uneasy calm prevails at Nayagarh and in Orissa.
======================================================================
06 January, 2010
India on the Brink of a Major Showdown
The following article of mine has been published today in News Blaze
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100106084151uddi.nb/topstory.html
==================================================================
The apparition of 1967 is haunting India yet again, and this time on a far more serious scale. The then 'Naxals' are now being termed as 'Maoists'. Only the nomenclature has changed, but the essence of the problem remains. The genesis of the armed resistance in 1967 was in the 'Naxalbari' village of the eastern province of West Bengal. At that juncture, the movement was temporarily curbed by the 'state apparatus'. What the Indian authorities and policy-makers failed to address, was not the 'law and order' problem but the development and empowerment issues (or the lack of those) at the grass-root level which helped form the backbone of the movement.
Any insurgency sustains itself by feeding on the population. In this case too, the Maoists are doing it no differently. The 'protracted people's war' which was thought to have fizzled out in the early 1970s with the mass arrests of the top brass and the consequent demoralization and innumerable schisms within the party structure of the Naxals, raised its serpentine head in 2004 with the unification of the erstwhile Peoples War Group (PWG) and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). Since then, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has 'upped the ante' and extended their dominions to penetrate large swathes of the Indian landmass. Presently, about 200 of the total 600 districts in India are under the 'Maoist Influence'. The area basically stretches from the Indo-Nepal border in the north to the southern part of the subcontinent; cutting across several provinces in its trajectory.
The headquarters of the guerrillas is in the dense forests of Central India, named Dandakaranya; which has historical connotations pertaining to the 'Ramayana era'(One of the Indian epics). Interestingly, the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government under Dr. Manmohan Singh came to the helm at New Delhi in 2004 itself but did not follow any well-coordinated policy of combating the 'Red Menace'. It was largely left to the individual provinces as 'Public Order' and 'Police' are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces ('states') as per the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. And this has been a major reason for the escalation of Maoist-related casualties in the country.
Furthermore, 'alienation' of the tribal population from the mainstream, failure of the government to address the basic livelihood issues of the forest-dwellers and treating the Maoist insurgency as merely a 'law and order' problem has taken the situation to more precarious levels.
Data from the Ministry of Home Affairs of India clearly show a gradual rise of the number of casualties due to Maoist insurgency since 2004. In fact in 2009, the ultras started venturing into territorial domains where previously they did not have a considerable mass-base. The June 2009 offensive by the insurgents at 'Lalgarh' in West Bengal was alarming as the said province had almost totally got rid of Maoism since the early 1970s due to the equitable land distribution schemes launched by the Marxist party which came to power through proper democratic elections.
Actually, indiscriminate bartering away of agrarian lands to corporate houses in the name of industrialization without creating an atmosphere of consensus amongst the peasants was the chief cause behind the 'recent resentment' of the rural populace. Moreover, lack of a proper credit and banking system in the Indian interiors leave the peasantry at the mercy of the moneylenders; which in turn aggravate their distress and lead to 'suicides'. And this disgruntlement engenders the Maoist doctrine.
Returning back to power in May 2009 for the second consecutive term, the UPA coalition had a formidable task to deal with; and that was to tackle the Left Wing Extremism which had emerged as the 'biggest internal security threat', even larger than the Kashmir imbroglio or the North-Eastern terrorism.
Hence, the much hyped "Operation Green Hunt" was launched in the Dantewada district of the Central Indian state of Chattisgarh in September 2009. The Union government was able to launch such a military offensive based on the premise that Entry 2A of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution permits the Centre 'to deploy armed forces in the provinces'. In this venture, the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMF) and the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA) which is specially trained in jungle warfare are also likely to move into the later stages of the operation. The deployment of helicopters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for transportation and rescue operations of troops is also being considered. The Gadchiroli district in the Western state of Maharashtra was the second place where the said operation was likely to have been unleashed in the first week of November.
In the face of vehement criticism by large sections of civil society and human rights groups against this military offensive, the Home Ministry has probably put a halt on the operation. Nevertheless, the tactical pressure seems to have worked as the Maoists have in a formal statement offered a ceasefire, but only if the government dropped its pre-condition that the ultras abjure violence.
And very recently, the Home Ministry has also proposed for dialogue with the ultras, dropping the pre-condition of laying down their arms.
On the other hand, there are reports of a covert alliance of the 'almost decimated' Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Maoists of India. If this fructifies, then the scenario would be more menacing for the Indian authorities. Actually the sagging LTTE may want to bolster their structure through a fresh base in South India, close to the Lankan landmass whereas the Maoists would seek to cash in on the 'land warfare expertise' of the LTTE. Also, the worldwide arms racket that the LTTE is very much aware of can be an option for the Maoists.
Recently, the Home Secretary of India, G K Pillai has suggested that 'small arms and ammunitions' from China are being smuggled into India to feed the Maoist rebels. This opens up a completely new dimension of the quandary. Not to forget, the ideological support that the Naxal movement enjoyed in its early days from Peking (Beijing). The disturbed 'political climate' between India and China might suffer another blow from this angle with Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh already generating controversy.
The solutions to this imbroglio are non-linear. Analysts and experts have opined that the Indian government needs to have 'unconditional' talk with the Maoists. Honest efforts have to be made on the part of the mainstream to bring the tribals within the 'social pale'. The huge tracts of land housing mineral resources need to be holistically dealt with. The government can broker a viable deal between the tribals and the corporate sector, with a 'win-win' situation for both. Basic facilities like job opportunities, education, health care and sanitation needs to be pumped into the tribal areas. But whatever be the policies and whether or not the government embarks on a military offensive, the wisdom has to prevail regarding minimizing the collateral damage because that is the basic tenet of 'counter-insurgency'. A 'cul-de-sac' has to be avoided at any logical cost.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100106084151uddi.nb/topstory.html
==================================================================
The apparition of 1967 is haunting India yet again, and this time on a far more serious scale. The then 'Naxals' are now being termed as 'Maoists'. Only the nomenclature has changed, but the essence of the problem remains. The genesis of the armed resistance in 1967 was in the 'Naxalbari' village of the eastern province of West Bengal. At that juncture, the movement was temporarily curbed by the 'state apparatus'. What the Indian authorities and policy-makers failed to address, was not the 'law and order' problem but the development and empowerment issues (or the lack of those) at the grass-root level which helped form the backbone of the movement.
Any insurgency sustains itself by feeding on the population. In this case too, the Maoists are doing it no differently. The 'protracted people's war' which was thought to have fizzled out in the early 1970s with the mass arrests of the top brass and the consequent demoralization and innumerable schisms within the party structure of the Naxals, raised its serpentine head in 2004 with the unification of the erstwhile Peoples War Group (PWG) and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). Since then, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has 'upped the ante' and extended their dominions to penetrate large swathes of the Indian landmass. Presently, about 200 of the total 600 districts in India are under the 'Maoist Influence'. The area basically stretches from the Indo-Nepal border in the north to the southern part of the subcontinent; cutting across several provinces in its trajectory.
The headquarters of the guerrillas is in the dense forests of Central India, named Dandakaranya; which has historical connotations pertaining to the 'Ramayana era'(One of the Indian epics). Interestingly, the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government under Dr. Manmohan Singh came to the helm at New Delhi in 2004 itself but did not follow any well-coordinated policy of combating the 'Red Menace'. It was largely left to the individual provinces as 'Public Order' and 'Police' are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces ('states') as per the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. And this has been a major reason for the escalation of Maoist-related casualties in the country.
Furthermore, 'alienation' of the tribal population from the mainstream, failure of the government to address the basic livelihood issues of the forest-dwellers and treating the Maoist insurgency as merely a 'law and order' problem has taken the situation to more precarious levels.
Data from the Ministry of Home Affairs of India clearly show a gradual rise of the number of casualties due to Maoist insurgency since 2004. In fact in 2009, the ultras started venturing into territorial domains where previously they did not have a considerable mass-base. The June 2009 offensive by the insurgents at 'Lalgarh' in West Bengal was alarming as the said province had almost totally got rid of Maoism since the early 1970s due to the equitable land distribution schemes launched by the Marxist party which came to power through proper democratic elections.
Actually, indiscriminate bartering away of agrarian lands to corporate houses in the name of industrialization without creating an atmosphere of consensus amongst the peasants was the chief cause behind the 'recent resentment' of the rural populace. Moreover, lack of a proper credit and banking system in the Indian interiors leave the peasantry at the mercy of the moneylenders; which in turn aggravate their distress and lead to 'suicides'. And this disgruntlement engenders the Maoist doctrine.
Returning back to power in May 2009 for the second consecutive term, the UPA coalition had a formidable task to deal with; and that was to tackle the Left Wing Extremism which had emerged as the 'biggest internal security threat', even larger than the Kashmir imbroglio or the North-Eastern terrorism.
Hence, the much hyped "Operation Green Hunt" was launched in the Dantewada district of the Central Indian state of Chattisgarh in September 2009. The Union government was able to launch such a military offensive based on the premise that Entry 2A of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution permits the Centre 'to deploy armed forces in the provinces'. In this venture, the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMF) and the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA) which is specially trained in jungle warfare are also likely to move into the later stages of the operation. The deployment of helicopters of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for transportation and rescue operations of troops is also being considered. The Gadchiroli district in the Western state of Maharashtra was the second place where the said operation was likely to have been unleashed in the first week of November.
In the face of vehement criticism by large sections of civil society and human rights groups against this military offensive, the Home Ministry has probably put a halt on the operation. Nevertheless, the tactical pressure seems to have worked as the Maoists have in a formal statement offered a ceasefire, but only if the government dropped its pre-condition that the ultras abjure violence.
And very recently, the Home Ministry has also proposed for dialogue with the ultras, dropping the pre-condition of laying down their arms.
On the other hand, there are reports of a covert alliance of the 'almost decimated' Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Maoists of India. If this fructifies, then the scenario would be more menacing for the Indian authorities. Actually the sagging LTTE may want to bolster their structure through a fresh base in South India, close to the Lankan landmass whereas the Maoists would seek to cash in on the 'land warfare expertise' of the LTTE. Also, the worldwide arms racket that the LTTE is very much aware of can be an option for the Maoists.
Recently, the Home Secretary of India, G K Pillai has suggested that 'small arms and ammunitions' from China are being smuggled into India to feed the Maoist rebels. This opens up a completely new dimension of the quandary. Not to forget, the ideological support that the Naxal movement enjoyed in its early days from Peking (Beijing). The disturbed 'political climate' between India and China might suffer another blow from this angle with Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh already generating controversy.
The solutions to this imbroglio are non-linear. Analysts and experts have opined that the Indian government needs to have 'unconditional' talk with the Maoists. Honest efforts have to be made on the part of the mainstream to bring the tribals within the 'social pale'. The huge tracts of land housing mineral resources need to be holistically dealt with. The government can broker a viable deal between the tribals and the corporate sector, with a 'win-win' situation for both. Basic facilities like job opportunities, education, health care and sanitation needs to be pumped into the tribal areas. But whatever be the policies and whether or not the government embarks on a military offensive, the wisdom has to prevail regarding minimizing the collateral damage because that is the basic tenet of 'counter-insurgency'. A 'cul-de-sac' has to be avoided at any logical cost.
31 December, 2009
India's Quiet Diplomacy Turns Quieter
The following article has been published in an edited format in
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/12/31/indias_quiet_diplomacy_turns_quieter/9217/
================================================================
On 22 December, India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram offered a Christmas bonanza for the Maoist insurgents. He uttered: “If you abjure violence, we are ready to talk. We are not asking them to lay down arms. They will not do it now.” That too in an ambience when the Maoist politburo member Koteshwar Rao alias Kishenji declared that they would agree to a ceasefire provided the authorities suspended their operations.
The aforementioned gesture had an exclamatory aroma. This is so because barely a couple of months ago, Chidambaram was reluctant to talk to the indigenous Leftist rebels unless they laid down their arms; though he announced the proposition for talks with the separatist groups in Kashmir without imposing similar conditions.
Furthermore, on 17 December, India decided to pull out around 30,000 troops from Kashmir in a bid to ease tension in the valley. This was done on the premise that the security situation was improving. Paradoxically though, ceasefire violations took place a number of times from the other side of the border.
Chidambaram has termed his way of tackling insurgency as “Quiet Diplomacy”. The term should not be construed as his invention. But definitely his “praxis” is an essay with the Indian peculiarities in the background.
Even European Union’s (EU) new Foreign Secretary Catherine Ashton upholds the same term when she writes in Times online: “I believe that a lot can be achieved with Quiet Diplomacy. We need people who can listen as well as talk, and who can work behind the scenes as well as in the glare of the spotlight. What we also need is concerted action to achieve our goals.”
According to the parlance of Political Science, ‘Diplomacy’ is the management of International Relations and politics through negotiations. But it can get vociferous at times, with coercion being applied by one state actor over another. On the other hand, “Quiet Diplomacy” rests on the tenets of ‘rapproachement’, ‘providing space’ and ‘ethics and morality’; shunning “Realpolitik” (politics based on realism).
Quiet Diplomacy (QD) is distinctly different from “gun-boat diplomacy” (through force) or “public diplomacy” (through propaganda). In fact, QD is that form of diplomacy which may be interpreted as a subset of “Preventive Diplomacy”. The latter is defined in Article 33 of the UN Charter and encompasses all possible modes of conflict resolution; viz. negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of choice adopted by the parties to the dispute.
It is assumed that when the state is following QD, it should not stick to publicity against the other party; which is yet to be witnessed in case of the Maoists because the government has unceasingly indulged in a hate-campaign against them. The target of QD is to create atmosphere for talks, alleviating the milieu of hatred.
In that regard, both Kishenji and Chidambaram are justified in their own domains since both want the other party to stop their actions first and then come to the discussion table.
Now, the question of the hour is why did the Home Ministry turn to QD, first in case of Kashmir and thereafter the Maoists? It seems that the overabundance of criticism by the civil society against the authorities is probably telling its tale. It can also be possible that the Ministry has understood the futility of pursuing an ostentatious policy regarding domestic security.
India’s liberal outlook pertaining to International problems, age-old culture of peace and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s ‘mitigative influence’ might have softened the stance of the Home Ministry. Still, the change in policy can be merely a ‘pragmatic stance’, without any ethical fabric. The Ministry has of late probably understood that ‘trust deficit’ was widening between the rebels/insurgents and the executive.
Strategy regarding the Maoists can be comprehensible, but troop pullout from Kashmir may be seen in the light of impending Muharram (Muslim Festival). It can also be perceived from the point of Pakistan’s stance in filing First Information Report (FIR) against Hafeez Saeed, the terrorist who allegedly masterminded the 26/11 Mumbai carnage.
As such, not much should be read into the present troop decrement in Kashmir as this Government did something similar in 2004 too, though numerically speaking, the figures then were about 20,000 combatants.
Exchange Policy with Pakistan or for that matter any neighbour is fine; but only till it suits national interests. Any kowtowing under external browbeating would be intolerable. QD needs to be a coherent policy, which this author had pleaded in an earlier article in this forum itself. Applicability of QD should focus on principles, and not on parties. Inconsistency is completely uncalled for in this context. The Union Home Ministry must keep in mind one more thing while devising policies that it should have a proper coordination with the provincial governments as “Law and Order” remains a provincial subject as per the Constitutional provisions.
‘Banal Empiricism’ in framing domestic security policies would be balderdash.
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/12/31/indias_quiet_diplomacy_turns_quieter/9217/
================================================================
On 22 December, India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram offered a Christmas bonanza for the Maoist insurgents. He uttered: “If you abjure violence, we are ready to talk. We are not asking them to lay down arms. They will not do it now.” That too in an ambience when the Maoist politburo member Koteshwar Rao alias Kishenji declared that they would agree to a ceasefire provided the authorities suspended their operations.
The aforementioned gesture had an exclamatory aroma. This is so because barely a couple of months ago, Chidambaram was reluctant to talk to the indigenous Leftist rebels unless they laid down their arms; though he announced the proposition for talks with the separatist groups in Kashmir without imposing similar conditions.
Furthermore, on 17 December, India decided to pull out around 30,000 troops from Kashmir in a bid to ease tension in the valley. This was done on the premise that the security situation was improving. Paradoxically though, ceasefire violations took place a number of times from the other side of the border.
Chidambaram has termed his way of tackling insurgency as “Quiet Diplomacy”. The term should not be construed as his invention. But definitely his “praxis” is an essay with the Indian peculiarities in the background.
Even European Union’s (EU) new Foreign Secretary Catherine Ashton upholds the same term when she writes in Times online: “I believe that a lot can be achieved with Quiet Diplomacy. We need people who can listen as well as talk, and who can work behind the scenes as well as in the glare of the spotlight. What we also need is concerted action to achieve our goals.”
According to the parlance of Political Science, ‘Diplomacy’ is the management of International Relations and politics through negotiations. But it can get vociferous at times, with coercion being applied by one state actor over another. On the other hand, “Quiet Diplomacy” rests on the tenets of ‘rapproachement’, ‘providing space’ and ‘ethics and morality’; shunning “Realpolitik” (politics based on realism).
Quiet Diplomacy (QD) is distinctly different from “gun-boat diplomacy” (through force) or “public diplomacy” (through propaganda). In fact, QD is that form of diplomacy which may be interpreted as a subset of “Preventive Diplomacy”. The latter is defined in Article 33 of the UN Charter and encompasses all possible modes of conflict resolution; viz. negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of choice adopted by the parties to the dispute.
It is assumed that when the state is following QD, it should not stick to publicity against the other party; which is yet to be witnessed in case of the Maoists because the government has unceasingly indulged in a hate-campaign against them. The target of QD is to create atmosphere for talks, alleviating the milieu of hatred.
In that regard, both Kishenji and Chidambaram are justified in their own domains since both want the other party to stop their actions first and then come to the discussion table.
Now, the question of the hour is why did the Home Ministry turn to QD, first in case of Kashmir and thereafter the Maoists? It seems that the overabundance of criticism by the civil society against the authorities is probably telling its tale. It can also be possible that the Ministry has understood the futility of pursuing an ostentatious policy regarding domestic security.
India’s liberal outlook pertaining to International problems, age-old culture of peace and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s ‘mitigative influence’ might have softened the stance of the Home Ministry. Still, the change in policy can be merely a ‘pragmatic stance’, without any ethical fabric. The Ministry has of late probably understood that ‘trust deficit’ was widening between the rebels/insurgents and the executive.
Strategy regarding the Maoists can be comprehensible, but troop pullout from Kashmir may be seen in the light of impending Muharram (Muslim Festival). It can also be perceived from the point of Pakistan’s stance in filing First Information Report (FIR) against Hafeez Saeed, the terrorist who allegedly masterminded the 26/11 Mumbai carnage.
As such, not much should be read into the present troop decrement in Kashmir as this Government did something similar in 2004 too, though numerically speaking, the figures then were about 20,000 combatants.
Exchange Policy with Pakistan or for that matter any neighbour is fine; but only till it suits national interests. Any kowtowing under external browbeating would be intolerable. QD needs to be a coherent policy, which this author had pleaded in an earlier article in this forum itself. Applicability of QD should focus on principles, and not on parties. Inconsistency is completely uncalled for in this context. The Union Home Ministry must keep in mind one more thing while devising policies that it should have a proper coordination with the provincial governments as “Law and Order” remains a provincial subject as per the Constitutional provisions.
‘Banal Empiricism’ in framing domestic security policies would be balderdash.
30 December, 2009
Obama identifies : Af-Pak, YEMEN & guess what? Somalia
In a statement issued on Monday evening, Mr Obama also vowed to track down the plotters behind the attempted Christmas Day aeroplane bombing attack.
He said the attack was a serious reminder of the danger his nation faced.
Mr Obama said he also had ordered a thorough review of the airport screening process to determine how the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was able to fly into the United States.
Commenting on an attempt to bomb a US airliner while it was landing in Detroit, the president said he had directed his national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack his country. “We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defences,” he said.
“We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the US homeland.”
Mr Obama noted that apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in the US security system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list.
“So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened,” he said.
The second review would examine all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel, he added. “We need to determine just how the suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional steps we can take to thwart future attacks.”
He said the attack was a serious reminder of the danger his nation faced.
Mr Obama said he also had ordered a thorough review of the airport screening process to determine how the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was able to fly into the United States.
Commenting on an attempt to bomb a US airliner while it was landing in Detroit, the president said he had directed his national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack his country. “We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defences,” he said.
“We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the US homeland.”
Mr Obama noted that apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in the US security system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list.
“So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened,” he said.
The second review would examine all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel, he added. “We need to determine just how the suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional steps we can take to thwart future attacks.”
TTP claims Karachi bombings on the eve of Muharram : Naturally though
"My group claims responsibility for the Karachi attack and we will carry out more such attacks, within 10 days,” Asmatullah Shaheen, one of the commanders of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Taliban Movement of Pakistan, who spoke by telephone to a Reuters reporter in Peshawar.
The prospect of more violence comes at a tough time for embattled President Asif Ali Zardari. He already faces political pressure because corruption charges against some of his aides may be revived.
And Zardari has yet to formulate a more effective strategy against the Pakistani Taliban, despite relentless pressure from Washington, which wants his government to root out militants who cross over to attack US and Nato-led forces in Afghanistan and then return to their Pakistan strongholds.
The scale of his challenges was clear on Monday, when a suicide bomber defied heavy security around a Shia procession, killing 43 people and triggering riots.
In a sign of mounting frustrations, Pakistani religious and political leaders called for a strike for Friday to condemn that attack, one of the worst in Karachi since 2007.
The bloodshed illustrated how the Taliban, whose strongholds are in the lawless northwest, have extended their reach to major cities in their drive to topple the government.
“The bombing itself was bad enough, but the violence that immediately erupted was also very well planned,” said Sunni scholar Mufti Muneebur Rehman, who blamed Pakistani authorities for the chaos.
“We want the government not only to compensate those killed in the attacks, but also those who lost their livelihoods, and so we are calling for a complete strike on Friday,” he said.
The Taliban campaign and their hardline brand of Islam — which involves public hangings and whippings of anyone who disobeys them — angered many Pakistanis.
But the Karachi bomb suggested growing violence has raised suspicions of Pakistan's government.
“The government is using the Taliban as an excuse for everything that is happening anywhere in the country,” said Noman Ahmed, who works for a Karachi clearing agency.
“The organised way that all this is being done clearly shows that the terrorists are being sponsored either by the government itself or some other state that wants to destabilise Pakistan.”
Security policy
Pakistan's all-powerful military sets security policy. So the key gauge of public confidence may be how the army's performance is viewed. In the 1980s, Pakistan's army nurtured militant groups who fought Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban emerged in the 1990's after a civil war in Afghanistan.
Now Pakistan's army faces home-grown militants.
“I don't buy that foreign hands are involved (in the Karachi attack). They're domestic elements. They're those who were nurtured, trained and protected in late 1990s,” said Sajid Ali Naqvi, head of the influential Shias' Islami Tehrik movement.
The bombing was one of the bloodiest in Karachi since an October 2007 attack on former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her return to the country that killed at least 139 people.
Shia leaders, as well as Karachi's dominant Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) political party, backed the strike call, which could bring the teeming city of 18 million to a standstill.
The high-profile bloodshed had all the hallmarks of the Taliban, who often bomb crowded areas to inflict maximum casualties. The blast led some Pakistanis to conclude that several hands must have been involved.
“The Taliban, or whoever is behind this, cannot do it without the support of a government,” said Shahid Mahmood, whose perfume and watch shops were torched in the riots.
“They know that Karachi is the heart of Pakistan and if it goes down, the country will go down.”
The prospect of more violence comes at a tough time for embattled President Asif Ali Zardari. He already faces political pressure because corruption charges against some of his aides may be revived.
And Zardari has yet to formulate a more effective strategy against the Pakistani Taliban, despite relentless pressure from Washington, which wants his government to root out militants who cross over to attack US and Nato-led forces in Afghanistan and then return to their Pakistan strongholds.
The scale of his challenges was clear on Monday, when a suicide bomber defied heavy security around a Shia procession, killing 43 people and triggering riots.
In a sign of mounting frustrations, Pakistani religious and political leaders called for a strike for Friday to condemn that attack, one of the worst in Karachi since 2007.
The bloodshed illustrated how the Taliban, whose strongholds are in the lawless northwest, have extended their reach to major cities in their drive to topple the government.
“The bombing itself was bad enough, but the violence that immediately erupted was also very well planned,” said Sunni scholar Mufti Muneebur Rehman, who blamed Pakistani authorities for the chaos.
“We want the government not only to compensate those killed in the attacks, but also those who lost their livelihoods, and so we are calling for a complete strike on Friday,” he said.
The Taliban campaign and their hardline brand of Islam — which involves public hangings and whippings of anyone who disobeys them — angered many Pakistanis.
But the Karachi bomb suggested growing violence has raised suspicions of Pakistan's government.
“The government is using the Taliban as an excuse for everything that is happening anywhere in the country,” said Noman Ahmed, who works for a Karachi clearing agency.
“The organised way that all this is being done clearly shows that the terrorists are being sponsored either by the government itself or some other state that wants to destabilise Pakistan.”
Security policy
Pakistan's all-powerful military sets security policy. So the key gauge of public confidence may be how the army's performance is viewed. In the 1980s, Pakistan's army nurtured militant groups who fought Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban emerged in the 1990's after a civil war in Afghanistan.
Now Pakistan's army faces home-grown militants.
“I don't buy that foreign hands are involved (in the Karachi attack). They're domestic elements. They're those who were nurtured, trained and protected in late 1990s,” said Sajid Ali Naqvi, head of the influential Shias' Islami Tehrik movement.
The bombing was one of the bloodiest in Karachi since an October 2007 attack on former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her return to the country that killed at least 139 people.
Shia leaders, as well as Karachi's dominant Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) political party, backed the strike call, which could bring the teeming city of 18 million to a standstill.
The high-profile bloodshed had all the hallmarks of the Taliban, who often bomb crowded areas to inflict maximum casualties. The blast led some Pakistanis to conclude that several hands must have been involved.
“The Taliban, or whoever is behind this, cannot do it without the support of a government,” said Shahid Mahmood, whose perfume and watch shops were torched in the riots.
“They know that Karachi is the heart of Pakistan and if it goes down, the country will go down.”
23 December, 2009
TTP distracting Pakistan & USA
Waliur Rehman told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Monday night that the Pakistani Taliban remain committed to battling the army in the South Waziristan tribal region, but they are essentially waging a guerrilla war.
Rehman is a deputy to Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, and the man in charge of the group's operations in South Waziristan.
‘Since (President Barack) Obama is also sending additional forces to Afghanistan, we sent thousands of our men there to fight Nato and American forces,’ Rehman said.
The Afghan ‘Taliban needed our help at this stage, and we are helping them.’
Col. Wayne Shanks, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan, called Rehman's comments ‘rhetoric’ that were not to be believed.
‘We have not noticed any significant movement of insurgents in the border area,’ he said.
Ishtiaq Ahmad, a professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, speculated the comments were just an attempt to worsen the already tense relationship between the US and Pakistan.
‘When the United States expects Pakistan to synchronise its own counterterrorism policy with the troop surge...the militants issue these statements in an attempt to create problems in this relationship,’ said Ahmad.
Either stance is nearly impossible to independently verify. Access to the tribal belt, especially conflict zones, is severely restricted. Pakistani army spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment.
Rehman spoke in a large mud-brick compound in the Shaktoi area of South Waziristan.
He looked relaxed as a he sat on a carpet surrounded by seven rifle-toting guards and Azam Tariq, a Taliban spokesman. It was apparently the first time either he or Hakimullah Mehsud had given an in-person interview to a journalist since the Pakistani military launched the ground offensive on October 17.
To meet Rehman, the AP reporter travelled to North Waziristan's town of Mir Ali and from there was taken by Taliban militants on a six-hour ride to South Waziristan in a vehicle with tinted windows.
The army sent some 30,000 troops to battle as many as 10,000 militants in South Waziristan, including hundreds of Uzbek fighters. The military estimates it has killed about 600 Taliban fighters. Rehman claimed he'd lost fewer than 20 fighters.
But many of the Pakistani Taliban militants are believed to have fled to other parts of the tribal belt, a semiautonomous stretch of rugged territory that runs along the Afghan border. Most were believed to have gone to North Waziristan, Orakzai and Kurram tribal areas.
The military has launched airstrikes in the latter two regions in recent weeks, and a full offensive might be in the works there.
Rehman, considered to be the strategic brains behind the Pakistani Taliban, said most of his fighters had reached Afghanistan and he didn't need that many insurgents to take on the military in South Waziristan.
He said Hakimullah Mehsud was ‘not far away’ and safe. Hakimullah Mehsud took over the extremist network in August after a US missile strike killed former commander Baitullah Mehsud.
Earlier this week, fliers signed by Mehsud appeared in North Waziristan warning Taliban fighters taking refuge there not to cause problems. It appeared to be an attempt to keep peace with other militants in that region — some of whom have truces with the government.
‘The claims of sending thousands of warriors into Afghanistan and the circulation of such leaflets to appease the warriors in North Waziristan are basically a reflection of increasing desperation of the Pakistani Taliban as it comes under increasing pressure from our security forces,’ said Ahmad, the international relations professor.
Rehman also said his group would stop attacking Pakistani forces if the country would sever its ties with the United States, a somewhat more moderate stance compared with his proclamation in a video he recorded before the South Waziristan operation that the group would fight until it set up an Islamic state in Pakistan.
Since October, militants have launched numerous attacks throughout Pakistan in a wave of violence that has killed more than 500 people, many of them civilians.
‘We would again become Pakistan's brother if Pakistan ends its support for America,’ he said. He claimed the Taliban only attacked security forces and disavowed any strikes on civilian targets.
Rehman urged Obama to focus on shoring up the beleaguered US economy. ‘He should know that Americans don't want war,’ Rehman said. ‘He should use this money for the welfare of his own people.’
He further claimed that Osama bin Laden was safe and alive, but that he had never met the al-Qaeda chief in person. Pakistani officials have long cast doubt on suggestions that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal belt.
‘I know he is in touch with his people and he is communicating with them to convey his instructions,’ Rehman said.
Courtesy - AP
Rehman is a deputy to Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, and the man in charge of the group's operations in South Waziristan.
‘Since (President Barack) Obama is also sending additional forces to Afghanistan, we sent thousands of our men there to fight Nato and American forces,’ Rehman said.
The Afghan ‘Taliban needed our help at this stage, and we are helping them.’
Col. Wayne Shanks, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan, called Rehman's comments ‘rhetoric’ that were not to be believed.
‘We have not noticed any significant movement of insurgents in the border area,’ he said.
Ishtiaq Ahmad, a professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, speculated the comments were just an attempt to worsen the already tense relationship between the US and Pakistan.
‘When the United States expects Pakistan to synchronise its own counterterrorism policy with the troop surge...the militants issue these statements in an attempt to create problems in this relationship,’ said Ahmad.
Either stance is nearly impossible to independently verify. Access to the tribal belt, especially conflict zones, is severely restricted. Pakistani army spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment.
Rehman spoke in a large mud-brick compound in the Shaktoi area of South Waziristan.
He looked relaxed as a he sat on a carpet surrounded by seven rifle-toting guards and Azam Tariq, a Taliban spokesman. It was apparently the first time either he or Hakimullah Mehsud had given an in-person interview to a journalist since the Pakistani military launched the ground offensive on October 17.
To meet Rehman, the AP reporter travelled to North Waziristan's town of Mir Ali and from there was taken by Taliban militants on a six-hour ride to South Waziristan in a vehicle with tinted windows.
The army sent some 30,000 troops to battle as many as 10,000 militants in South Waziristan, including hundreds of Uzbek fighters. The military estimates it has killed about 600 Taliban fighters. Rehman claimed he'd lost fewer than 20 fighters.
But many of the Pakistani Taliban militants are believed to have fled to other parts of the tribal belt, a semiautonomous stretch of rugged territory that runs along the Afghan border. Most were believed to have gone to North Waziristan, Orakzai and Kurram tribal areas.
The military has launched airstrikes in the latter two regions in recent weeks, and a full offensive might be in the works there.
Rehman, considered to be the strategic brains behind the Pakistani Taliban, said most of his fighters had reached Afghanistan and he didn't need that many insurgents to take on the military in South Waziristan.
He said Hakimullah Mehsud was ‘not far away’ and safe. Hakimullah Mehsud took over the extremist network in August after a US missile strike killed former commander Baitullah Mehsud.
Earlier this week, fliers signed by Mehsud appeared in North Waziristan warning Taliban fighters taking refuge there not to cause problems. It appeared to be an attempt to keep peace with other militants in that region — some of whom have truces with the government.
‘The claims of sending thousands of warriors into Afghanistan and the circulation of such leaflets to appease the warriors in North Waziristan are basically a reflection of increasing desperation of the Pakistani Taliban as it comes under increasing pressure from our security forces,’ said Ahmad, the international relations professor.
Rehman also said his group would stop attacking Pakistani forces if the country would sever its ties with the United States, a somewhat more moderate stance compared with his proclamation in a video he recorded before the South Waziristan operation that the group would fight until it set up an Islamic state in Pakistan.
Since October, militants have launched numerous attacks throughout Pakistan in a wave of violence that has killed more than 500 people, many of them civilians.
‘We would again become Pakistan's brother if Pakistan ends its support for America,’ he said. He claimed the Taliban only attacked security forces and disavowed any strikes on civilian targets.
Rehman urged Obama to focus on shoring up the beleaguered US economy. ‘He should know that Americans don't want war,’ Rehman said. ‘He should use this money for the welfare of his own people.’
He further claimed that Osama bin Laden was safe and alive, but that he had never met the al-Qaeda chief in person. Pakistani officials have long cast doubt on suggestions that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal belt.
‘I know he is in touch with his people and he is communicating with them to convey his instructions,’ Rehman said.
Courtesy - AP
21 December, 2009
Fluid Taliban, Rigid Military
An edited version of the following article has been published today in UPI Asia (http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/12/21/pakistan_army_too_rigid_to_beat_fluid_taliban/7281/)
=======================================================================
The much awaited and much vaunted Operation Rah-i-Nijat, chose the propitious moment of October 17 to get itself launched by the Pakistani military. With the ‘not so successful’ previous operations against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) acting as apparitions in the background, the military elite must have taken a conscious decision to go about the duel against its ‘erstwhile ally’.
The military backed by the secret agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); had to act under US pressure and also in order to curb the malicious pre-emptive attacks heaped upon by the TTP on its major cities in the form of suicide bombings.
The rugged topography, former ‘abject’ failures and the fear of loosing its stooge against the ‘childhood enemy’ India; acted as potent parameters in creating a sense of ‘uneasiness’ in the mind of the Pakistani military. But Obama’s cry against terror, albeit asymmetric; somehow propelled them to launch the ground offensive. Nay, not only launch it but continue it for the last two months.
Serious questions that come up are how the military is continuing its journey through the inhospitable terrains of South Waziristan (the southern-most agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA) and why it could not achieve this before? Furthermore, is the Taliban really being destroyed?
On Saturday December 12, the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani proclaimed that the army had ended its offensive against the Taliban in South Waziristan and was shifting focus to Orakzai. Well, does this mean that the Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan have really been demolished and the Army has a new destination?
Not quite.
Actually, the Taliban has started guerrilla warfare and are prolonging this battle. Moreover, they have scattered into other agencies of FATA and the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP). A glance at the map of the region shall lead one to understand that the Orakzai territorial agency of FATA is separated from South Waziristan by the Kurram and North Waziristan agencies. Logically speaking, the militants should have regrouped there by directly crossing through the other two provinces. Or they may have taken a circuitous route to reach Orakzai by NWFP and Punjab. The second scenario is an even more dangerous situation for the greater Pakistani landmass and the results are showing.
When Rah-i-Nijat commenced, it was said that South Waziristan was the epicentre of the TTP, and amusingly, now the focus of the military has shifted to Orakzai. In fact, incidents of violence have also been reported from other agencies like Khyber and Kurram.
So, what is the upshot of the situation?
The fact of the matter is TTP is a wily contender and has enhanced its fluidity. It is distributing itself all over Pakistan and the military shall consequently find it bothersome to achieve success in this battle.
Indubitably, this time round, the Pakistan Army has a stronger conviction to uproot the Taliban menace but the enemy ‘is not a baby’. At the same time, the civil-military combo is not excluding the option of ‘talks’ with the insurgents.
After all, they shall not altogether want to alienate their ‘erstwhile ally’, more so in the event of a possible American withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Compounding the aforementioned problems is the presence of the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Muhammad Omar at Quetta (capital of the Pakistani province of Balochistan). This ‘haven’ maintains the constant supply-line to TTP in FATA and NWFP, both in terms of logistics and ideology.
The Los Angeles Times reported on December 13 that senior US officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond FATA and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in the city of Quetta. Interestingly, after much dilly-dallying, Pakistan has confirmed the existence of the alleged “Quetta-Shura Taliban” network. Moreover, they have also admitted the use of the Shamsi airbase by US for predator-drone strikes on Taliban at FATA.
Shamsi airfield, also called Bandari, is a small airfield located in Balochistan, about 320 km southwest of Quetta, near the town of Washki.
Top leaders of the TTP like Hakeemullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain et al. are still at large. Then has the military achieved anything substantial in South Waziristan? Neither Rah-i-Nijat has thwarted the suicide attacks on the urban areas : though the military claims on the contrary.
And on the same cacophonous note, Pakistan’s civil administration keeps on shifting the blames on their ‘childhood enemy’ India; which means that ‘real success’ against the TTP and other ‘lumpen elements’ is hard to come by.
There are reports of Taliban-elements sneaking into India to commit many more 26/11s. Is this the extended arm of the TTP-Al Qaeda duo acting on its own or ISI has re-activated its machinery? And there has been the biggest bank robbery in the history of Pakistan in Karachi on December 13. Is the bank robbery in any way related to TTP?
Well, working out a coefficient of correlation may not turn out to be a formidable exercise.
===============================================================
=======================================================================
The much awaited and much vaunted Operation Rah-i-Nijat, chose the propitious moment of October 17 to get itself launched by the Pakistani military. With the ‘not so successful’ previous operations against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) acting as apparitions in the background, the military elite must have taken a conscious decision to go about the duel against its ‘erstwhile ally’.
The military backed by the secret agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); had to act under US pressure and also in order to curb the malicious pre-emptive attacks heaped upon by the TTP on its major cities in the form of suicide bombings.
The rugged topography, former ‘abject’ failures and the fear of loosing its stooge against the ‘childhood enemy’ India; acted as potent parameters in creating a sense of ‘uneasiness’ in the mind of the Pakistani military. But Obama’s cry against terror, albeit asymmetric; somehow propelled them to launch the ground offensive. Nay, not only launch it but continue it for the last two months.
Serious questions that come up are how the military is continuing its journey through the inhospitable terrains of South Waziristan (the southern-most agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA) and why it could not achieve this before? Furthermore, is the Taliban really being destroyed?
On Saturday December 12, the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani proclaimed that the army had ended its offensive against the Taliban in South Waziristan and was shifting focus to Orakzai. Well, does this mean that the Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan have really been demolished and the Army has a new destination?
Not quite.
Actually, the Taliban has started guerrilla warfare and are prolonging this battle. Moreover, they have scattered into other agencies of FATA and the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP). A glance at the map of the region shall lead one to understand that the Orakzai territorial agency of FATA is separated from South Waziristan by the Kurram and North Waziristan agencies. Logically speaking, the militants should have regrouped there by directly crossing through the other two provinces. Or they may have taken a circuitous route to reach Orakzai by NWFP and Punjab. The second scenario is an even more dangerous situation for the greater Pakistani landmass and the results are showing.
When Rah-i-Nijat commenced, it was said that South Waziristan was the epicentre of the TTP, and amusingly, now the focus of the military has shifted to Orakzai. In fact, incidents of violence have also been reported from other agencies like Khyber and Kurram.
So, what is the upshot of the situation?
The fact of the matter is TTP is a wily contender and has enhanced its fluidity. It is distributing itself all over Pakistan and the military shall consequently find it bothersome to achieve success in this battle.
Indubitably, this time round, the Pakistan Army has a stronger conviction to uproot the Taliban menace but the enemy ‘is not a baby’. At the same time, the civil-military combo is not excluding the option of ‘talks’ with the insurgents.
After all, they shall not altogether want to alienate their ‘erstwhile ally’, more so in the event of a possible American withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Compounding the aforementioned problems is the presence of the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Muhammad Omar at Quetta (capital of the Pakistani province of Balochistan). This ‘haven’ maintains the constant supply-line to TTP in FATA and NWFP, both in terms of logistics and ideology.
The Los Angeles Times reported on December 13 that senior US officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond FATA and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in the city of Quetta. Interestingly, after much dilly-dallying, Pakistan has confirmed the existence of the alleged “Quetta-Shura Taliban” network. Moreover, they have also admitted the use of the Shamsi airbase by US for predator-drone strikes on Taliban at FATA.
Shamsi airfield, also called Bandari, is a small airfield located in Balochistan, about 320 km southwest of Quetta, near the town of Washki.
Top leaders of the TTP like Hakeemullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain et al. are still at large. Then has the military achieved anything substantial in South Waziristan? Neither Rah-i-Nijat has thwarted the suicide attacks on the urban areas : though the military claims on the contrary.
And on the same cacophonous note, Pakistan’s civil administration keeps on shifting the blames on their ‘childhood enemy’ India; which means that ‘real success’ against the TTP and other ‘lumpen elements’ is hard to come by.
There are reports of Taliban-elements sneaking into India to commit many more 26/11s. Is this the extended arm of the TTP-Al Qaeda duo acting on its own or ISI has re-activated its machinery? And there has been the biggest bank robbery in the history of Pakistan in Karachi on December 13. Is the bank robbery in any way related to TTP?
Well, working out a coefficient of correlation may not turn out to be a formidable exercise.
===============================================================
04 December, 2009
A Ball of Fire in the Indo-China Border
An edited version of the following piece appeared today in UPI Asia (http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/12/04/a_fireball_on_the_indo-china_border/3880/)
===================================================================
In Astronomy, unraveling mysteries of the universe is a Sisyphean job; and taking up the task of unfolding the enigma of a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) can be gargantuan. A GRB, inter alia, is a manifestation of immense luminosity: carrying energies unfathomable and indescribable on paper. And among many exotic theorizations, a ‘Fireball’ has been modeled to be the progenitor of a GRB.
One might wonder, information apart, about the correlation of the above anecdote with politics or security issues on Earth.
The Indian Army, always chastised to be acting in subservience to civil machinery, underwent an exercise code named ‘Fireball’ near Changu (Tsomgo) Lake in the North-Eastern state of Sikkim on Friday, November 27. The mock targets were hit by precision and with heavy fire power of artillery and infantry weapons.
The capabilities of modern machines of conventional warfare like the Bofors guns were openly brandished.
Surviving kick-back controversies since 1980s, the Bofors gun has given India ‘an edge’ over the adversary on the Line of Control (LoC) and has helped the nation-state to win ‘artillery duels’ in the War over Kargil (Kashmir) against arch-rival Pakistan in 1999.
The FH-77 Bofors guns were considerably better than the medium artillery guns available with the then Pakistani Army.
The gun is capable of firing 3 rounds in 12 seconds. After Kargil, they proved their mettle during ‘Operation Parakram’ in 2001 against Pakistan when they could fire 80-90 rounds per day causing immense damage to enemy posts and morale.
After the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, ‘Operation Parakram’ was launched in which tens of thousands of Indian troops were deployed along the Indo-Pakistan border since India blamed Pakistan for supporting the terror-mechanism.
Today, the Bofors guns have been deployed at altitudes ranging between 10-13,000 feet and may aid the Indian troops to achieve “total dominance” over the enemy in the unfavorable terrain.
Interestingly, these guns have a Mercedes Benz engine in them and are able to move short distances on their own. This capability helps to avoid enemy counter fire.
In the aforementioned “Operation Fireball”, agile ‘Cheetah’ (meaning leopard) helicopters were also displayed. They are the indigenous version of the French ‘Aerospatiale Lama SA 315’ helicopters. ‘Cheetah’ is a lightweight high performance helicopter, specially designed for operations over a wide range of weight and altitude conditions. It is powered by the tried and trusted. Artouste-IIIB engine, manufactured in India, but under license from ‘Turbomeca’ of France. The Cheetah also incorporates the latest technologies like an automatic starting system whereby facilitating a start and take-off in less than a minute. Being highly maneuverable, it can carry external cargo up to 1 Mega Tonnes (MT). The Cheetah also excels in observation, surveillance, and logistics support and rescue operations. It comfortably seats five and can also operate in unfavorable environmental conditions.
The Speaker of the Sikkim Legislative Assembly congratulated the army personnel who demonstrated the “Fireball” exhibition and encouraged the young people present there to join the Indian Army.
The Indian government as well as the army may downplay this event by terming it as an annual one, but two things evolve out of a critical analysis of this military exercise. One, the timing of this event and secondly, the territorial location.
It cannot be purely coincidental that the event was arranged at a period when Sino-Indian border relations are not exactly smooth and China has been unceasingly using a ‘blunt rhetoric’ against India. At one time China even ‘reminded’ India of the consequences of their ‘interactions’ in 1962.
It is high time India sheds the ‘pacifist tag’ in a realist world podium. If it has to showcase its prowess in Asia, crossing the boundaries of the sub-continent; then it definitely needs to exhibit the ‘conventional firepower’ since a nuclear option is beyond feasibility. The stance of Non-Alignment and disarmament were not only ethical but also practical necessities on an ideological plane in the post second world war era. But ideological maxims do change and India strategically should embark on a ‘paradigm change in foreign policy’: which has to be beyond illusions.
The Chinese ‘hard-talks’ and Obama’s recent most visit to Beijing not auguring especially well for the Indians since the American President was envisioning a ‘larger role for China’ in South Asia. And this must have shaken the Indian diplomacy from slumber.
Hence the army chose the serene locales of the glacial Tsomgo Lake in Sikkim, at an altitude of 3,780 m (12,400 ft). Sikkim has a chequered history in Sino-Indian relations as China took about 28 years to recognise it as a part of India; that too in 2003. This was construed as a significant overture on China’s part and a considerable alleviation of border tensions.
But it seems that China is ‘flexing its muscles’ as the Asian Hegemon, more so in consonance with the commemoration of its 60 years of ‘Communism’. On the other hand, India too has crossed 60 years of democracy and should show the other side its firepower and wherewithal to counteract any moves of authoritarianism in the region.
Sanity should prevail in South Asia and Asia at large and both these countries have immediate responsibilities towards that direction. But it does not mean that a country of 1 billion people should act in a servile manner. In that regard, “Operation Fireball” has sent apropos messages across the border. How long shall this country be draped in the attires of Budhha and Gandhi and consciously deny the ‘masculinity’ of its populace?
===================================================================
In Astronomy, unraveling mysteries of the universe is a Sisyphean job; and taking up the task of unfolding the enigma of a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) can be gargantuan. A GRB, inter alia, is a manifestation of immense luminosity: carrying energies unfathomable and indescribable on paper. And among many exotic theorizations, a ‘Fireball’ has been modeled to be the progenitor of a GRB.
One might wonder, information apart, about the correlation of the above anecdote with politics or security issues on Earth.
The Indian Army, always chastised to be acting in subservience to civil machinery, underwent an exercise code named ‘Fireball’ near Changu (Tsomgo) Lake in the North-Eastern state of Sikkim on Friday, November 27. The mock targets were hit by precision and with heavy fire power of artillery and infantry weapons.
The capabilities of modern machines of conventional warfare like the Bofors guns were openly brandished.
Surviving kick-back controversies since 1980s, the Bofors gun has given India ‘an edge’ over the adversary on the Line of Control (LoC) and has helped the nation-state to win ‘artillery duels’ in the War over Kargil (Kashmir) against arch-rival Pakistan in 1999.
The FH-77 Bofors guns were considerably better than the medium artillery guns available with the then Pakistani Army.
The gun is capable of firing 3 rounds in 12 seconds. After Kargil, they proved their mettle during ‘Operation Parakram’ in 2001 against Pakistan when they could fire 80-90 rounds per day causing immense damage to enemy posts and morale.
After the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, ‘Operation Parakram’ was launched in which tens of thousands of Indian troops were deployed along the Indo-Pakistan border since India blamed Pakistan for supporting the terror-mechanism.
Today, the Bofors guns have been deployed at altitudes ranging between 10-13,000 feet and may aid the Indian troops to achieve “total dominance” over the enemy in the unfavorable terrain.
Interestingly, these guns have a Mercedes Benz engine in them and are able to move short distances on their own. This capability helps to avoid enemy counter fire.
In the aforementioned “Operation Fireball”, agile ‘Cheetah’ (meaning leopard) helicopters were also displayed. They are the indigenous version of the French ‘Aerospatiale Lama SA 315’ helicopters. ‘Cheetah’ is a lightweight high performance helicopter, specially designed for operations over a wide range of weight and altitude conditions. It is powered by the tried and trusted. Artouste-IIIB engine, manufactured in India, but under license from ‘Turbomeca’ of France. The Cheetah also incorporates the latest technologies like an automatic starting system whereby facilitating a start and take-off in less than a minute. Being highly maneuverable, it can carry external cargo up to 1 Mega Tonnes (MT). The Cheetah also excels in observation, surveillance, and logistics support and rescue operations. It comfortably seats five and can also operate in unfavorable environmental conditions.
The Speaker of the Sikkim Legislative Assembly congratulated the army personnel who demonstrated the “Fireball” exhibition and encouraged the young people present there to join the Indian Army.
The Indian government as well as the army may downplay this event by terming it as an annual one, but two things evolve out of a critical analysis of this military exercise. One, the timing of this event and secondly, the territorial location.
It cannot be purely coincidental that the event was arranged at a period when Sino-Indian border relations are not exactly smooth and China has been unceasingly using a ‘blunt rhetoric’ against India. At one time China even ‘reminded’ India of the consequences of their ‘interactions’ in 1962.
It is high time India sheds the ‘pacifist tag’ in a realist world podium. If it has to showcase its prowess in Asia, crossing the boundaries of the sub-continent; then it definitely needs to exhibit the ‘conventional firepower’ since a nuclear option is beyond feasibility. The stance of Non-Alignment and disarmament were not only ethical but also practical necessities on an ideological plane in the post second world war era. But ideological maxims do change and India strategically should embark on a ‘paradigm change in foreign policy’: which has to be beyond illusions.
The Chinese ‘hard-talks’ and Obama’s recent most visit to Beijing not auguring especially well for the Indians since the American President was envisioning a ‘larger role for China’ in South Asia. And this must have shaken the Indian diplomacy from slumber.
Hence the army chose the serene locales of the glacial Tsomgo Lake in Sikkim, at an altitude of 3,780 m (12,400 ft). Sikkim has a chequered history in Sino-Indian relations as China took about 28 years to recognise it as a part of India; that too in 2003. This was construed as a significant overture on China’s part and a considerable alleviation of border tensions.
But it seems that China is ‘flexing its muscles’ as the Asian Hegemon, more so in consonance with the commemoration of its 60 years of ‘Communism’. On the other hand, India too has crossed 60 years of democracy and should show the other side its firepower and wherewithal to counteract any moves of authoritarianism in the region.
Sanity should prevail in South Asia and Asia at large and both these countries have immediate responsibilities towards that direction. But it does not mean that a country of 1 billion people should act in a servile manner. In that regard, “Operation Fireball” has sent apropos messages across the border. How long shall this country be draped in the attires of Budhha and Gandhi and consciously deny the ‘masculinity’ of its populace?
01 December, 2009
Karzai's Loya Jirga and Obama's Afghan Job
http://www.newscentralasia.net/Articles-and-Reports/484.html
==================================================================
There are speculations that Afghanistan’s embattled President Hamid Karzai may convene a Loya Jirga before parliamentary elections in June. He had announced plans for such a Grand Council in his inauguration speech, delineating it as a measure to promote peace.
If one goes by juridical sense, then the “Loya Jirga”, as described in Article 110 (Chapter six) of the Afghan Constitution; “is the highest manifestation of the people of Afghanistan.” It comprises the members of the National Assembly and Chairpersons of the provincial and district councils. The ministers, Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court may also participate in the sessions, but without the right to vote.
Interestingly, in accordance with Article 111 of the Afghan Constitution, the Loya Jirga is called upon to take decision on the issues related to independence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and supreme interests of the country. It can also be convened in order to amend the Constitution or to prosecute the President as per the provisions of Article 69.
On an expected note of anticlimax though, Hamid Elmi, a spokesman for Karzai, said: “the assembly envisioned by the president would not be the ‘Constitutional Loya Jirga’ described formally under Afghan law but a ‘Traditional Loya Jirga,’ which could have a different make-up of notables.”
According to him, “The notables are not coming to talk about the cabinet and the administration. They are coming to bring security and peace.”
On Saturday (November 21), he said that “a decision on the participants would be in abeyance until a date is determined. The onset of winter makes it difficult to hold the Jirga soon, but the President would like to hold it before parliamentary elections in June.”
The spokesman further added that the government was considering the option of even calling the militants to participate.
In fact, just after being declared the President of Afghanistan for the second consecutive period, Karzai had rather amusingly offered a peace deal to his ‘Taliban brothers’. Was he acting on America’s behest?
It is an open secret that USA, as per the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal (Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan); is trying to usher in an atmosphere of ‘assurance’ for the ordinary Afghan populace. Whether talking to the Taliban is a part of that agenda or not is still shrouded in mystery.
However, the legit question in this scenario is whether the Taliban would accede to the call of Karzai, whose government is encumbered with umpteen charges of corruption? An ablution of the present political dispensation is first necessary before Karzai could seek the assistance of all disparate forces in the country.
Furthermore, shall the core Taliban and Al Qaeda ever mellow down to the level of ‘talks’ with a government which is viewed as a handiwork of the Western powers?
Now on November 24, ending his ambivalence, President Obama has hinted at an escalation of American troops in Afghanistan, finally agreeing to the request of McChrystal. So, will the milieu in the immediate future be conducive enough for talks? And if a ‘Jirga’ indeed takes place, then will the militants ever be a party to it?
To make the political atmosphere rancorous; in a stern message on November 24, the one-eyed Taliban cleric Mullah Muhammad Omar ruled out any sort of negotiations with the ‘puppet administration’ of Hamid Karzai.
Hence skepticism prevails in the political circles of Afghanistan regarding the feasibility and consequent efficacy of the so-called “Loya Jirga”. This can also be deciphered from the language of Dr Abdullah, the closest competitor of Karzai, when he says: “formal Loya Jirga described in the constitution could not yet be held because the district officials who would attend it have not yet been elected. Karzai would have to spell out the aims if he wants support.”
Abdullah utters, “what’s the purpose of that Loya Jirga? What will be achieved in that Loya Jirga? These are big questions.”
Thus, it is crystal clear that if Karzai wants to muster support from all quarters so as to survive his entire term, then he first needs to behave as a martinet himself. Only
thereafter, he can suggest behavioral lessons to others. Obama and the US administration would surely keep a strict vigil on him.
And with the American President’s recent proclamation to ‘finish the Afghan job’, Karzai would have to answer probing questions of his countrymen: civilians and militants alike; regarding the future American role in their homeland.
Karzai’s call for the Loya Jirga can be interpreted as not only a mere rhetoric but also a step to hold onto the straw provided by the election victory. Well, it may also have an ethereal connection with Obama’s ‘Afghan job’.
========================================================================
==================================================================
There are speculations that Afghanistan’s embattled President Hamid Karzai may convene a Loya Jirga before parliamentary elections in June. He had announced plans for such a Grand Council in his inauguration speech, delineating it as a measure to promote peace.
If one goes by juridical sense, then the “Loya Jirga”, as described in Article 110 (Chapter six) of the Afghan Constitution; “is the highest manifestation of the people of Afghanistan.” It comprises the members of the National Assembly and Chairpersons of the provincial and district councils. The ministers, Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court may also participate in the sessions, but without the right to vote.
Interestingly, in accordance with Article 111 of the Afghan Constitution, the Loya Jirga is called upon to take decision on the issues related to independence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and supreme interests of the country. It can also be convened in order to amend the Constitution or to prosecute the President as per the provisions of Article 69.
On an expected note of anticlimax though, Hamid Elmi, a spokesman for Karzai, said: “the assembly envisioned by the president would not be the ‘Constitutional Loya Jirga’ described formally under Afghan law but a ‘Traditional Loya Jirga,’ which could have a different make-up of notables.”
According to him, “The notables are not coming to talk about the cabinet and the administration. They are coming to bring security and peace.”
On Saturday (November 21), he said that “a decision on the participants would be in abeyance until a date is determined. The onset of winter makes it difficult to hold the Jirga soon, but the President would like to hold it before parliamentary elections in June.”
The spokesman further added that the government was considering the option of even calling the militants to participate.
In fact, just after being declared the President of Afghanistan for the second consecutive period, Karzai had rather amusingly offered a peace deal to his ‘Taliban brothers’. Was he acting on America’s behest?
It is an open secret that USA, as per the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal (Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan); is trying to usher in an atmosphere of ‘assurance’ for the ordinary Afghan populace. Whether talking to the Taliban is a part of that agenda or not is still shrouded in mystery.
However, the legit question in this scenario is whether the Taliban would accede to the call of Karzai, whose government is encumbered with umpteen charges of corruption? An ablution of the present political dispensation is first necessary before Karzai could seek the assistance of all disparate forces in the country.
Furthermore, shall the core Taliban and Al Qaeda ever mellow down to the level of ‘talks’ with a government which is viewed as a handiwork of the Western powers?
Now on November 24, ending his ambivalence, President Obama has hinted at an escalation of American troops in Afghanistan, finally agreeing to the request of McChrystal. So, will the milieu in the immediate future be conducive enough for talks? And if a ‘Jirga’ indeed takes place, then will the militants ever be a party to it?
To make the political atmosphere rancorous; in a stern message on November 24, the one-eyed Taliban cleric Mullah Muhammad Omar ruled out any sort of negotiations with the ‘puppet administration’ of Hamid Karzai.
Hence skepticism prevails in the political circles of Afghanistan regarding the feasibility and consequent efficacy of the so-called “Loya Jirga”. This can also be deciphered from the language of Dr Abdullah, the closest competitor of Karzai, when he says: “formal Loya Jirga described in the constitution could not yet be held because the district officials who would attend it have not yet been elected. Karzai would have to spell out the aims if he wants support.”
Abdullah utters, “what’s the purpose of that Loya Jirga? What will be achieved in that Loya Jirga? These are big questions.”
Thus, it is crystal clear that if Karzai wants to muster support from all quarters so as to survive his entire term, then he first needs to behave as a martinet himself. Only
thereafter, he can suggest behavioral lessons to others. Obama and the US administration would surely keep a strict vigil on him.
And with the American President’s recent proclamation to ‘finish the Afghan job’, Karzai would have to answer probing questions of his countrymen: civilians and militants alike; regarding the future American role in their homeland.
Karzai’s call for the Loya Jirga can be interpreted as not only a mere rhetoric but also a step to hold onto the straw provided by the election victory. Well, it may also have an ethereal connection with Obama’s ‘Afghan job’.
========================================================================
25 November, 2009
Re : IDPs of South Waziristan
I received the following comment/criticism for my article on South Wazirstan from Prof Kunal Ghosh of IIT Kanpur. I attach both his comments & my reply.
=====================================================================
The IDPs of South Waziristan
Posted by: "Prof. Kunal Ghosh" kunal@iitk.ac.in lanukg
Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:52 am (PST)
This article by Uddipan Mukherji gives a comprehensive picture of the on
going operation in South Waziristan and its fall out, namely the
deplorable condition of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). However,
in his analysis on why the populace is supporting terrorism, he uses the
same hackneyed so-called secular concepts and contradicts himself. He
says,
"Being one of the most impoverished regions of Pakistan, FATA has become
the breeding ground of Taliban militancy. Lack of participatory governance
and abysmally low socioeconomic indicators are primary factors fostering
a milieu of terrorism. Quite expectedly, the terrorism generated in this
region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has menacingly scattered into the
Pakistani heartland."
Lack of governance and grinding poverty set the context and are important
factors. But they are not the determinant factors. Poverty does not always
lead to terrorism. An ideological input is necessary. What are the
terrorist master minds promising the population? By taking up arms against
the Americans in Afghanistan and the army of Pakistan, would they acquire
wealth and welfare here and now? No, the promise is a birth in heaven.
Wahhabi-Deobandi madrasahs in thier hundreds are enlisting sons of very
impoverished people by promising them free board and education. The
finance comes from Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. These young boys are
indoctrinated in a truncated version of Islam which abhors Sufi
spiritualism or Tariqa, whereas Tariqa has always been an important
pillar of traditional Sunni Islam from the times of Prophet Mohammad.
Mukherji contradicts hinself when he says " Quite expectedly, the
terrorism generated in this region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has
menacingly scattered into the Pakistani heartland." Why should terrorism
spread so easily into better governed and not-so-impoverished Pakistani
heartland?
The world must confront this Wahhabi fanaticism squarely like it did
Nazism in the past. Otherwise this version of fanatic Islam would take
over all the Muslim countries one by one. It has already taken over Aceh
porvince of Indonesia which is actually a relatively prosperous region,
bacause many of the sons of Aceh have been working in Saudi Arabia. The
rest of Indonesia is hearing the sounds of the alarm bell. But the world
leaders are lulled into complacency by the piped music coming out of Saudi
Arabia, like the Prime Minister of UK before Churchill, Neville
Chamberlain, whose nerves were soothed by the vague Anglophile utterances
of Nazi supremo Adolf Hitler.
Kunal Ghosh
========================================================
My Reply :
Dear Prof Ghosh,
Thanks for your erudite comments.
But I have reservations regarding the word "hackneyed".
I guess we are again at the ideological crossroads of Hegelian and Marxian philosophies. Whether "idea" or "material condition" is the basis of the Universe, remains a persistent matter of debate.
There is no gainsaying the fact that Al Qaeda-Taliban combo despise "dar-ul-harb" and vow to achieve "dar-ul-Islam" : historical legacy of which could be traced back to Abdul Wahab of Arabia (1703-87) and the Delhi saint Shah Waliullah (1702-62).
Further, I would like to point out the following (from your comments):
"What are the terrorist master minds promising the population?
By taking up arms against the Americans in Afghanistan and the army of Pakistan, would they acquire wealth and welfare here and now?
No, the promise is a birth in heaven.
Wahhabi-Deobandi madrasahs in thier hundreds are enlisting sons of very
impoverished people by promising them free board and education. "
So, Sir, I guess you also agree that ultimately the "impoverished lot" has to be given some concrete material benefits in this 'life', apart from the promise of '70 virgins' in 'jannat'.
Moreover, isn't/didn't the Maoist rebellion in India or say Nepal or for that matter in China & Vietnam feeding/fed on the disgruntlement of the population; viz. lack of development, unemployment & others ? Though these insurrections are/were based on strict doctrinal concepts.
Doctrines/Principles are fine, but the cadre-base has to remain powerful : and that can be assured through poverty (emphasis added).
Now coming back to the phrase "Quite expectedly" which I had used in the article, I would like to clarify the meaning.
1.) I meant that any insurgency needs spatial extension and wants to spread its bastions elsewhere; lest it looses its sheen.
2.) TTP wanted to terrorise major cities of Pakistan in order to thwart the "Operation Rah-i-Nijat".
3.) Some areas of Punjab, NWFP & Balochistan provinces in Pakistan are fecund "growthlands" of Taliban et al. But they are pockets of administrative negligence & poverty.
Undoubtedly, a Laden or a Hakeemullah or for that matter a Jinnah may foment mobocracy through their demagogy, but sustenance can occur only through an assured supply of mass base; the reasons of which are somewhere else to search.
Down the lane, the "state actors" are to an extent responsible for the "non-state actor-led" insurgency.
thanking you
Yours truly
Dr Uddipan Mukherjee
PS : Why has Saudi Arabia itself not been the breeding ground for terrorists? I mean, why is terrorism conspicuously absent from Saudi heartland ? Finance is agreeable, even McChrystal specifies it in his report. Regarding Banda Aceh, I am not an avid watcher of that area, but I don't think Aceh can be compared to Af-Pak. Sporadic incidents cannot be compared to sustained terrorism. For that matter, Mumbai, Banglaore also have faced terror events.
=====================================================================
The IDPs of South Waziristan
Posted by: "Prof. Kunal Ghosh" kunal@iitk.ac.in lanukg
Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:52 am (PST)
This article by Uddipan Mukherji gives a comprehensive picture of the on
going operation in South Waziristan and its fall out, namely the
deplorable condition of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). However,
in his analysis on why the populace is supporting terrorism, he uses the
same hackneyed so-called secular concepts and contradicts himself. He
says,
"Being one of the most impoverished regions of Pakistan, FATA has become
the breeding ground of Taliban militancy. Lack of participatory governance
and abysmally low socioeconomic indicators are primary factors fostering
a milieu of terrorism. Quite expectedly, the terrorism generated in this
region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has menacingly scattered into the
Pakistani heartland."
Lack of governance and grinding poverty set the context and are important
factors. But they are not the determinant factors. Poverty does not always
lead to terrorism. An ideological input is necessary. What are the
terrorist master minds promising the population? By taking up arms against
the Americans in Afghanistan and the army of Pakistan, would they acquire
wealth and welfare here and now? No, the promise is a birth in heaven.
Wahhabi-Deobandi madrasahs in thier hundreds are enlisting sons of very
impoverished people by promising them free board and education. The
finance comes from Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. These young boys are
indoctrinated in a truncated version of Islam which abhors Sufi
spiritualism or Tariqa, whereas Tariqa has always been an important
pillar of traditional Sunni Islam from the times of Prophet Mohammad.
Mukherji contradicts hinself when he says " Quite expectedly, the
terrorism generated in this region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has
menacingly scattered into the Pakistani heartland." Why should terrorism
spread so easily into better governed and not-so-impoverished Pakistani
heartland?
The world must confront this Wahhabi fanaticism squarely like it did
Nazism in the past. Otherwise this version of fanatic Islam would take
over all the Muslim countries one by one. It has already taken over Aceh
porvince of Indonesia which is actually a relatively prosperous region,
bacause many of the sons of Aceh have been working in Saudi Arabia. The
rest of Indonesia is hearing the sounds of the alarm bell. But the world
leaders are lulled into complacency by the piped music coming out of Saudi
Arabia, like the Prime Minister of UK before Churchill, Neville
Chamberlain, whose nerves were soothed by the vague Anglophile utterances
of Nazi supremo Adolf Hitler.
Kunal Ghosh
========================================================
My Reply :
Dear Prof Ghosh,
Thanks for your erudite comments.
But I have reservations regarding the word "hackneyed".
I guess we are again at the ideological crossroads of Hegelian and Marxian philosophies. Whether "idea" or "material condition" is the basis of the Universe, remains a persistent matter of debate.
There is no gainsaying the fact that Al Qaeda-Taliban combo despise "dar-ul-harb" and vow to achieve "dar-ul-Islam" : historical legacy of which could be traced back to Abdul Wahab of Arabia (1703-87) and the Delhi saint Shah Waliullah (1702-62).
Further, I would like to point out the following (from your comments):
"What are the terrorist master minds promising the population?
By taking up arms against the Americans in Afghanistan and the army of Pakistan, would they acquire wealth and welfare here and now?
No, the promise is a birth in heaven.
Wahhabi-Deobandi madrasahs in thier hundreds are enlisting sons of very
impoverished people by promising them free board and education. "
So, Sir, I guess you also agree that ultimately the "impoverished lot" has to be given some concrete material benefits in this 'life', apart from the promise of '70 virgins' in 'jannat'.
Moreover, isn't/didn't the Maoist rebellion in India or say Nepal or for that matter in China & Vietnam feeding/fed on the disgruntlement of the population; viz. lack of development, unemployment & others ? Though these insurrections are/were based on strict doctrinal concepts.
Doctrines/Principles are fine, but the cadre-base has to remain powerful : and that can be assured through poverty (emphasis added).
Now coming back to the phrase "Quite expectedly" which I had used in the article, I would like to clarify the meaning.
1.) I meant that any insurgency needs spatial extension and wants to spread its bastions elsewhere; lest it looses its sheen.
2.) TTP wanted to terrorise major cities of Pakistan in order to thwart the "Operation Rah-i-Nijat".
3.) Some areas of Punjab, NWFP & Balochistan provinces in Pakistan are fecund "growthlands" of Taliban et al. But they are pockets of administrative negligence & poverty.
Undoubtedly, a Laden or a Hakeemullah or for that matter a Jinnah may foment mobocracy through their demagogy, but sustenance can occur only through an assured supply of mass base; the reasons of which are somewhere else to search.
Down the lane, the "state actors" are to an extent responsible for the "non-state actor-led" insurgency.
thanking you
Yours truly
Dr Uddipan Mukherjee
PS : Why has Saudi Arabia itself not been the breeding ground for terrorists? I mean, why is terrorism conspicuously absent from Saudi heartland ? Finance is agreeable, even McChrystal specifies it in his report. Regarding Banda Aceh, I am not an avid watcher of that area, but I don't think Aceh can be compared to Af-Pak. Sporadic incidents cannot be compared to sustained terrorism. For that matter, Mumbai, Banglaore also have faced terror events.
19 November, 2009
The IDPs of South Waziristan
The following article of mine was published in News Central Asia on 21st November, 2009 (http://www.newscentralasia.net/Articles-and-Reports/480.html)
====================================================================
The Operation Rah-i-Nijat has completed its first month. The battle seems to be long drawn as the Pakistani Taliban has declared to engage the military in guerrilla warfare. Furthermore, the battle is not only being fought in the core tribal areas but also in the mainland with important cities like Lahore, Peshawar and Rawalpindi facing suicide attacks almost daily.
“We have not been defeated. We have voluntarily withdrawn into the mountains under a strategy that will trap the Pakistan army in the area”. This was what the Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq told journalists on November 18.
But another issue of concern in this belligerent atmosphere is the condition of the displaced tribal population that is leading despicable lives in temporary camps.
Apart from its four provinces of North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Punjab, Sind and Balochistan; Pakistan also houses the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) bordering Afghanistan in the west. From north to south, FATA is composed of the seven agencies of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan. The President of Pakistan through the governor of the NWFP directly administers FATA.
Each agency of FATA has a particular tribe dominating its demography. Just to the east of FATA, there are six ‘Frontier Regions’, which are also administered by the governor of NWFP but has popular representatives. The Frontier Regions of Dera Ismail Khan and Tank are contiguous to the South Waziristan agency.
Being one of the most impoverished regions of Pakistan, FATA has become the breeding ground of Taliban militancy. Lack of participatory governance and abysmally low socioeconomic indicators are primary factors fostering a milieu of terrorism. Quite expectedly, the terrorism generated in this region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has menacingly scattered into the Pakistani heartland.
South Waziristan is the epicentre of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the group responsible for the recent wave of terror attacks in the Pakistani mainland. Hence the Pakistan army launched the much-awaited ground offensive on October 17 in order to decimate the Mehsud and Uzbek strongholds in the region.
In this ongoing counterinsurgency battle, the collateral damage has been huge. The residents of South Waziristan in particular and FATA in general have been displaced.
Conditions are worse for the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) from North and South Waziristan as the military has restricted the establishment of camps for them on the rationale that they would offer jihadi groups pools of easy recruits. Furthermore, the NWFP administration identifies and registers members of the Mehsud tribe, and requires them to be accommodated in private homes. The ‘host families’ have to assume legal responsibility for them. This is done to keep a strict vigil on the potential militants. Host families frequently face harassment by the security agencies, including the military, paramilitary and police.
The military is also restricting access to national and international humanitarian and development agencies in Dera Ismail Khan, where most of the Waziristan IDPs are located. Moreover, quack doctors often dispense medical care in homes and makeshift camps because there is a dearth of health practitioners in the region.
According to the Pakistani news agency Dawn, Martin Mogwanja, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, along with Dominique Frankefort, Deputy Country Director of World Food Programme (WFP) said in Islamabad on November 5 : “All those who are involved in military operation in one way or the other should ensure human safety and security to aid organizations to reach out to affected population.” He said that more than 46,000 families (about 330,000 people) had now been registered in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank as IDPs. Out of these, about 22,600 families had so far been verified, he added. He further informed that the re-screening of IDPs in Katcha Garhi and Jalozai Camps in Peshawar and Nowshera respectively had shown that only about two-thirds of the registered camp population was actually living inside the camp. The rest, were living elsewhere or had left without notifying the camp authorities.
The Chairman of the Special Support Group, Lt. Gen Nadeem Ahmad has said that the Pakistan Army is taking steps to make the process of registration of the IDPs of South Waziristan transparent.
In Dera Ismail Khan and Tank, around 125,000 IDPs from South Waziristan have been provided with 4,000 tonnes of food. Presently, the total requirement of the Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan is US $680 million and UN funds 70.5 per cent of that corpus.
Lack of potable drinking water, education and health facilities and hard cash are significant issues, which need to be catered. Mobile Hospitals of Pak-Army could be used. Another programme is the disbursement of ATM cards in order to provide an alternative to hard cash.
The pertinent question in this scenario is to what extent the army is prepared for the kind of protracted guerrilla warfare in South Waziristan that the Taliban has vowed to continue? And if the battle goes on for a long period of time, what would be the fate of the IDPs? Keeping in mind that winter is fast approaching, the plight of the IDPs is likely to surge. Moreover, how the ‘Mehsud tribesmen’ shall be differentiated from the ‘Mehsud militants’?
With all these questions lurking in the background, the present situation in South Waziristan and its associated Frontier Regions present a bleak picture. The situation might snowball and the ‘innocuous’ Mehsud tribesmen might be drawn into the folds of the Taliban due to the discrimination faced at the IDP camps. Pakistan has to embark on the counterinsurgency operations in a careful manner so as not to alienate the tribal populace. Pakistan cannot afford to do so as further chasm shall endanger the already vulnerable towns and cities of the mainland.
====================================================================
The Operation Rah-i-Nijat has completed its first month. The battle seems to be long drawn as the Pakistani Taliban has declared to engage the military in guerrilla warfare. Furthermore, the battle is not only being fought in the core tribal areas but also in the mainland with important cities like Lahore, Peshawar and Rawalpindi facing suicide attacks almost daily.
“We have not been defeated. We have voluntarily withdrawn into the mountains under a strategy that will trap the Pakistan army in the area”. This was what the Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq told journalists on November 18.
But another issue of concern in this belligerent atmosphere is the condition of the displaced tribal population that is leading despicable lives in temporary camps.
Apart from its four provinces of North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Punjab, Sind and Balochistan; Pakistan also houses the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) bordering Afghanistan in the west. From north to south, FATA is composed of the seven agencies of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan. The President of Pakistan through the governor of the NWFP directly administers FATA.
Each agency of FATA has a particular tribe dominating its demography. Just to the east of FATA, there are six ‘Frontier Regions’, which are also administered by the governor of NWFP but has popular representatives. The Frontier Regions of Dera Ismail Khan and Tank are contiguous to the South Waziristan agency.
Being one of the most impoverished regions of Pakistan, FATA has become the breeding ground of Taliban militancy. Lack of participatory governance and abysmally low socioeconomic indicators are primary factors fostering a milieu of terrorism. Quite expectedly, the terrorism generated in this region by the Al Qaeda and Taliban has menacingly scattered into the Pakistani heartland.
South Waziristan is the epicentre of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the group responsible for the recent wave of terror attacks in the Pakistani mainland. Hence the Pakistan army launched the much-awaited ground offensive on October 17 in order to decimate the Mehsud and Uzbek strongholds in the region.
In this ongoing counterinsurgency battle, the collateral damage has been huge. The residents of South Waziristan in particular and FATA in general have been displaced.
Conditions are worse for the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) from North and South Waziristan as the military has restricted the establishment of camps for them on the rationale that they would offer jihadi groups pools of easy recruits. Furthermore, the NWFP administration identifies and registers members of the Mehsud tribe, and requires them to be accommodated in private homes. The ‘host families’ have to assume legal responsibility for them. This is done to keep a strict vigil on the potential militants. Host families frequently face harassment by the security agencies, including the military, paramilitary and police.
The military is also restricting access to national and international humanitarian and development agencies in Dera Ismail Khan, where most of the Waziristan IDPs are located. Moreover, quack doctors often dispense medical care in homes and makeshift camps because there is a dearth of health practitioners in the region.
According to the Pakistani news agency Dawn, Martin Mogwanja, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, along with Dominique Frankefort, Deputy Country Director of World Food Programme (WFP) said in Islamabad on November 5 : “All those who are involved in military operation in one way or the other should ensure human safety and security to aid organizations to reach out to affected population.” He said that more than 46,000 families (about 330,000 people) had now been registered in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank as IDPs. Out of these, about 22,600 families had so far been verified, he added. He further informed that the re-screening of IDPs in Katcha Garhi and Jalozai Camps in Peshawar and Nowshera respectively had shown that only about two-thirds of the registered camp population was actually living inside the camp. The rest, were living elsewhere or had left without notifying the camp authorities.
The Chairman of the Special Support Group, Lt. Gen Nadeem Ahmad has said that the Pakistan Army is taking steps to make the process of registration of the IDPs of South Waziristan transparent.
In Dera Ismail Khan and Tank, around 125,000 IDPs from South Waziristan have been provided with 4,000 tonnes of food. Presently, the total requirement of the Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan is US $680 million and UN funds 70.5 per cent of that corpus.
Lack of potable drinking water, education and health facilities and hard cash are significant issues, which need to be catered. Mobile Hospitals of Pak-Army could be used. Another programme is the disbursement of ATM cards in order to provide an alternative to hard cash.
The pertinent question in this scenario is to what extent the army is prepared for the kind of protracted guerrilla warfare in South Waziristan that the Taliban has vowed to continue? And if the battle goes on for a long period of time, what would be the fate of the IDPs? Keeping in mind that winter is fast approaching, the plight of the IDPs is likely to surge. Moreover, how the ‘Mehsud tribesmen’ shall be differentiated from the ‘Mehsud militants’?
With all these questions lurking in the background, the present situation in South Waziristan and its associated Frontier Regions present a bleak picture. The situation might snowball and the ‘innocuous’ Mehsud tribesmen might be drawn into the folds of the Taliban due to the discrimination faced at the IDP camps. Pakistan has to embark on the counterinsurgency operations in a careful manner so as not to alienate the tribal populace. Pakistan cannot afford to do so as further chasm shall endanger the already vulnerable towns and cities of the mainland.
18 November, 2009
Too Much for India !
Punjab’s chief minister Shahbaz Sharif on Wednesday said India is involved in disrupting peace in Balochistan and Waziristan and that there is evidence available in this regard.
Speaking at a news conference in Quetta, he said India is trying to defame Pakistan on an international level by claiming its interference in its internal affairs and support to terrorism.
He, however, urged that there is a need for mutual understanding between the two countries to ensure peace in the region.
Speaking at a news conference in Quetta, he said India is trying to defame Pakistan on an international level by claiming its interference in its internal affairs and support to terrorism.
He, however, urged that there is a need for mutual understanding between the two countries to ensure peace in the region.
10 November, 2009
The Last Lifeline for Karzai
This article of mine was published in News Central Asia on 09th November. (http://www.newscentralasia.net/Articles-and-Reports/473.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The long and arduous process of electing (or selecting?) the President of Afghanistan that began on 20 Aug, finally came to an uneasy end on 1 Nov, when the formidable candidate Dr Abdullah Abdullah quit the run-off elections.
He expressed his dissatisfaction at the ‘election procedure’ and the ‘associated fraud’. Hence, on 2 Nov, the incumbent Hamid Karzai was declared president for another five year term by Azizullah Ludin, the chief officer of the Independent Election Commission (IEC).
Interestingly, Karzai himself appointed Ludin to the office and Abdullah had raised vehement objections regarding the ‘biased attitude’ of Ludin. In fact, it was a major issue on which Abdullah relinquished his candidature.
The Afghan law does not allow the third candidate in the fray to contest the run-off when the second bows out. Thus, the rules prevented Bashardost from posing any challenge to Karzai.
But all is not well for Karzai. It may be ‘joie de vivre’ for him for the time being, but President Obama has clearly warned him to work against the rampant corruption and opium trade that have encouraged the resurgence of the Taliban. Already, General McChrystal has categorically stated in his report that drug trade is one of the chief financial support mechanisms for the Taliban.
Hence, Karzai has vowed to have a head-on collision with corruption. In a press conference, flanked by Vice President Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Karzai said, “Afghanistan's image has been tainted by corruption. Our government's image has been tainted by corruption. We will strive, by any means possible, to eradicate this stain.”
Ironically, even Vice-President Fahim is charged with malfeasance. Karzai doesn’t have an easy path ahead of him.
The US administration wants Mr. Karzai and the Afghan government to put into effect an ‘anticorruption commission’ in order to establish strict accountability for government officials at the national and provincial levels.
In addition, some American officials and their European counterparts would like to see at least a few arrests. The international community’s wish list of potential detainees includes Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. He is a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade. Another player in the same league is General Abdul Rashid Dostum, accused of involvement in the killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners of war early in the Afghan conflict. Furthermore, Fahim is on the wish list too.
Just after the declaration of the IEC, the fifty-one year-old Karzai, quite paradoxically, urged his Taliban ‘brothers’ ‘to come home and embrace their land’. What type of strategy is he following? Is he calling upon the souls of the patriotic Talibans to undo this quagmire?
The fitting question in this regard is: will the Taliban or for that matter ordinary Afghans pay heed to Karzai’s appeal? Keeping in mind the kind of maladministration that his government has rendered for the last five years, the scenario seems bleak. Moreover, the recent revelations of the unholy connections of Karzai’s brother with the CIA have made the situation in Afghanistan more cumbrous.
Some analysts have said that there was immense pressure on Abdullah to quit, as Karzai was the only choice of USA. But that might not have been the case as some reports do suggest that the Obama administration, in its early days tried its best to search for another ‘pliable’ alternative to Karzai. They did not succeed in that endeavour though. In a more probable scenario, Abdullah might have understood that even if a ‘semblance’ of an election took place, it would have been difficult for him to defeat Karzai. More so, when the voter turnout remains a contentious issue amidst Taliban threats.
By now, it is an established fact that the ‘lack of governance’ in Afghanistan has been a major plank for the Taliban re-emergence. Thus Karzai has to plug in the loopholes. Moreover, a politically stable Afghanistan is a pre-requisite for the phased withdrawal of the NATO-led forces. Also, to thwart the Taliban, revival of democratic and judicial structures is of utmost necessity.
Another ‘friendly government’ for five more years and Obama has obtained the verdant field to send his troops. Enhancement of American troops in Afghanistan as per the request of McChrystal is now almost unavoidable. Actually, White House is following a ‘wait and watch policy’. It is keeping a sharp eye on the Pakistani operations in South Waziristan. And it would also keenly watch if Karzai lives up to his promises to combat corruption. The success of both Pakistan and Karzai, even to a partial degree, would set the stage for an American onslaught in Afghanistan.
In the meantime, Karzai needs to pounce upon this opportunity. If he can create conducive political atmosphere for the ordinary Afghans, cut down on the illegal opium trade and most importantly restore the confidence of the ordinary masses in the democratic governance; a new sunshine may occur in the war torn country. Needless to mention, this opportunity is Karzai’s last one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The long and arduous process of electing (or selecting?) the President of Afghanistan that began on 20 Aug, finally came to an uneasy end on 1 Nov, when the formidable candidate Dr Abdullah Abdullah quit the run-off elections.
He expressed his dissatisfaction at the ‘election procedure’ and the ‘associated fraud’. Hence, on 2 Nov, the incumbent Hamid Karzai was declared president for another five year term by Azizullah Ludin, the chief officer of the Independent Election Commission (IEC).
Interestingly, Karzai himself appointed Ludin to the office and Abdullah had raised vehement objections regarding the ‘biased attitude’ of Ludin. In fact, it was a major issue on which Abdullah relinquished his candidature.
The Afghan law does not allow the third candidate in the fray to contest the run-off when the second bows out. Thus, the rules prevented Bashardost from posing any challenge to Karzai.
But all is not well for Karzai. It may be ‘joie de vivre’ for him for the time being, but President Obama has clearly warned him to work against the rampant corruption and opium trade that have encouraged the resurgence of the Taliban. Already, General McChrystal has categorically stated in his report that drug trade is one of the chief financial support mechanisms for the Taliban.
Hence, Karzai has vowed to have a head-on collision with corruption. In a press conference, flanked by Vice President Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Karzai said, “Afghanistan's image has been tainted by corruption. Our government's image has been tainted by corruption. We will strive, by any means possible, to eradicate this stain.”
Ironically, even Vice-President Fahim is charged with malfeasance. Karzai doesn’t have an easy path ahead of him.
The US administration wants Mr. Karzai and the Afghan government to put into effect an ‘anticorruption commission’ in order to establish strict accountability for government officials at the national and provincial levels.
In addition, some American officials and their European counterparts would like to see at least a few arrests. The international community’s wish list of potential detainees includes Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. He is a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade. Another player in the same league is General Abdul Rashid Dostum, accused of involvement in the killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners of war early in the Afghan conflict. Furthermore, Fahim is on the wish list too.
Just after the declaration of the IEC, the fifty-one year-old Karzai, quite paradoxically, urged his Taliban ‘brothers’ ‘to come home and embrace their land’. What type of strategy is he following? Is he calling upon the souls of the patriotic Talibans to undo this quagmire?
The fitting question in this regard is: will the Taliban or for that matter ordinary Afghans pay heed to Karzai’s appeal? Keeping in mind the kind of maladministration that his government has rendered for the last five years, the scenario seems bleak. Moreover, the recent revelations of the unholy connections of Karzai’s brother with the CIA have made the situation in Afghanistan more cumbrous.
Some analysts have said that there was immense pressure on Abdullah to quit, as Karzai was the only choice of USA. But that might not have been the case as some reports do suggest that the Obama administration, in its early days tried its best to search for another ‘pliable’ alternative to Karzai. They did not succeed in that endeavour though. In a more probable scenario, Abdullah might have understood that even if a ‘semblance’ of an election took place, it would have been difficult for him to defeat Karzai. More so, when the voter turnout remains a contentious issue amidst Taliban threats.
By now, it is an established fact that the ‘lack of governance’ in Afghanistan has been a major plank for the Taliban re-emergence. Thus Karzai has to plug in the loopholes. Moreover, a politically stable Afghanistan is a pre-requisite for the phased withdrawal of the NATO-led forces. Also, to thwart the Taliban, revival of democratic and judicial structures is of utmost necessity.
Another ‘friendly government’ for five more years and Obama has obtained the verdant field to send his troops. Enhancement of American troops in Afghanistan as per the request of McChrystal is now almost unavoidable. Actually, White House is following a ‘wait and watch policy’. It is keeping a sharp eye on the Pakistani operations in South Waziristan. And it would also keenly watch if Karzai lives up to his promises to combat corruption. The success of both Pakistan and Karzai, even to a partial degree, would set the stage for an American onslaught in Afghanistan.
In the meantime, Karzai needs to pounce upon this opportunity. If he can create conducive political atmosphere for the ordinary Afghans, cut down on the illegal opium trade and most importantly restore the confidence of the ordinary masses in the democratic governance; a new sunshine may occur in the war torn country. Needless to mention, this opportunity is Karzai’s last one.
TTP vows a 'protracted war'
Reuters Reports from PESHAWAR :
Pakistani Taliban have started a guerrilla war against the army and will wage a tough, protracted fight in the insurgents' South Waziristan stronghold, a Taliban spokesman said on Tuesday.
The army went on the offensive in South Waziristan, a lawless ethnic Pashtun region on the Afghan border, on October 17, aiming to root out Pakistani Taliban militants behind a wave of violence in urban areas.
The offensive is closely watched by the United States and other powers embroiled in Afghanistan, as South Waziristan's rugged landscape of barren mountains, patchy forest and hidden ravines has become a global centre of militancy.
Soldiers have been advancing into the militant heartland from three directions, have captured a string of important bases and entered the Taliban headquarters in the town of Makeen, the army said.
But Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq played down the militants' losses.
‘They are capturing roads while our people are still operating in the forests and mountains,’ Tariq told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.
‘We have started guerrilla war against the Pakistani army. We've carried out several actions against the army and inflicted heavy losses on them,’ he said.
According to army figures, 486 militants have been killed since the offensive began while 48 soldiers have died.
There has been no independent verification of casualties as reporters and other independent observers are not allowed into the war zone except on an occasional trip with the military.
The violence has unsettled trade on Pakistan's stock market and the main index was 1.07 per cent lower at 8,840.58 at 0752 GMT in thin trade.
Tariq vowed a long, tough fight.
‘They thought they would capture Waziristan easily but the fight in Waziristan will be tougher than in Kashmir,’ he said.
Indian security forces have been battling separatist guerrillas in the disputed Muslim-majority Himalayan region of Kashmir since 1989. Tens of thousands of people have been killed.
The militants have stepped up attacks in town and cities since the offensive was launched, killing several hundred people.
Asked about the attacks, most carried out by suicide bombers, Tariq said: ‘Whoever harms our movement will be given a lesson.’
The government says Tariq's real name is Raees Khan Mehsud and has offered a reward of $5 million for information leading to his capture ‘dead or alive’.
It has offered a reward of $5 million for information leading to the capture, dead or alive, of 19 top Pakistani Taliban members, including Tariq and leader Hakimullah Mehsud.
Pakistani Taliban have started a guerrilla war against the army and will wage a tough, protracted fight in the insurgents' South Waziristan stronghold, a Taliban spokesman said on Tuesday.
The army went on the offensive in South Waziristan, a lawless ethnic Pashtun region on the Afghan border, on October 17, aiming to root out Pakistani Taliban militants behind a wave of violence in urban areas.
The offensive is closely watched by the United States and other powers embroiled in Afghanistan, as South Waziristan's rugged landscape of barren mountains, patchy forest and hidden ravines has become a global centre of militancy.
Soldiers have been advancing into the militant heartland from three directions, have captured a string of important bases and entered the Taliban headquarters in the town of Makeen, the army said.
But Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq played down the militants' losses.
‘They are capturing roads while our people are still operating in the forests and mountains,’ Tariq told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.
‘We have started guerrilla war against the Pakistani army. We've carried out several actions against the army and inflicted heavy losses on them,’ he said.
According to army figures, 486 militants have been killed since the offensive began while 48 soldiers have died.
There has been no independent verification of casualties as reporters and other independent observers are not allowed into the war zone except on an occasional trip with the military.
The violence has unsettled trade on Pakistan's stock market and the main index was 1.07 per cent lower at 8,840.58 at 0752 GMT in thin trade.
Tariq vowed a long, tough fight.
‘They thought they would capture Waziristan easily but the fight in Waziristan will be tougher than in Kashmir,’ he said.
Indian security forces have been battling separatist guerrillas in the disputed Muslim-majority Himalayan region of Kashmir since 1989. Tens of thousands of people have been killed.
The militants have stepped up attacks in town and cities since the offensive was launched, killing several hundred people.
Asked about the attacks, most carried out by suicide bombers, Tariq said: ‘Whoever harms our movement will be given a lesson.’
The government says Tariq's real name is Raees Khan Mehsud and has offered a reward of $5 million for information leading to his capture ‘dead or alive’.
It has offered a reward of $5 million for information leading to the capture, dead or alive, of 19 top Pakistani Taliban members, including Tariq and leader Hakimullah Mehsud.
06 November, 2009
Pak troops enter Makin in South Waziristan
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-seven-militants-killed-in-fresh-south-waziristan-clashes-qs-04
01 November, 2009
To Arundhati Roy
It needs to be clarified right at the very outset that the present piece is neither an outright remonstrance against Arundhati Roy’s essay ‘Mr. Chidambaram’s War' nor a panegyric of Mr. Chidambaram’s policies regarding the ‘Maoists’.
Rather, what I fail to comprehend is the manner in which Roy embarks on a ‘reprimanding spree’. That obviously does not exonerate the Home Ministry of its rhetoric, policies and actions which keep on fluctuating in an asymmetric fashion.
It is an undeniable fact that the mainstream media, government and even the think-tanks are to a large extent alienated from the movement that has been launched in tribal India by the followers of Mao Zedong; morally and sometimes financially and physically abetted by the urban intelligentsia. ‘Alienation’ does not mean in terms of information, dossiers or papers, but in terms of understanding the ‘root cause’ of the armed insurrection. In that direction, Roy has hit the bull’s eye.
But Roy also flounders at the very beginning when she says :
“Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to Niyam Raja, their ‘god of universal law’, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge)”.
‘Has been sold’ is a phrase which is completely ‘out of phase’ with reality. In fact, throughout her article she has used such phrases which bolster paranoia. Is she trying to mock at the age-old Hindu Philosophies pertaining to the Vedas or just castigating Chidambaram? Not clear at all.
Roy vociferously proclaims : “Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in — the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers.”
Hereby, she is exaggerating the internal security threat to the country and undermining our success as a democracy.
Moreover, is she eulogizing these movements? In the first place, she needs to appreciate the vastness of India, not only in the sense of territoriality but also in terms ethnicity, religion and caste. By no means are struggle of the landless, Dalits, peasants and workers novel. They had been documented since the days of the Raj and continue to spark the headlines even today. It is the sheer efficacy of democracy that such incidents get reported more often today and hence debated and thus sometimes acted upon.
That in independent India, we get the opportunity to discuss, debate and criticize; in itself is a pointer towards free democracy. Every system has its bottlenecks and India is no exception. And this is the fact which Arundhati Roy probably fails to understand or may be deliberately evades.
To quote her; “They’re pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people’s land and resources”.
This is sheer hyperbole. There is no gainsaying the fact that at times, the policy-makers and the executive have treated the tribal populace with disdain. There is also no denial that post-1991, Indian economy has proceeded towards the LPG (Liberalisation Privatization and Globalisation) policy and on occasions almost without paying any heed to the repercussions on the rural demography. Nevertheless, the scenario is surely not as bleak as Roy portrays it to be.
Statements like “wholesale corporate takeover of people’s land and resources” and “the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel” are horrendous.
The usurpation of farm and forest lands on which the livelihood of millions depends has indeed fomented movements, both of the non-violent and violent genres. Starting from Naxalbari in 1967 to the recent events at Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal can be cited as viable case studies. There has been corruption and thoughtless imposition of industrialization from above. But then people have spoken and acted against these ‘State malfunctions’.
Furthermore Roy laments : “Right now in central India, the Maoists’ guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa”.
This is another exaggeration to its limit. Roy should present proper data in order to corroborate her assertions. True, there is poverty, hunger and malnutrition in India, even after six decades of independence. Officially speaking, about one-third of the total population of the nation is ‘under the poverty line’ whereas probably another major chunk is fighting to survive. But that does not necessarily make India comparable to sub-Saharan Africa ! If that had indeed been the case, then India would not have sent the Chandrayaan to space or exported its software knowledge to that continent.
And Roy continues, “They are people who, even after 60 years of India’s so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress.”
First, let us harp on the concept of the ‘so-called independence’ of India. This phrase has reverberated through decades, starting from the ranting by the Communist Party of India right after 1947. But the sheer ambivalence of the Party regarding the definition of the term has manifested with time. To rebuke the government for its failures in order to usher in change and better governance is a welcome step, but not at the cost of jeopardizing ‘National Sentiments’. Roy should realize that casting aspersions in a blatant manner on the Indian government in international media generally boomerangs on oneself. Populism at national cost is unacceptable.
On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that the Indian authorities have vacillated to an uncanny degree in combating the Maoists and faltered in their analysis in distilling the tribal elements from the ‘ruffians’. Hence further alienation with the ‘grass-roots’ has occurred with time.
One fails to gauge why Roy is not joining the ranks of the Maoists when we come across the line; “Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades.”
Arundhati Roy fails to mention, inter alia, about the Right to Information Act (2005) or the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) which have made independent India proud. On most occasions, she looks at the other side of the coin. She goes for excessive ‘demonisation’ of the government and puts forward wrong data through the argument; “To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85 per cent of India’s people off their land and into the cities”. It is well known that about 67 per cent of Indians live in the countryside, and not 85 per cent as Roy comments.
One thing is crystal clear though. She is definitely against Operation Green Hunt. She advocates talks with the Maoists. But she does not bring out the negative fallouts of an armed rebellion. What are the solutions offered by Roy? Apart from talks with the Maoists, she does not offer any further clue. I guess Roy is vehemently trying to dissuade the government not to subscribe to Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism or fall into the trap of Neo-Liberalism.
A few words of caution are probably the fallout of this autopsy. The administration needs to reorient its thoughts and be more pro-people. To do so, it shall require overhauling of the machinery at some level and repairing at other levels. Nonetheless, intelligentsia too needs to put a restraint on their verbosity. It would not only be mutually beneficial, but also a catalyst for democracy and for the development of the ‘tribals’ on the whole.
Rather, what I fail to comprehend is the manner in which Roy embarks on a ‘reprimanding spree’. That obviously does not exonerate the Home Ministry of its rhetoric, policies and actions which keep on fluctuating in an asymmetric fashion.
It is an undeniable fact that the mainstream media, government and even the think-tanks are to a large extent alienated from the movement that has been launched in tribal India by the followers of Mao Zedong; morally and sometimes financially and physically abetted by the urban intelligentsia. ‘Alienation’ does not mean in terms of information, dossiers or papers, but in terms of understanding the ‘root cause’ of the armed insurrection. In that direction, Roy has hit the bull’s eye.
But Roy also flounders at the very beginning when she says :
“Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to Niyam Raja, their ‘god of universal law’, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge)”.
‘Has been sold’ is a phrase which is completely ‘out of phase’ with reality. In fact, throughout her article she has used such phrases which bolster paranoia. Is she trying to mock at the age-old Hindu Philosophies pertaining to the Vedas or just castigating Chidambaram? Not clear at all.
Roy vociferously proclaims : “Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in — the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers.”
Hereby, she is exaggerating the internal security threat to the country and undermining our success as a democracy.
Moreover, is she eulogizing these movements? In the first place, she needs to appreciate the vastness of India, not only in the sense of territoriality but also in terms ethnicity, religion and caste. By no means are struggle of the landless, Dalits, peasants and workers novel. They had been documented since the days of the Raj and continue to spark the headlines even today. It is the sheer efficacy of democracy that such incidents get reported more often today and hence debated and thus sometimes acted upon.
That in independent India, we get the opportunity to discuss, debate and criticize; in itself is a pointer towards free democracy. Every system has its bottlenecks and India is no exception. And this is the fact which Arundhati Roy probably fails to understand or may be deliberately evades.
To quote her; “They’re pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people’s land and resources”.
This is sheer hyperbole. There is no gainsaying the fact that at times, the policy-makers and the executive have treated the tribal populace with disdain. There is also no denial that post-1991, Indian economy has proceeded towards the LPG (Liberalisation Privatization and Globalisation) policy and on occasions almost without paying any heed to the repercussions on the rural demography. Nevertheless, the scenario is surely not as bleak as Roy portrays it to be.
Statements like “wholesale corporate takeover of people’s land and resources” and “the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel” are horrendous.
The usurpation of farm and forest lands on which the livelihood of millions depends has indeed fomented movements, both of the non-violent and violent genres. Starting from Naxalbari in 1967 to the recent events at Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal can be cited as viable case studies. There has been corruption and thoughtless imposition of industrialization from above. But then people have spoken and acted against these ‘State malfunctions’.
Furthermore Roy laments : “Right now in central India, the Maoists’ guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa”.
This is another exaggeration to its limit. Roy should present proper data in order to corroborate her assertions. True, there is poverty, hunger and malnutrition in India, even after six decades of independence. Officially speaking, about one-third of the total population of the nation is ‘under the poverty line’ whereas probably another major chunk is fighting to survive. But that does not necessarily make India comparable to sub-Saharan Africa ! If that had indeed been the case, then India would not have sent the Chandrayaan to space or exported its software knowledge to that continent.
And Roy continues, “They are people who, even after 60 years of India’s so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress.”
First, let us harp on the concept of the ‘so-called independence’ of India. This phrase has reverberated through decades, starting from the ranting by the Communist Party of India right after 1947. But the sheer ambivalence of the Party regarding the definition of the term has manifested with time. To rebuke the government for its failures in order to usher in change and better governance is a welcome step, but not at the cost of jeopardizing ‘National Sentiments’. Roy should realize that casting aspersions in a blatant manner on the Indian government in international media generally boomerangs on oneself. Populism at national cost is unacceptable.
On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that the Indian authorities have vacillated to an uncanny degree in combating the Maoists and faltered in their analysis in distilling the tribal elements from the ‘ruffians’. Hence further alienation with the ‘grass-roots’ has occurred with time.
One fails to gauge why Roy is not joining the ranks of the Maoists when we come across the line; “Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades.”
Arundhati Roy fails to mention, inter alia, about the Right to Information Act (2005) or the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) which have made independent India proud. On most occasions, she looks at the other side of the coin. She goes for excessive ‘demonisation’ of the government and puts forward wrong data through the argument; “To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85 per cent of India’s people off their land and into the cities”. It is well known that about 67 per cent of Indians live in the countryside, and not 85 per cent as Roy comments.
One thing is crystal clear though. She is definitely against Operation Green Hunt. She advocates talks with the Maoists. But she does not bring out the negative fallouts of an armed rebellion. What are the solutions offered by Roy? Apart from talks with the Maoists, she does not offer any further clue. I guess Roy is vehemently trying to dissuade the government not to subscribe to Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism or fall into the trap of Neo-Liberalism.
A few words of caution are probably the fallout of this autopsy. The administration needs to reorient its thoughts and be more pro-people. To do so, it shall require overhauling of the machinery at some level and repairing at other levels. Nonetheless, intelligentsia too needs to put a restraint on their verbosity. It would not only be mutually beneficial, but also a catalyst for democracy and for the development of the ‘tribals’ on the whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)