Desicritics Category: Politics: Freedom

This is Not Cricket

temporal — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:19:19 EST

The Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked in Lahore yesterday by terrorists. SSS terms this a "shift". I think it is a "deterioration" or "escalation" of lawlessness. If Pakistan is to retain its independence this tide will not be curbed easily by a solitary act (like the restoration of the judiciary) nor by the efforts of one individual or one institution. Both Zardari led government and the Army under Kayani have appeared ineffective to stem this.

More pertinent is to view Tuesday's attack in the context of the peace deals in the Swat Valley and the tribal areas .. Prior to the signing of the deals, the matter of the release of militants who did not belong to the Swat area was raised, that is, non-Pashtun militants... However, after deciding on the level of compensation packages for the families of militants killed or injured by the security forces and other matters related to Swat and the tribal areas, the matter of non-Pashtun militants was deferred and the peace agreements were signed. In effect, non-Pashtun militants have been ignored and the attack in Lahore could be a bloody message to the government that the "Punjabi militants" have the capacity to cripple urban centers at any time and place of their choosing. Syed Saleem Shahzad

So what should the ordinary citizen do? Packing up and leaving is NOT an option. Burying their heads in the sand? More prayers to Allah? Joining the orthodox fringe? Or if not joining, then fighting them for their rights?

If the citizenry continues to be uninvolved, then by default the grounds will be left for a battle royale between forces of status quo and those of orthodoxy.

There is no dearth of external players who want to nudge and support these dark forces.

The Saudi Wahabi sponsorship of the fringe groups in Pakistan is hushed up or swept under the rug. Their role should be examined more closely. They have supported the orthodox fringe in the past (Afghanistan-Mujahideen nexus) and continue to do so to date.

Right now, collectively, (media, bloggers, political parties and government) all search for escape goats elsewhere - primarily the focus of their diatribes (not in any order) is the US Administration, the Talibans, the Indians (Raw...if you hear Hamid Gul croaking after the CID report was released) and the euphemistically termed Agencies.

But the blame game should be exposed for its fallacies.

If the ordinary citizen remains detached and uninvolved, then the march into disarray would continue unabated till it reaches the edge of the precipice - a rather uncomfortable and disturbing thought for all the players in the region.

And the world.

To Censor Or Not: Bloggers' Duties and Liabilities

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

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

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

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

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

My reasons are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting The Congressman For The Sri Lanka LTTE Crisis

Kalugu — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:21:20 EST

Well finally I have met a US Congressman - I mean a personal meeting with a politician for the first time in my life.

Living in the relatively remote Midwest region of USA with a very small Indian community, the inaction of the Indian government over the human sufferings in Sri Lanka has been a factor of frustration for quite some time now, not just for me but for quite a few family friends here. Watching the human suffering and the brutality of the Sri Lankan forces for several weeks has finally thrust me to swing into action. Consultation with friends lead us to conclude that meeting the district Congressman and presenting the evidences for human rights violations would be the most logical step.

After launching a swift online signature campaign with area residents of Indian origin, we started working with the congressman's office to get an appointment. We were hoping to have a personal meeting at the Congressman's office so that we can show the videos and images that have bothered us much. However the scheduler/Office Manager of the Congressman informed me that the Congressman is busy until a month or so and asked if I would be interested in meeting him at an event in two days. I was aware that the US Senate foreign relations committee is planning to discuss the Sri Lanka crisis in a week and thought the timing would be perfect.

With a decent number of signatures by several area Indians (Not just Tamils, but the entire Indian community signed it displaying a sign of solidarity) and the disturbing videos and images burned to a CD, six of us were all set to meet the Congressman.

We were quite apprehensive about discussing the issue openly since the Tamil rebels are still proscribed in the USA. We all agreed that we will not make any references to the rebels in our discussion but focus on the excesses committed by the Sri Lankan forces.

The meeting was to take place at the Health Care field hearing scheduled at the downtown church. We arrived early and were waiting for the District Director & Staff Agent who was supposed to brief us about the standard procedures of meeting the Congressman and facilitate the meeting.

The Staff Agent arrived and was indeed very helpful and appreciated us for bringing the issue to the Congressman's attention. He also appreciated us for having run the signature campaign. After listening to the information we provided, the Staff Agent collected the file folder with the signed petition and the CD's and informed us that we will be able to meet the Congressman prior or after the event. He also advised us to forward the petition and evidences to other committee members, especially members on the foreign relations committee.

The Congressman arrived and was greeted by few public that were waiting to meet him just like us. The Congressman engaged in a long conversation with a lady who appeared to be in despair due to a loss of a family member. The Congressman was very polite and listened to her long story and hugged her to offer some solace. We knew then that we will have to sit through the meeting and will be able to meet the congressman only at the end of the event. Some of my friends decided to drive home and come back later, while three of us decided to stay.

We found the Health Care field hearing very informative. I was very impressed at the way the hearing was organized.

I started comparing the meeting with that of meetings involving Indians. Be it in India or the USA a meeting involving similar crowd would have been really noisy and full of confusion and chaos. I think we have to accept that confusion and chaos have become part of the Indian culture.

Americans sure have mastered the art of organizing events. Simple process's put in place by the organizers made the event progress in a smooth fashion. The Congressman was very polite and had a fair sense of humor and handled the questions well. A native Indian member who was full of humor asked the Congressman if he needed a job, referring to the acute shortage of doctors and paramedics in his clinic operating in the nearby Indian reservation. The Congressman also did not hesitate to ask for assistance from the folks in the crowd when he was not sure of some statistics.

Finally the meeting got over and we got the opportunity to talk to the Congressman. When I introduced myself and my friends, I mentioned that our roots are in India and we wanted to highlight the crisis in the South Asian nation of Sri Lanka. The congressman immediately said "I have a Tamil Tiger in my office". Looking at our blank reaction, he continued "That was a Joke...". He was making a reference to a Sri Lankan Tamil who works in his office. The Congressman seemed to be very knowledgeable about the happenings in Sri Lanka (obviously).

We informed about the evidences we have compiled and requested the Congressman to take up the issue appropriately and help bring justice to the people. The Congressman said before ending the conversation that he would like to one day visit Sri Lanka and have a vacation there.

That day may be too far away with the approach taken by most involved parties that have a stake in the region.

We all left home with a sense of relief that we have done the right thing. We do not know if the Congressman will be able to stop the terror faced by the people in the war zone, but we are happy based on what is mentioned in Bagavath Geethai - "Do your duty, Do not expect returns".

Can the Suspension of Civil Rights Ever be Justified?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaction of State Governments is a Great Concern for Civil Liberty

Madhu Chandra — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:30 EST

Be it the post-Godhra episode in Gujarat 2002 or the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Orissa 2008 or the Mangalore Pub attack on women, the inaction of the ruling state government in dealing with fanatic outfits is a grave concern for Indian secularism.

The BJP Karnataka Government’s home minister making a decision to wait and watch the Sri Ram Sene outfit to carry out their diktat on "couples celebrating Valentine’s Day will be forced to marry in temples" is the clear sign of inaction of the state government.

Attacks on civil society carried out by religious fanatics of Hindutva brigades appear in mushrooming of their outfits. The Sri Ram Sene is the latest version and chose the mode of communalism to promote and propagate their outfit.

Sri Ram Sene’s chief Pramod Muthalik with multiple criminal records, who led the propaganda of promoting his organization through attacking the individual rights and the response of the Government allowing him to have an open press conference and uttering diktats on any couple found celebrating Valentine's Day will be forced to marry is the repetition of what has witnessed by the nation and the world in BJP-ruled Gujarat and Orissa, where massacres of religious minorities allegedly took place.

Valentine’s Day is the perfect time to express one’s love to loved ones or family members, it brings a smile on their faces. What is wrong with expressing one’s love with one’s lover or family members in the manner one likes? It can be done in Indian ways, or in the way of a love affair between Laila-Majnu or Romeo & Juliet! It is the right of every individual.

The open declaration over the Mangalore pub attack as victory and as a means to increase publicity of the Sri Ram Sene outfit and choosing the mode to promote their propaganda is very apprehensive. The modes of promoting one’s organization through propaganda like the Mangalore pub attack is a serious concern.

Communalism erupts in almost every state of India but how they are tackled is the difference. One recalls the communal genocide of post-Godhra, the one-sidedness of the Modi government to curb the riots and the Naveen Patnaik Government’s inactive response to anti-Christian violence in Orissa, where in the previous case, thousands of innocent Muslims were massacred and in the latter, over 50,000 innocent tribal Christians were forced homeless.

Surprisingly, Hindutva’s brigade did not stop there, but moves to attacking the innocent civil societies. Today they are targeting the youngsters in the name of Indian culture. Tomorrow, nobody knows, but could happen to those of you who see everything but keep mum.

The selection of the right time to carry out the communal attacks by these outfits has always a connection with upcoming elections, either for a state assembly or for the Parliament. The political leaders, particularly of those parties who sympathize with Hindutva outfits would keep quiet and watch until the matter worsens because that helps them gain political mileage.

Hindutva taking root in the southern part of the country through the gateway of Karnataka is another signpost of the attack on Indian secularism and is a grave concern for every Indian citizen. Open acclaim in the cities like Mangalore and the way the accused are left free, gives similar outfits the expectation that they can carry out such acts anywhere and at any time.

The Hindutva hatred has almost spread to every nook and corner of the country. In Western India, beginning from Gujarat to the east up to the North= east frontier, from Jammu and Kashmir in north to Kanyakumari in south, the social fabrics of society are targeted to break through communalism among different religious, ethnic, caste and linguistic groups.

What matters the most is the responsibility of the concerned state government whenever any form of communalism erupts. The inactive responsibility of the Hindutva-sympathetic governments to curb communalism is very unpleasant for civil societies!

The 14th of February - Day Against Intolerance

thedailypheesh — Sun, 8 Feb 2009 20:15:29 EST

Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am often a skeptic when it comes to Valentine's day or any other day(including my own birthday, though old habits die hard). 'Days' affirm certain identities, give us an opportunity to celebrate and generally feel good. While I agree we do need such occasions, I also believe that the celebrations(and the rampant commercialization that often goes with it) sometimes obscure the questions we ought to ask ourselves. That's a subject for another time. The question is what now.

The Sri Ram Sene plans to 'marry off'(or en-brother/en-sister) men and women who would want to spend time together on the 14th of February. I am sure their sibling organizations, delighted at the oxygen their cause has received over the past couple of weeks, will be gearing up to go on the offensive on the same day. It's a toss up whether any state government will actually set out to protect those who dare to defy the culture police. The reasons are obvious, the unsavory dictates of politics that have been frequently analyzed and at a deeper level, the large gaps is society that the saffron hordes exploit. All signs point to yet another victory for those who would want to impose an archaic moral code on an ever-diversifying society.

Unless we chose to make a statement. Unless we decide that the 14th of February 2009 will be an occasion for a fresh engagement with our own society and our times. Let the 14th of February be a day of protest, a day for spreading awareness about the organizations and the mentality that give rise to such intolerance. Let February 14 also be a day of contemplation, a day for educating ourselves on our rights and our duties as citizens so that we know what we deserve and how much we must struggle to maintain it.

However education achieves only so much. If there is to be any impact, it must be via collective action. While Valentine's day is essentially a private celebration, the need of the hour is to ensure that people gather and make a statement. We need rallies and banners, slogans and placards. The size of the group does not matter. All that is required is concerted action. Besides any 'enforcer' of morality would think twice before assaulting a group.

Equally important is the right kind of chronicling. It is imperative to record each and every incident that occurs that day and ensure that there is greater awareness of them. We often are unaware of our own cities. We often see incidents like that in Mangalore with the comfort of distance. It is necessary to throw away those tinted glasses.

There will of course be a lot of criticism and doubt about such an idea. "Bah! mere symbolism" is likely to be the most common objection. Another is the question of how necessary such protests are when we have bigger issues at stake. After all, the logic would go, the section of society that is affected by such policing is pretty small and there are so many more significant issues. I understand the skepticism of those who doubt symbolism(see para 1). But it is also true that despite the often ephemeral nature of symbolism(especially in this age of saturated coverage), there are certain times when it does help mobilize opinion and spread some hope. After all, it's just symbolism. It can't hurt and is definitely worth a try.

It is perhaps true that there are issues that are more dire than the freedom of men and women to spend time together in a public space on a specific day. However I do not believe it's ever a question of either/or. The liberty that an individual or a group of individuals enjoy cannot and should not be exclusive in the sense that the achievement of(or the need to achieve) liberty for one group should lead to the suppression of the liberty of the other. There are occasions when an individual must sacrifice aspects of his liberty for a cause but assuredly, the creation of a society based on a prehistoric code of morals is not one such cause!

It is important that even those who are unsympathetic to Valentine's day or public displays of affection see this issues as one of an Indian citizen's basic rights. There is a huge section of the populace which even while rejecting the Sangh Parivar's political and cultural agenda as a whole, remain sympathetic to individual elements of it. They are a constituency that must be addressed and convinced of the need to stand up against mob culture even if it be in the name of an Utopian society of the pure.

So let us for once forgo Archies and gather as a group, whether it be on the streets or on forums online and ensure that the 14th of February is 'celebrated' as India's own "Day against Intolerance"*

*The International Day for Tolerance is celebrated by the UNESCO on the 16th of November every year.

Territorial Extremism vs Religious Extremism

Chirag — Sun, 8 Feb 2009 07:54:11 EST

February 15th, 1989 was a day when a war-ravaged country saw a glimmer of hope after ten long years. The Soviet Union finally decided to withdraw from Afghanistan where they had arrived uninvited in 1979. Capitalistic-democracy, then had its greatest victory ever with the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 26th, 1991.
The Cold War had finally ended & the world should have been a better place. Unfortunately, a grave mistake was being committed amidst all the fervour behind building a Capitalistic, Democratic world. The United States fighting alongside the mujahideen withdrew its troops irresponsibly from Afghanistan. The fight against Territorial aggression would now transform itself into a Religious crusade.

One should notice that the causes for modern day War have essentially had three dimensions - Political, Territorial or Economic. However, after the cold war, a forgotten, more dangerous, dimension was brought back with renewed vigour to modern day war-Religion. Though one can argue that the Second World War, the Palestinian intifada have had religious dimensions, the background to these wars remain to be the three causes mentioned above.

This new war however has only one dimension - Religion. A war in which the participant is guaranteed ultimate glory in the afterlife. This makes death a sought after climax leaving the adversary with very little to threaten.

Despite being a misinterpretation, one has to wonder as to how death can appeal to a larger audience. The point that is often overlooked is that Religious extremism is not all about Religion. There are two parts in motivating the naive participant, one is the misinterpreted religious factor of course, but the second being stories of war crimes, territorial aggression, territorial occupation, humiliation, etc on countries with a predominant population of the religion. Even if the participant has the slightest predicament against the first factor- a misinterpretation, this predicament is rubbished with the second factor which is almost, entirely true. So the motivator uses modern day dimensions of war as much as the Religious dimension. It is only that the religious dimension presents a wider audience, not limited by territory.

So, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Palestinian state broken up to form the State of Israel, the United States fueling the Gulf war, increased United States military presence in the Middle East, Bosnia-1992, Chechnya, Iraq-2003, Israel-Gaza 2008, etc,, are seen as acts of Territorial aggression, Territorial ambition or more candidly Territorial extremism. Rightly so. Such acts have all but complemented the second factor mentioned earlier.

Religious extremism claims innocent lives - never justified. Territorial aggression claims innocent lives - never justified.

Territorial aggression becomes Territorial extremism when economic gains, political mileage, regional supremacy or presence, territorial ambitions, etc are the dirty hidden intentions behind establishing a democratic world. Territorial aggression has existed for centuries & has been accepted more or less, now as aggressive foreign policy & nothing more. Religious extremist backlash in the modern world however, seems to be the ugly fallout. The sad & disgraceful thing with both forms of extremism is the loss of innocent lives.

A war or a jihad, if ever necessary, was meant to engage the militia of the enemy & never unarmed women & children. Let each country evolve itself into the democratic world. Presence of foreign militia to achieve this is perceived only as an imposition rather than a privilege. Interestingly, etymology of the word Terrorism, if ever re-derived seems better derived from Territory-Extremism rather than Religion-Extremism.

A Different World Part III : Statesmen or Pygmies

temporal — Wed, 4 Feb 2009 02:10:25 EST

(Continued from A Different World Part I : A Travelogue of Sorts)
and A Different World Part II: Zina ul Haq's Debauchery)

On March 23, 1940 at the Minto Park (now Iqbal Park) the Pakistan Resolution was presented before the annual session of All India Muslim League. (The emphasis added are mine).

No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign. That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities, with their consultation. Arrangements thus should be made for the security of Muslims where they were in a minority. I H Qureshi, (1992), A Short History of Pakistan. University of Karachi, Reprint of 1967 edition. ISBN 969-404-008-6

The Working Committee of the Muslim League in Lahore (1940)

This was a clear call for confederation or union. As a declaration of intent it was sufficiently clear and yet vague enough for the political leadership to negotiate with the Raj. After the failure of the Cabinet Mission, Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent to preside over the dissolution of the Raj. He was given enough time but Atlee also dangled the carrot of the First Lord of Admiralty. (The vacancy was to be created upon the retirement of the naval chief - but that is another story.)

In his haste to return, aided by Congress leadership's retreat from a stance of no division to an acceptance of division (first Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, next Jawahar Lal Nehru and finally Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi succumbed) Mountbatten called in the bluff and offered Jinnah a truncated Pakistan.

credit: Shahid Siddiqui

The sprawling Quaid e Azam Masoleum Complex in Karachi also houses a small museum. Inside there are his suits, sherwanis, shoes, cars , furniture, monocle and various other items displayed. One realises the larger than life figure was rather diminutive. In a display case we saw a personal diary. In the open pages one can read in Jinnah's handwriting notes he made on a certain day in 1940. This entry as I recall named a chowkidar who was going "home" on vacation. It mentioned the date he was hired and the vacations days due him. He wrote in a clear flowing writing the number of days his leave was "paid leave" and the extra weeks of "time off without pay".

A meticulous and organised barrister whose brilliance was admitted by his detractors also, could not have been so disorganised about Pakistan. You can read more about this in Ayesha Jalal's books and papers. Jinnah wanted to max the guarantees offered to his constituents in a confederated Indian Union. The "independence" was the calculated bluff called in by Mountbatten when he had Congress behind him.

Mountbatten saw another equal in aristocratic Jinnah. He knew how hard it would be for Jinnah to agree to a truncated Pakistan. He told Jinnah, "Tomorrow morning, with the Congress leaders present I will say that you have agreed to the partition, and I expect you to nod."

Movietone newsreels showed a grim Jinnah barely nod the next morning. Intrigue, intransigence, ego and miscalculation carried the day. Jinnah had his truncated Pakistan, Congress had its divided India, hoping the nascent state would soon fold, and Mountbatten had a fixed retreat to return and lobby for the Admiralship.

Nobody gave a thought to the looming holocaust in which 2 million would die, millions would be uprooted and millions upon millions would grow up on both sides of the divide in hate, distrust and intolerance.

On August 11, 1947, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, with permission from the Speaker off the Constituent Assembly, Shri Mandal said:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Zina had the temerity to have this expunged from all official transcripts. He tried to steer Pakistan towards an abyss from which it would be difficult to turn back.

Part I was written in 2002. The civilian government that took over after the February 18, 2008 elections is feebly trying to undo the damage inflicted on the country by the occupying army. There are too many hurdles in way of this nascent democracy. It does not have strong leaders. The dominant parties - PPP, Muslim League (Z), MQM are led by autocratic leaders the former two by billionaires with vast foreign assets.

Wily Asif Zardari has outwitted the veteran Nawaz Sharif a few times already. If ever there was a time to strengthen democratic roots in Pakistan it is fast disappearing. The Army under Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is stretched and bogged down fighting the Pakistani Talebans and participating in the US proxy wars. This rare opportunity is being squandered away.

The army's role in politics cannot be counted out for long. The militants have become a power to reckon with. Generations have been brainwashed not to question. Generations are being raised on intolerance and hatred, not compassion and understanding. Each group hates the others - the totem pole includes Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahle Hadith, Sipah e Sahaba, Lashkar Jhangvi, Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis, Christians, Hindus. The one group that flies below the radar is the influential and powerful Ismailis.

Like India, the electronic media in Pakistan is mostly passing through teething troubles. It is enamored of its own power. The sane voices there seldom rise above the cacophony of mediocrity and blandness.

If there were statesmen in Pakistan (and not wily politicians) in the aftermath of Mumbai Mayhem, they should have said to Manmohan Singh, "Let's join forces to fight this plague." Instead, media fed bellicosity and belligerency from both countries widened the gulf.

Media likes drama and there is no better developing story than war. They salivate at the thought of surgical strikes. It can only happen when the receiver is impotent...Gaza, West Bank, Iraq...or with the receiver's consent...as in the case of FATA and Nato/US drones.

The other Pervez...Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is the wild card here should Manmohan Singh succumbs to the war cry and order surgical strikes.

GoI has shown restraint and political acumen. Can Zardari be trusted to reciprocate it? The choice is stark - survival or conflagration and instability.

Instability will breed further instability in the region.

Is Karnataka Turning into a Police State?

Roshan Krishnan — Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:59:01 EST

Bangalore Mirror had an article today on cops busting a party at the Dell office off Koramangala.Here's an excerpt from the article:

" They [the cops] landed at the office and demanded to be let in, but the security guards refused. “The police said they were acting on a complaint from a resident who could not sleep peacefully because of the noise in the party. We told the police that there are no residences in the area, but they were not ready to listen,” another Dell employee present at the party said.

An argument broke out between the police and the guards. After some time, the police forced their way in and seized the audio systems. A few security personnel were taken to the Airport Police Station for questioning. Though no techie was arrested, the employees were warned against holding late night parties "

If this isn't police high handedness, then I don't know what is! I agree that the music shouldn't be so loud that it disturbs the residents around. All that the cops needed to do on receiving such a complaint would have been to send a couple of constable and ask the employees to tone it down a bit. Confiscating the audio system and detaining the security personnel seemed uncalled for and smacks of police high handedness.

As soon as I read this article a couple of thoughts came to me. First of course was, are the cops entitled to do this? After all, the party was in a private property, not a public place. Can they barge in based on a complaint by someone and detain a few people and confiscate property? Second, shouldn't there be some laws in place governing such police acts? I'm no expert, but there must be rules laid down on how cops need to act in such situations. Otherwise it's like we are in a police state where cops can barge in to a private property anytime and confiscate property and arrest people.

I'd really like some legal expert to clarify this. And I hope he or she tells me that it's illegal for cops to do what they did at Dell. Otherwise it would mean that cops can enter any private property at their whims and fancy. I shudder to think what that would mean for ordinary citizens like me. Cops can come barging in my front door any day and confiscate my audio system because they received some complaint from someone. They could arrest me because I had a few friends over on the weekend and we played music past 11.30!!

Where are heading as a state? First the government restricts night life past 11.30. Instead of better policing, cops shut the city down by 11.30 and hope no crime takes place past that time. Then they ban dancing at pubs. They talk about banning pubs altogether now as that's where all the crime in the city happens apparently! Then they get into private property, the DELL office, to shut down a private party. That's important - to SHUTDOWN the party! Not ask the folks there to mellow their music down, but to shut it down and to warn them against late night partying! And next, it could be your home or mine. They could come in asking me not to drink past 11.30 or play music past 11 PM.

Where will this stop? For how much longer do we put up with this? Would we allow the state to dictate what we do inside our homes? Why were the techies warned against partying late night in private property? What business does the state have interfering with such high handedness in matters inside a private property, specially when there wasn't any henious crime or illegalities happening - except maybe for loud music? I'd really want to know if this is legal in India? Do the cops have such powers? Knowing how our police force is currently, I really hope to God that they do not have such powers!

Karnataka is slowly turning into a police state. One by one our freedoms are being restricted. We choose to remain quiet! I don't think people have realized that this will have dangerous consequences for all. We need to do something about such intrusive and unacceptable policing! By the way, I have music playing in my room as I write this. It's past 12.30 now and I'm hoping I don't hear a knock on the door now!