Desicritics Category: Politics: Laws

Israel's Gaza Offensive

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:18:10 EST

I believe that the air attacks being carried out by Israel on various targets in the Gaza Strip and the incursion by the Israeli army into the Gaza Strip are justified. I also believe that these air attacks and land offensive will serve no purpose at all, other than help Ehud Barak and the Labour Party in the forthcoming Israeli elections.

Ever since the cease fire between Hamas and Israel came to an end on 19 December 2008, Israel has been targeted by Hamas which started to fire around 80 rockets per day into Israel. Most of the rockets did not cause much damage and so far, only a handful of Israelis have died as a result. However, the number of people killed in Gaza has exceeded five hundred. Clearly the Israeli response to the rocket attacks is not proportionate. Why then do I say that Israeli is justified in its actions?

Imagine for a moment that you own a fertile piece of land in a desolate part of the world. You land adjoins a barren piece of land. A tall barbed wire fence separates your land and the barren land. The people who own the barren land don’t like your presence in the neighbourhood. They have a nasty habit of throwing stones into your land, a few stones every day. Mostly they don’t do any damage, but once a month or so, a worker in your land gets hit by a stone. Once in a while, your neighbours cut through the barbed wire fence and creep into your land at night and uproot a few fruit trees before returning to their barren land, all this in order to make you abandon your fertile property. How should you respond? If your response has to be strictly proportionate, you can only throw stones into your neighbour’s barren land, something which will distress your neighbour a lot less than you are distressed by the stones thrown into your land. You can also creep into your neighbour’s land at night and uproot his fruit trees, except that your neighbour does not have any fruit trees! So, you post guards on the periphery of your land, mount powerful search lights at certain vantage points and instruct your guards to shoot dead anyone caught in the act of throwing stones into your land. Intruders who enter your fertile land are also to be locked up for a year before they are released. Once this new policy comes into effect, your guards do manage to kill a few stone throwers and catch a few intruders, but the stone throwing and intrusions don’t cease. This is mainly because there is a total difference in values between you and your neighbour and your neighbour is willing to sacrifice the lives of his people in order to cause trouble for you. He just does not want you in the neighbourhood, though you have every right to be there. Soon the number of fruit trees you lose to your neighbour’s men goes up. Your workers start to quit. You start making a loss. Unless you manage to stop the stone throwing and the uprooting of fruit trees, you will have to vacate the neighbourhood. What do you do then? There is no police force worth the name in your part of the world. You have no choice but to send a team of armed men into your neighbour’s land and capture or kill everyone who has thrown stones or intruded into your land and teach your neighbour such a lesson that he does not try to harm your property ever again.

Now imagine for a moment that you acquired your fertile piece of land after a prolonged litigation. You won the legal dispute and the loser was your neighbour who owns the adjacent barren piece of land. They are many in your town who say that the court ruling was unfair, though the bulk of the local residents support the judicial ruling and are happy for you to occupy your piece of land. Does this additional piece of information make you change your mind? Do you now think that the neighbour has the right to throw stones into your land or intrude into your land and uproot your fruit trees? The answer is a clear No. Instead, what your neighbour ought to do if unhappy with the court ruling is appeal to a higher court. If further appeal is not possible, your neighbour ought to get public opinion on his side and in the meantime, try and make his barren piece of land as fertile as possible.

Israel is in the position of the owner of the fertile land. Its neighbour is Hamas, an organisation whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic State. I have always believed that the creation of Israel through an UN resolution was absolutely fair. If you believe that the creation of Israel by the UN in 1948 was correct, it naturally follows that Israel has the right to defend its territory and pre-empt any possible attack that may pose an existential threat to Israel. I have many good friends who ardently believe that the creation of Israel was unfair. All those friends tell me that Israel’s Gaza offensive is totally unjustified.

It must be admitted, most of what followed after the fair and legal creation of Israel was neither fair nor legal. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its Arab minority has almost always been very, very unjust. In particular, I don’t think that Israel was justified in placing an economic blockade on the Gaza Strip in reaction to Hamas’s election victory. Though no one likes the idea of fundamentalists of the Hamas variety on their door step, Israel had no right to make life unbearable for the people in the Gaza Strip. Also, it must not be forgotten that Hamas is largely a creation of Israel. If Israel were not so desperate to undermine the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Fatah, fundamentalist Hamas would not have come into existence.

The Gaza Strip is not a sovereign state, but Hamas runs it as if it is. As per the UN resolution which created Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem ought to form an independent Palestinian state. However, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel and the West Bank is under the control of the Fatah. Hamas won the Palestinian Parliamentary Elections in January 2006 and came to power. After infighting broke out between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas was evicted from the West Bank in mid 2007. For good measure, the Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas declared Hamas to be an illegal force. I don’t think Mahmud Abbas was right in doing so and I do think that Hamas got a raw deal in being evicted from the West Bank, considering the fact that they won 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45 in the Parliamentary elections in January 2006. Most probably Israel played a key behind-the-scenes role in all this.

However, despite all these drawbacks on the part of Israel, the random launching of rockets into Israel with the intention of killing civilians cannot be justified. Hamas’s attacks on Israel are not just a reaction to the economic blockade. Instead, it arises out of Hamas’s determination that Israel should not exist as a state. The range of Hamas’s rockets has been increasing in range and accuracy by the month and soon there may be a day when Hamas is able to target any part of Israel at its will. When faced with such a situation, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against such attacks and do all that is necessary to prevent such attacks in future.

The forthcoming elections in Israel and the need for the ruling Labour Party to show itself to be as tough on Hamas as the Likud Party, has definitely influenced Israel’s decision to attack the Hamas in Gaza. Nevertheless, Israel’s right to defend itself is so fundamental that it is entitled to do so even on election’s eve.

All of what I have stated above begs the question whether India is entitled to respond against Pakistan in a similar fashion in response to the Mumbai attacks. The answer is yes, though, considering the fact that Pakistan is not the Gaza Strip and it possesses nuclear weapons, India would be foolhardy to do so.

Israeli air strikes have led to heavy civilian casualties. It is not easy to watch visuals of civilians, including young children being killed, and say with a straight face the Israel’s actions are justified. However, Israel’s actions are indeed justified. Hamas has intentionally mixed up its military infrastructure with civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Hamas seems to enjoy a high degree of civilian support in Gaza. If a near-sovereign state supported by its population launches attacks on another sovereign state using equipment and men who are mixed up with civilians, the ensuing retribution will cause civilian causalities. Hamas is as much to blame for the civilians killed in the air strikes as are the people of Gaza who voted for an organisation whole sole objective is to remove Israel from the face of this earth.

Will Israel succeed in its objective? In 2006, Israel launched an offensive against the Hezbollah in Lebanon and was fought to a standstill. Hezbollah’s survival made it a lot more popular and Israel’s aura of invincibility was badly dented. Hamas is no Hezbollah. It is not as tough or as capable as Hassan Nazarallah’s organisation. Also, unlike in 2006, this time Israel seems to be successfully avoiding battles in dense population centres where die-hard Hamas fighters could take a heavy toll of its fighters. If Israel’s only objective is to stop the rocket attacks altogether, it will not succeed. If its aim is to only make Hamas pay a price for the rocket attacks, it may succeed. However, Hamas will continue to exist as an organisation even after this offensive is over. It will also retain its ability to launch attacks on Israel, as before. Its popularity in Gaza Strip and the rest of the Arab world may even go up. In short, the Israeli offensive will most probably do nothing other than help the Labour Party and Ehud Barak win the next elections.

Awaking a Sleeping Man

BangaloreGuy — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:41:25 EST

<i>You can only awake a sleeping man, and not one who pretends to sleep.</i>

-Mahatma Gandhi

In a pointed response to how good this government, the Prime Minister and the new Home Minister are at securing us, is the information that the expanded NSG is to expand to 4 more (metro) cities Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai & Hyderabad. That the "metros" definition needs a big lookover aside, it underscores the fact that these bozos do not have their head over anything that relates to governance, or security.

When was the last time Kolkata even had a terrorist attack - yeah, that is the kind of question that keeps the mind ticking, doesnt it?(2003, American Embassy) How about Chennai. Umm, the closest, is attacks in 98 at Coimbatore and in Bangalore. But, in their infinite wisdom they've a hub in Chennai too.

Attacks on Chennai may impact the Indian economy - but its not on the World radar, neither does it face a threat perception of that level (or impact the economy on a big enough scale). Attacks on Kolkata will not hurt the economy either - the last time West Bengal had a decent chance of impacting the Indian economy positively was with the Nano project, but that wasnt based in Kolkata either! (and the techs there are about the same as most Tier2 Indian cities)

No NSG for Guwahati which faces attacks here, there everywhere. No NSG for Bangalore which gives on an average 25 billion US$ to the government buckets, and has faced 2 terror attacks in the space of a year. 300,000 tech workers reside in bangalore - most employed in hubs around Electronic City or Whitefield areas. But nope, Bangalore doesnt get a NSG hub. Nearest will be in Chennai (and given the chaos in travel to the BIAL airport, travelling by road's faster - but the NSG might get Volvos if, god forbid, they'd need to be deployed in Bangalore)

Listen to this damning piece of Information (from the ToI link):

As soon as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced setting up regional NSG hubs in the wake of Mumbai attacks, chief ministers of several states including Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Maharashtra had met home minister P Chidambaram and pitched for setting up such units in their states.

Do Chief Ministers need to meet the Centre, towel-in-hand for an NSG hub to be there? What is the rationale for setting up a NSG hub? Prestige status for that state?

Or what this news report quotes:

The tech city was the favourite for stationing the elite anti-terror commando force, but it has now given way to the neighbouring Hyderabad and Chennai.

Under fire after the Mumbai terror attacks, the Centre had stressed its intention of creating more NSG hubs, and Bangalore —high on the terror radar for years—was billed as one. However, when it was announced early this week, the garden city was missing from the list. Those that bagged the NSG centres, apart from the two southern cities, were Mumbai and Kolkata.

When Deccan Herald sought to find out the reason, Home Ministry sources indicated it was mainly to deal with lobbying. “Karnataka failed in it both politically and bureaucratically. On top of it, Karnataka is an Opposition-ruled state, while Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh are not.

Is it little wonder that Pakistan repeatedly spouts its "Baseless" remarks, and runs hoops around our government, while asking for"evidence"?

Dr. Binayak Sen - A Poem

Amitabh Mitra — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:55:18 EST

Chattisgarh
Nothing really happened on that day
A few crows bled
Others were strangulated
In a corner of a sky
That turned gradually red
I told you
About these crows
My departure yielding
To another sky
Yet somebody far had been
Brought down suddenly
And cast away behind iron seasons
The crows bled soaking
The sun
I had held aloft
And its redness
Slit the earth too
Faraway again
Would you recognise me then
Would you still mingle your voice
Would you breathe on my shadow
Would you fear catching the corner of
That sky.

Dr Binayak Sen, a medical doctor and human rights defender, was arrested on 12 May 2007 in Chattisgarh, India. He is currently in prison awaiting a trial that has been repeatedly delayed.

Police allege that he passed letters between imprisoned members of a banned leftist group. However, Amnesty International believes the charges against him are politically motivated, aimed at stopping his human rights work. Dr Sen, a pioneer in providing accessible health care to the rural poor, has been documenting the impact of conflict in the region on the rights of marginalised communities.

Another Post-Mumbai Agenda: Getting Internal Security Right

Dweep — Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:11:24 EST

This is part 1 of a two part series on actions India should take, post-Mumbai. Part 2 will look at the specific challenge of managing Pakistan.

A picture has emerged of how the Mumbai attacks were planned and executed, mostly in Pakistan. The NY Times highlights evidence that Pakistan was the source of the attackers and the group behind it had received substantial support from the ISI. The report quotes not just the Mumbai police, but former Defense Department officials.

A picture is also emerging of the "rot" in India's own criminal justice and intelligence systems, pointed out most effectively by the BBC.

The attacks and their aftermath again point to the rot that has set into the country's internal security system and a lack of cohesion between civilian and security wings of the government...One telling example: six days after the attack, even the number of dead and injured keeps going up and down, due to poor co-ordination between the police and hospitals.

The Prime Minister has pledged to act with "resolve and determination" but what does that mean? The temptation to lean on Pakistan is strong, yet India's government might do better to learn a few basic lessons first. Here are a few.

Win the Information War
First, learn to win the war for world opinion. This should hardly be difficult, given the immense sympathy India has garnered over the attacks. Yet, the government can bungle this too.

For one, constant allusions to "external elements" and "neighbors" do not help. India has made it a habit of crying wolf and pointing to Pakistan everytime anything goes wrong. This, unfortunately, increases the burden of proof on India. That India pointed to Pakistan within hours of the attacks suggested either prior knowledge or - more likely to the public eye - the usual fearmongering. That is why an NY Times article is more credible when it quotes the US Defense Department, than the Mumbai police or Shivraj Patil. Make your words count.

Second, be consistent and professional in releasing information. If there is one thing that marked the operations in Mumbai, it was the many contradictory statements released in turn by the head of the NSG, an Army General, the Mumbai police commissioner, and the Home Minister. Protecting the credibility of information is as important as protecting the information. It was never clear who exactly was in charge of the operations, leading the bystander to believe that no one was in charge.

Finally, control the channels by which information is released. Is it not surprising that to find "evidence" of Pakistan's involvement, one has to go to the NYTImes? Why is the Home Ministry not releasing the evidence and ensuring that its security officials not "leak" information to the press?

Get Security Right
Winning the information war is about getting perceptions right - that India's authorities are in control and not simply smoking pot when they accuse Pakistan. If India can convince the US and Pakistan that it knows what it is doing, it will also convince them of the earnestness of India's words - and if necessary, threats.

But you cannot have others believe you are serious if your house is in disarray. And India's security apparatus certainly is. Nine hours for the NSG to get to Mumbai, three days to get the terrorists, and another two days to clear out bombs from the train station at Mumbai!

To be taken seriously, India must fix its anti-terror mechanism. And a first step is to invest heavily in the local police. The local policeman is India's first defense against crime and terror. It is these people - long reviled and under paid - who face the first bullets, secure crime scenes, and call in the big guns. You cannot expect to be safe if these people are not motivated to protect you. Fixing the local police will not be easy, nor cheap. It requires that every state pay its policemen more, invest in better training, offer better equipment and a safer work environment, and improve communications across state police and military intelligence divisions. The creation of a "federal" agency or a stronger law is useless, if we cannot catch the people to begin with.

Second, leverage technology. Britain's enthusiastic adoption of video surveillance in the 1990's, in response to IRA attacks, shows how successful it can be - at least in managing the aftermath. Today, London has over 10,000 cameras, and Britain over 4 million (1 for every 14 people - the highest in the world). The cost of technology, critical to coordinating first-response between fire, medical, and police services, is dropping exponentially. There is really no excuse for why India's police forces still operate with WWII era walkie talkies.

Third, upgrade the NSG to be one of the best anti-terror response units in the world. India is one of the most frequently attacked countries - it needs to have a matching capability. Yet, in the BBC article a security analyst illustrates how the NSG have no dedicated aircraft and insufficient training in responding to a Mumbai-style attack:

The commandos have been trained to rescue small groups of people. "They have not been trained on multiple location operations of such scale."

Four, India needs to be creative in its training of the NSG - and this will come from working with more creative partners. Why not train with Israeli and US security forces on a regular basis? Their agencies, amongst the best in the world, would not only be willing to share intelligence, but also tactics. Mumbai shows that whether we like it or not, the terrorists see us as one group of enemies. So it is time we embraced our new allies.

Finally, the NSG should be a dedicated anti-terror unit, not a team meant to provide protective cover to corrupt politicians. In the USA, the Secret Service does not conduct anti-terror operations, just as SWAT, Seal, and other special forces teams do not provide individual protection services. The former is dedicated to protecting key people, the latter to anti-terror operations. Likewise, the NSG should not be wasted on protecting corrupt politicians, the bulk of whom should be protected by local police. And, doing so would have the added benefit of creating incentives for politicians to improve local law enforcement.

Mumbai: An Opportunity to Reflect
Mumbai was a wake-up call. It seems increasingly likely that the attack was planned in Pakistan, yet the inability to prevent it or to respond effectively was a domestic failure. It brings home the rot, not only in our police system, but in our politics.

In such an environment, it is easy to lash out at an "external party" and in time India must do so. Yet, Mumbai offers us the opportunity to look within before we look without. India's first act of determination must be to set our own house in order. It will be difficult and politically tricky for the Congress to admit to lapses. But if the government is serious about tackling terror, they must follow the advice of an earstwhile opponent, Iqbal:

Khudi ko kar buland itna ke har taqdeer se pehle khuda bande se khud poochhe bata teri raza kya hai

Why the NSG Should Not Protect Politicians

Dweep — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:11:20 EST

Sure, there is the desire to make inept politicians pay for what happened in Mumbai. But there are some more fundamental reasons why.

First, the NSG should be a dedicated anti-terror unit. The Secret Service does not conduct anti-terror operations; nor do SWAT, Seal, and other special forces not provide protection services. The former is dedicated to protecting people, the latter to anti-terror response. Likewise, the NSG should do what it does best.

One benefit of such a move would be to free up resources within the NSG, sorely needed to improve the state of the NSG. As the BBC mentions, the NSG lack dedicated aircraft - which accounts for their delay in getting to Mumbai. They also are not trained in the kind of operations Mumbai required:

The commandos have been trained to rescue small groups of people. "They have not been trained on multiple location operations of such scale."

India is one of the most frequently attacked countries - and needs to have a matching capability to respond. Freeing the NSG from protective service duty will allow it to grow to be one of the best anti-terror response units in the world.

But there is an even more pressing reason for India's politicians to be protected by the local police. It is simply a matter of giving them incentives to care for the dismal state of policing and invest more in it.

That investment is sorely needed. While India pressures Pakistan to act, what is clear is that Mumbai was a domestic failure of local law enforcement. The only way to ensure this does not happen again is for India to invest heavily in its criminal and security systems.

And a first step is to reform the local police. The local policeman is Indians first defense against terrorists of the kind that hit Mumbai. It is these people - long reviled and under paid - who face the first bullets, secure crime scenes, and call in the big guns. We cannot expect to be safe if these people are not motivated and equipped to protect us. That means paying policemen more, investing in better training, better equipment and a safer work environment, and improving communications across state police and military intelligence. The creation of a "federal" agency or a stronger law is useless, if we cannot catch the people to begin with.

India's politicians have grown fat and lazy on pork, and <a href="http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers30%5Cpaper2951.html">disconnected from the insecurity</a> that grips the country. It is a natural principle of democracy that those that represent a country's citizens have the same protections as the common man. No more, no less. It is time that happened, because nothing else will encourage our politicians to care for the security of Indian citizens.

Reacting to Terror - Time We Looked Inwards

Deepti Lamba — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:59:07 EST

We are quick to blame the government but as a society, have we taken stock of our country? We are quick to blame any one and everyone but ourselves. What have we as a society done to save our children from the maundering stray dogs? There is always someone to take the cause up to deter clean up - call them animal lovers or bleeding liberal hearts who are unwilling to take the initiative up themselves to sterile the rabid mutts but first to protect menace that in other countries is put down as a logical practice.

They don't care how many children die deaths even worse than suffered by criminals themselves till the time their mangy mutts get to live as kings of the streets.

Are they not much like our politicians then? I don't need to get into the political semantics, mud slinging battles that they are forever indulging in. They merely want to forward and protect their causes, protect their vote banks. And we the public, the impotent eunuchs watch on and lead our lives till one of their very causes bites us bad on our individual asses.

Until we lose our own in tragedies that are throwbacks to medieval times, we don't really realize the apathetic malaise our society is suffering from.

If, as a country, we have been unable to provide basic amenities to the citizens, how can we expect our governments to handle something as evil and complex as terrorism?

We are like the frogs living in a pot of boiling water, puddling along in the sham of security provided by daily living and are slowly but surely losing our sense of humanity. We tend to forget older scandals - the jeep scandal, the lack of socks for our soldiers in the Chinese war, the trading of militants for the daughter of a politician.

We have only ourselves to blame for what happened. Its time not to forget this tragedy for it will only get worse. We need to galvanize public opinion and demand accounting - We need to go on a witch hunt against the decrepit machinery of our government, against those who provide us shitty infrastructure, against those who purely protect their money taps, against those who do not provide the latest weapons to our law enforcement agencies, against those who litter our country, those who divide our us in the name of religion, caste and creed.

We need to be more upfront, more passionate and more zealous in our own cause. Our cause is to clean up our country . Our cause is to provide a safe nation to our children.

It is time to look inwards and ask how I have let my country down? How can I make my community, my country a better place to live in?

It is time for every Indian to rise up and say - I will take this shit no more!

Disjointed Questions on the Bombay Blasts and Its Aftermath

Kim — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:11:12 EST

Being in a distant country while Bombay is under siege, is nerve wracking at best.

My first long stay in Bombay was for my first job, with MBA degree in hand. The first weekend trip we took together as Management trainees was a local train ride from Andheri to South Bombay. We caught up with other batchmates in town for a movie at Metro Cinema and headed over to Cafe Mondegar for a drink and later carried onto Cafe Leopold because we had heard so much about these Bombay favourites. We then walked over to the Gateway of India and gazed at the iconic Taj Palace and towers. Gathering courage we felt we could project enough confidence to walk in and use their washrooms, which we managed.

Since this was the late 90's, B-School salaries weren't as astronomical as they were at the turn of the millennium and we obviously couldn't afford to eat in there, so we headed over to Bademiyan's for more affordable fare.

All these locations were under the media spotlight for the last 48 hours, for reasons one would never have dreamed about.

Personally, this attack was very hard hitting because of the sheer numbers of family and friends who live in the area, who were working late in the area, or were eating in the area after work. As is usual after every such attack in India, we started calling and smsing, then emailing and scrapping (when the phone lines were jammed and over loaded) and everyone we knew in the location to check on their status. This time it was a much, much longer list of people we were checking on.

Some were barricaded inside their houses and offices in the area while their lifts were shut down and they were advised not to leave the premises. Many spent that first night in the office while the rest of us helplessly spent the night hoping and praying for their safety and that the violence wouldn't spread to the surrounding buildings.

We stayed glued to the television and kept refreshing news sites on our computer screen and anxiously followed the sequence of events. Coherent thought was not easy and plenty of questions and inconsistencies kept popping up in my mind.

First of all: kudos to our NSG, army, hotel staff and police for their heroic efforts.

Why/How did this happen:

Intelligence failure is something the foreign media has been harping about in relation to these attacks, but as someone else mentioned: weren't 9/11 and the London Subway attacks, intelligence failures too.

Could we have done anything more to secure the locations?

How many locations will you secure? We have a country of a billion+ citizens, so I don't think it is about securing locations. Terrorists target any and every location. The only way every place can be secured is if citizens take responsibility of being aware of their surroundings and people around them.

We need to stop cribbing about and finding innovative ways to avoid security measures at malls, cinema halls etc. They are there for our security.

Our government should focus on stemming the problem at its roots: training camps, poverty, education, unemployment.

The terrorists were armed with AK47's while a lot of the police and railway police were equipped with nothing more than a lathi. Do they even stand a chance?

Why were 3 top cops traveling in the same vehicle?

Rescue efforts:

The staff at the hotels responded admirably and heroically. Some even lost their own lives while saving the guests. I am not sure if they receive training drills for terrorist situations, but they did their best.

Politicians have no business being anywhere in the area when such situations are ongoing. Having them around, means that security and armed forces are forced to divert their attention to the "security of the politician"

What business did Gopinath Munde have to be at the Nariman House today?
Same problem when they visit hospitals were the wounded are taken. Doctors and nurses are forced to stop tending to their patients and clear the area so the politician and their entourage of news crews and security personnel royally stroll through the area and promise tax payer funds (other peoples money) as remuneration.

Media:

While NDTV was the most restrained of the lot, our media still behaved as irresponsibly as always.

People whose family members were stuck inside, is it fair to thrust microphones at their faces and ask them how they are feeling?

Rescued people being brought out of the hotel after a horrifying ordeal, is it fair to thrust microphones at their faces and ask them how they are feeling?

While Right to Information is a wonderful act, some lines should be drawn when it comes to National Security. Broadcasting the immediate moves of the security forces, dissecting their rescue maneuvers, having ex army personnel describe helicopter rescue operations in detail - this only gives more intelligence to the terrorists holed up inside who could be in contact with anyone with a cable connection outside the location, even if cable connection at the hotels had been cut off.

Broadcasting false reports of the operation being over when it isn't because they see a thumbs-up being exchanged between two NSG personnel.

We need an appointed official spokesperson who is the only authority allowed to speak to the media when an operation is ongoing. This person needs to receive reports from all relevant sources and be advised on what news can be released and what cannot. Press should only be allowed at this location and not crawling around the affected area causing more security hazards or getting caught in the cross fire. This should give controlled information and hopefully control the rumour-mongering too.

If the press are controlled in one location, it will also prevent the crowds who were at the locations today not to show solidarity or out of concern but were there for the sole reason of getting their face on camera. (This is a reality in India)

Role of Politicians:

They haven't done anything to prevent the situation, they should stay away from the situation as mentioned above.

Where has the champion of Bombay, Mr Raj Thackeray disappeared to? Which safe location is he hiding in?

Our Home Minister was ineffectual as always. Surprisingly, our Prime Ministers speech didn't induce confidence either.

Politicians need to rise above their petty politics of deciding whether to hold a bundh on December 1st or not.

They should instead be visiting the homes of the brave security personnel who lost their lives and appreciating the efforts of their husbands, sons and fathers (not to be sexist, but no female personnel casualty has been reported yet in this case) who lost their lives in the service of the country. This is one of the few useful things that they can do at this point of time.

I also pray that they do not use this attack to further communalize our country for their own vote bank politics.

Future Action:

It may seem insensitive to say this at this point, but as a country we should take advantage of the terrorists targeting Americans, British and Israeli citizens.
The US previously tried to restrain India when they spoke about retaliation after the parliament attacks.

This is the right opportunity to use this joint sentiment against these terrorists to take a stand and launch a forceful offensive against terrorist camps targeting India.
Use the Israeli intelligence and their expertise to stem the flow of terrorists into India and destroy their their training camps.

We need a single security network that is pan-country, not disjointed co-ordination between multiple agencies.

We need to make our country safe again. Where people do not flinch at a loud sound, where people do not have to think twice before leaving their houses to catch a train, shop for groceries or watch a movie. We need to feel safe. It is our right as citizens.

Now I Have A Right To Reputation

K. M. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:44:40 EST

The Times of India reports

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person’s reputation is an inseparable part of his fundamental right to life and liberty and hence, the police and other authorities with the power to detain should be very sure of their facts against an individual before taking him into preventive detention and lodging him in jail.

“The reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution”

Let me reiterate some facts that I noted in an earlier post. Under the Indian constitution:

I do not have the right to express my thoughts freely. The state may impose “reasonable restrictions” on my expression ”in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” (article 19)

I do not have a right to my property. (The right to property is not a fundamental right)

I do not have a right to my body. ”Nothing in this article (article 23) shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes”

But now I do have a right to reputation - a right to what others think of me, a right to others judgment. And this is what the Times has to say about it

It should be welcomed by those who are disturbed by the rampant trend among cops to send the accused to jail even for bailable offences or when the evidence has not fully firmed up. Anxious to appease the chorus for swift justice and to be seen as discharging their law enforcement brief, cops and other detaining authorities see jailing the accused as an easy option.

There is no need to invoke a right to reputation to keep the police from abusing their powers. In the earlier post I wrote,

“This mess of contradictory and concrete-bound articles institutionalizes an approach of rampant pragmatism to governance. It institutionalizes the idea that there are no absolute rights, no absolute principles and no absolute limits to the actions governments can take.”

This ruling and its purpose serve to underline that.

Book Review: NEXT

K. M. — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:24:33 EST

NEXT is a novel by Michael Crichton. Or at least it claims to be. It has a disorganized plot, too many characters with too little characterization and gratuitous sex. Just about two weeks after reading it, I can hardly remember the characters or their roles in the plot.

The main plot describes the efforts of a biological research company engaged in creating genetic drugs to recover some cells that could be used to fight cancer. The cells have been obtained during a routine treatment and the patient is unaware that his cells are special. The doctor who treats him discovers that the cells are special and continues his research without informing the patient.

When he decides to commercialize the cells, the patient sues his company but loses the case. He then gets an offer from a competitor for his cells and goes into hiding. Meanwhile the cell samples are stolen and the company attempts to obtain cells from the patient’s daughter and grandson, providing enough material for all the action.

There are also some sub-plots. There is a researcher who discovers a “maturity” gene, accidentally gives it to his drug addicted brother who comes out of his addiction, then tries out the gene on some other people, only to discover that the gene actually causes premature ageing and death. There is another researcher who inseminates a female chimpanzee with his own sperm with some genetic process (I don’t recall the details) and lands up with a humanzee kid, resembling a chimpanzee in appearance but capable of human speech.

He takes the kid home and sends him to school disguised as a child with some rare medical condition. Overall, the plot is somewhat incoherant and one has to make an effort to remember the characters when they reappear after a few pages.

As a novel Airframe was much more engaging and Prey was a lot more exciting even though the plot in Prey was much worse. (Airframe and Prey are the only other novels by Crichton that I have read). If NEXT were just a novel, it would be a waste of time. But NEXT is more than a novel. It raises serious questions about patent laws in the domain of genetics, intellectual property rights, what it means to own ones body, commercialization of genetic research, role of universities and government in research etc. In fact, Crichton has a 7 page note at the end of the novel, explaining his views on these issues. Since one of the purposes of this novel (perhaps the primary purpose) is clearly to raise these issues, let me present a summary of some of the issues from the novel and Crichton’s views.

Crichton presents a world that is almost out of control, a world in which the state of the art in genetics has far surpassed the state of the relevant laws. Here are some examples:

The lawyer representing the doctor and his research company tells the patient’s daughter after winning the case, that it would be futile for the patient to appeal the ruling. “UCLA is a state university. The Board of Regents is prepared, on behalf of the state of California, to take your father’s cells by right of eminent domain.”

The CEO of the research company wants a divorce and custody over his children but his wife doesn’t. His wife’s grandfather died from a fatal genetic disease and there is a chance that she might have it too. The CEO’s lawyer demands that the wife be genetically tested and gets a court order. The wife is unwilling to be tested since a discovery that she carries the disease would ruin her life.

An insurance company cancels a person’s coverage based on some genetic information about his father who died in circumstances that caused a legal enquiry. Someone at the company that performed the genetic tests says “Anyway the son is saying he did not authorize the release of genetic information about himself, which is true. But if we release the father’s information, as we’re required by state law to do, we also release the son’s, which we’re required by state law not to do. Because his children share half the same genes as the father. One way or another, we break the law.”

“The COX-2 inhibitor patent fight was famous. In 2000 the university of Rochester was granted a patent for a gene called COX-2, which produced an anzyme that caused pain. The university propmptly sued the pharmaceutical giant Searle, which marketed a successful arthritis drug, Celebrex, that blocked the COX-2 enzyme. Rochester said Celebrex had infringed on its gene patent, even though their patent only claimed general uses of the gene to fight pain. The university had not claimed a patent on any specific drug.”

Op-Ed commentary: “Columbia University researchers now claim to have found a sociability gene. What’s next?… In truth researchers are taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge… Geneticists will not speak out. They all sit on the boards of private companies, and are in a race to identify genes they can patent for their own profit…”

At the end of the novel, Crichton presents his views in the form of a 5 point course of action

1. Stop patenting genes: Crichton writes that genes are a fact of nature and such cannot be owned or patented.

2. Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues: Crichton writes that there should be legislation to ensure that patients can control the purpose for which their tissues are used.

3. Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public: Crichton suggests (not very clearly or convincingly) that there should be some genuinely independent verification of findings and full disclosure of research data.

4. Avoid bans on research: Crichton essentially argues that “To the best of my knowledge there has never been a successful global ban on anything. Genetic research is unlikely to be the first.”

5. Rescind the Bayh-Dole act (an act permitting university researchers to sell their discoveries for their own profit, even when that research had been funded by taxpayer money): Crichton laments that thirty years ago, universities provided a scholarly haven, a place where disinterested scientists were available to discuss any subject affecting the public. Now universities are commercialized, the haven is gone and scientists have personal interests that influence their judgement. Also “Taxpayers finance research, but when it bears fruit, the researchers sell it for their own institutional and personal gain, after which the drug is sold back to the taxpayers.”

I agree with points 1, 2 and 4 and strongly disagree with points 3 and 5. In fact I believe he has got the issue backwards.

In his support for point 3, Crichton writes “Government should take action. In the long run there is no constituency for bad information. In the short run, all sorts of groups want to bend the facts their way. And they do not hesitate to call their senators, Democratic or Republican. This will continue until the public demands a change.” This is true but his conclusion doesn’t follow. An “independent agency” in charge of verifying findings has to be under the control of politicians who will be all too willing to oblige the groups who who want to bend facts in exchange for backing. This phenomenon is not new at all. It is called lobbying. Requirements for disclosure are even more ridiculous than bans. You can force a person from doing something with limited success. How do you force a person to disclose what no one else knows? And most importantly, government has no moral right to <i>require</i> someone to do anything. Men are not slaves.

About the Bayh-Dole act, again Crichton has the facts right and the conclusion wrong. Universities are certainly commercialized today. And researchers who are funded by public money and allowed to make private profits certainly act in unscrupulous ways. The incentives are definitely wrong. But the solution is not to de-commercialize research. That is neither possible nor desirable. It ignores the context of why the act was passed in the first place. It was passed because non-commercial research does not work.

Describing a character who is a director of NIH (National Institutes of Health), another character says: “Rob’s a major player at NIH, He’s got huge research facilities and he dispenses millions in grants. He holds breakfasts with congressmen. He’s a scientist who believes in God. They love him on the Hill. He’d never be charged with misconduct. Even if we caught him buggering a lab assistant, he wouldn’t be charged.” and again “It was classic Rob Bellarmino. Talking like a preacher, subtly invoking God, and somehow getting everyone to push the envelope, no matter who got hurt, no matter what happened. Rob can justify anything. He’s brilliant at it.” The solution to unscrupulous researchers (in as much as the problem can be “solved”) is not to have more such men like Rob. It is to make them impossible, or more precisely to make it impossible for them to enjoy political clout and arbitrary powers to grant millions in grants. It is to divorce research from government.

The Hindu Terrorist and Current Investigations

Ashish — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:39:55 EST

For the first time in the country, the term 'Hindu terrorist' has come into common usage. It all started with the Malegaon blasts of September 29, outside the office of SIMI where 6 people died in the explosion, and many others were injured. As it turns out, this was not a case where terrorists, inspired by the word of radical Islam, had committed the crime. While the blast is under probe, all information that has been revealed so far by the ATS, and by the press, is that this was in the nature of a retaliatory attack (retaliation for the bomb attacks carried out by terrorists inspired by radical thought). While investigation is being carried out, this incident and the investigation has already led to a huge amount of hue and cry.

For once, both the BJP and the Shiv Sena are on the defensive. One of the main accused, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, was apparently a fiery speaker who was capable of rousing the spirits of people; incidentally, she was also a former national executive president of the Durga Vahini, and has been shown in the same photo as Rajnath Singh and the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. The BJP has disowned her and her actions, claiming that this was done after she left the organization (and this part may be true). However, many constituents of the Sangh Parivaar are not happy with this and are pitching for the BJP to support the accused. The Shiv Sena is in total support of the accused (one can always consider the Shiv Sena to have a sense of irrationality in their actions).

This is where the BJP should have been a party with a difference. Having a political plank of National Security would mean that the party should stand firm against anyone who indulges in matters such as riots and bomb blasts. In this case, the refusal of the party to take a firm stand against the alleged bomb plotters means that the actions of the party are similar to the actions of the Congress, Samajwadi Party and are personally very disappointing. No matter what the reason, there cannot be any justification for supporting any brand of terrorists, whether they be terrorist inspired by radical Islamic theology or Hindu terrorists inspired by some concept of revenge. The bigger worry (based on current police reports) is that a senior army officer is involved, against their duty of protecting the nation:

Public prosecutor Ajay Misar said in the court that Purohit had attended most of the meetings organised by others accused at Kashmir, Pune, Bhopal, Nashik, and Deolali. "Since he is a senior army officer, he could have been the source for the RDX used in the bomb. We also have evidence that he distributed money to several people through his organisation through cheques and cash. The financial transactions are through hawala as well," said Misar, adding, "Purohit also trained several youths in bomb making."

Those arrested also include retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay and former Durga Vahini national executive president sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. The ATS completed all the formalities regarding the arrest of Lt Col Purohit — the first instance of an armyman being booked for a terror act — on Tuesday evening. Purohit came in contact with Upadhyay when he was posted at Nashik as liaison unit officer. Sources said he used the Nashik stint to fraternise with the extremists in various radical Hindu outfits and to draw them into Abhinav Bharat fold.

It is incumbent to nip such attacks and planning in the bud. The country already faces enough problems from terrorists and separatists in many corners of the country without having more people join this front (and there are terrorists who are Hindu as well - the ULFA, Naxalities, and many others). The BJP and other parties should take the lead in cutting such misguided people from getting public support and that there is no sympathy for them. Else, there is no justification in the BJP blaming people for showing support for the terrorists killed in the Jamia Nagar shootout in Delhi.