Desicritics Category: Politics: Terrorism

Technology Lapses

Halima Khan — Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:36:09 EST

The tools of the information age which were once welcomed as a great step forward for mankind are now progressively more so being turned into weapons in the "war on terror." For instance, the G8 countries in recent times approved to integrate biometric passports based on microchips or databases that predetermine physical characteristics such as facial dimensions, fingerprints, iris patterns and voice patterns. More than a few governments are operational in attaining, developing, and linking databases of personal information. Subsequently they will build up on data mining software to verify "signatures" of terrorist movement.

It is argued that these intricate information systems engage artificial constructions of the "terrorist" which are too complex for any single human being to comprehend, yet too reducing to serve as a dependable basis for suspicion. Additionally, sanctioning high technology to categorize suspects complicates the matter of liability and responsibility for what is already being practiced in a relatively low-tech approach: the detention, deportation, and even torture of suspects presumed guilty of terrorist association.

The role of information technology in countering terrorism in an era of globalization can itself come under question. Modern terrorism has been typified as a negative comeback to globalization, but at the same time, terrorism has become so effectual by exploiting the very engines of globalization itself. The role of information technology in fighting terrorism, especially intelligence analysis comes fully loaded with the legal challenges that lie as consequence. It takes a network to fight a network, an analyst puts very rightly. But then it takes a network to create a counterfeit network as well.

Information technology is at the heart of both modern terrorism and globalization. Globalization has distorted the distinction between international and domestic terrorism. Terrorism became strictly global in the late 1960s, with the arrival of cheap commercial intercontinental airline travel and international communications. Not accidentally, cheap intercontinental travel and international communications are two of the engines driving globalization and aiding terrorism. Terrorists veil their planning and preparation in a sea of global noise, but a well-resourced terrorist faction has a global scope, span, and presence, withholding no borders and jurisdictions. Terrorists have revealed an ability to exploit information technology. Many have hypothesized that terrorists may soon begin targeting information technology itself, as well as using it as a weapon, for instance with attacks against decisive infrastructures and cyber terrorism. To tackle these issues sufficiently, technology and law must be urbanized in parallel, with mutual respect for each other. This is unprecedented, but indispensable, if a balance is to be maintained in civil security, civil and economic liberty, and technological progress.

Drones for Pakistan - a Potential Game Changer

jay — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:26:32 EST

Soon after the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates left India's shores last week for Pakistan, came the announcement that the US was considering offering UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles popularly called drones) to Pakistan. This was supposedly to appease Pakistan to get them to join the US' war against al-Qaeda (see the New York Times story here).

Although the drone technology being provided is meant to be used against al-Qaeda it does not require a long stretch of imagination to see where it will end up getting used eventually - against India. It is appalling how neither the Indian establishment nor the Indian press has made any noise about this particular handout from the US to Pakistan considering the immense game changing quality of this deal.

Drones are essentially unmanned aircrafts the latest of which can fly for more than 2000 miles, stay unobtrusively at an altitude of about 3 kilometers and stay put in its position for even up to 14 hours. The latest advanced versions are able to sense the heat of human beings on earth from that height and precisely destroy something as small as a car from that height using Hellfire missiles with much less collateral damage than an F-16 would. These are therefore highly preferred by the Obama administration to eliminate terrorists in Pakistan, the most high-profile recent casuality being Beitullah Masud. The drone program is considered to be so successful that Mr. Obama has authorized more predator killings in hist first ten months than what Bush did in 3 years.

What is all the more striking about this is that being unmanned, these are actually controlled by operators who could be sitting anywhere in the world. According to experts, more questions about what it means to be "at war" is being raised due to this program. The operators of these drones are very often suburban home dwellers who drive down to their office for an 8 hour war from an air conditioned office (much like a video game) and then go home for dinner to their family. It is not clear how the concept of "being at war" itself will change with this kind of technology.

Admittedly, the US is wary of providing this technology to any other country as it provides them a military superiority over anyone else in the world. What they are offering Pakistan is only the surveillance technology and not the firing capability. However, this first step itself is going to introduce an inequality between India and Pakistan. Pakistan will now gain the capability to intrude into Indian airspace without being detected. And its Air Force will gain knowledge of the technology which is just one step behind the Predator missile-enabled technology.

From the deafening silence with which this news is being greeted by the Indian establishment, it is clear that the Indians were probably told and their acquiescence sought by the US before this offer was made. Perhaps that was one of the items in the agenda of Mr. Gates' visit last week. If so, it is a shame that India has agreed to this deal without thinking through the consequences. This is like the old Arabian tale of the camel and the sheikh. We are letting the camel just enough room to get his head into the tent to make him more comfortable. It won't be long before he occupies the whole tent throwing the sheikh out.

For more details on the Predator program, robotic warfare in general, and its consequences, here is an excellent book by P.W. Singer: Wired for War.

Jihad and the Indian Home Minister

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:48:55 EST

Sometimes I worry about our chattering political classes, specially about their grasp of basic funda’s relating to history, culture, politics and religion. Anyway, seems like our Indian Home Minister Chidambaram spoke (here is another report from a Muslim newspaper) at the Intelligence Bureau Centenary celebrations. The main bits which bewildered me are, and I quote:

The home minister also referred to the rise of a new kind of threat. He said, "Just as the Cold War came to an end, we witnessed the emergence of another kind of war, namely, jihad. Jihad is a war or struggle against non-believers and, currently, it is waged by a number of groups owing allegiance to Islam. Unlike the original Crusades, jihad is not fought like conventional war. Jihad employs terror as an instrument to achieve its objectives. The tactics of jihadis have been copied by militants belonging to other groups too, not excluding militants professing the Hindu faith."

There are so many things wrong with this statement (if correct, I have not been able to access a transcript of his speech). Let's see where all he went off the rails.

1. Jihad is not a war, it can only be termed as a religiously mandated observance. To confuse it with a political and military phenomena, which is the commonly known western sense of the word i.e. war, is seriously deficient and lacking. The word itself is a noun, meaning Struggle and you are supposed to struggle against your own weaknesses of the self (meaning to become better), to guard against bad or false utterances, guard against violence and the struggle with the sword. One can wage war based upon strict criteria (although these criteria can vary and this is the crux of the matter) against apostates, criminals, to defend the Islamic state, to expand the state, rebel against bad rulers, etc. etc. The wiki entry is a reasonably good overview of this topic.

2. The Crusades. Ah, another spectacular silly comment. The crusades were not war. If at all, then that was the Christian Jihad. At least as far as the religious angle is concerned. Various Christian Popes and rulers went about saying that the holy land had to be liberated and it was the Christian duty of the faithful to go about chucking out the infidels. Then the Muslims waged their Muslim Jihad on the Christian Jihad. Very confusing but war it wasn't. This was two religions having it out based upon their respective religious rulings. Here is a good site on how the Muslims viewed Crusades and this is a good book on it. Here’s a nice site from the Christian side.

3. War as we understand it is carried out between two recognised entities, and can be a civil war between two populaces, a war against something like drugs, a war against an idea like poverty or illiteracy, etc. etc. But we generally recognise wars between two countries or states, waged by armies in uniform, with a relatively formal beginning (with firing of a shot) and end (like signing a surrender or ceasefire agreement). It has force of law based upon what cannot be done rather than what its components are. The whole legal paraphernalia and edifice around war crimes (Hague, Geneva, Nuremberg, UN Tribunals and now the International Criminal Court) defines what cannot be done in terms of war. And the crusades definitely were not war, even if you want to apply current thinking to a medieval phenomena like the Crusades.

4. Terror. Again a silly formulation by the minister. Terrorism has 10.2 million definitions at the last count. By and large, they contain words like “use of violence”, “for political or religious or or or purposes”, “against a state or civilians”, etc. etc. But what actually counts on the ground is the definition as included in the Law of the various countries. See here for a good list of these laws.

5. Jihad utilising terror as an instrument. Now this is quite contentious. But if the understanding is that of #4 above, then by and large, that is not agreed upon by the majority of Muslim Jurists as shown by a very large number of jurists who have expressed their views on this. It is pretty much clear that the majority of Jurists do not think that terrorism (as defined by modern day law and usage) is allowed under Jihad.

So you might as well as ask, where on earth are these fundamentalists getting their religious justification from? Well, if one has to point to one source (and believe you me, there are tons of other sources), the original root lies in the time when the Mongols rampaged through the Middle East. A chap called as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah released his famous fatwa on Jihad. Here is the English version of the same and this fatwa, via Banna, Qutb, Maududi and others have come down to the current fundos in Al Queda, LeT and other assorted Mujahedeen’s. The main section is and I quote:

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely [2:189, 8:39] and God’s word is uppermost [9:40], therefore, according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since the constitute property for Muslims. However, the first opinion is the correct one, because we may only fight those who fight us when we want to make God’s religious victorious. God, Who is exalted, has said in this respect: "And fight in the way of God those who fight you, but transgress not: God loves not the transgressors." [The Qur’aan, 2:190]……………….

The Sharee`a [shari'a] enjoins fighting the unbelievers, but not the killing of those who have been captured. If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, e.g. as a result of a shipwreck, or because he lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the head of state (imam) may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people [freeing Muslim captives in return]. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna.

As you can see, there are some exclusions and the terrorists use it to appeal to their supporters. Here’s a very good overview of how Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwa and work has fed its way down to the fundos. But there is obviously a tension between the mainstream view and the terrorists view. Here’s a good overview of this tension. And in particular, if by this time you have not fallen asleep and are still facing problems in comprehending, read this rebuttal from Zawahiri. Warning, it's a book and pretty heavy going. That said, fatwas like this can cause confusion amongst the ranks. Coming from Darul Uloom Deoband means that it is respected.

Now, not having view of the transcript, I cannot say if the minister was right or wrong, but he was speaking from the perspective of the terrorist groups, well, then from their perspective, Jihad does have elements of terror, I am afraid.

6. Finally we come to the point he is making in terms of Hindu militants copying the tactics. Now this is a bit ambivalent. Reading for example Sarvarkar’s book Hindutva (which presumably would be the closest you can get to an ideological book), he talks about Hindutva relying on geographical unity, racial unity and common culture. But while he bangs on about Hinduism, nowhere does he reference any actual religious book to bolster his arguments, thereby giving me the impression that he is talking culture rather than religion, which applies to the notion of Jihad then as well. So that’s a crucial difference but on the other hand, terrorist tactics relating to propaganda, funding, violence against civilians, for political purposes, yes, he totally brought that on board. Here’s a good overview of the ideology and tactics underlying this Hindutva business.

But his other comments were weird and for such a sensitive topic, I am surprised that he spoke so loosely.

Modern Terrorism & The Christian Insurgency in Islamic Spain

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:22:55 EST

I was having a chat about Arabic conquests with an Egyptian friend and said, well, you are an Arab. He got very upset about it and said he aint Arab, no way Jose. (He is..). Anyway, so we got talking about early Islamic history and we discussed how the edges of the Islamic Empire generally fought off the imperialistic shackles. Here’s an example of the geographic spread.

It's in the area of southern Europe and India where the resistance seems to be most ferocious and ultimately they did throw off the imperialistic yoke to “assume” their older civilisation. But Northern Africa, the Middle East, Iran and Central Asia became Muslim. I remembered reading an interesting paper on this topic, specially related to Spain and thought of giving a quick overview.

The loss of Spain and India seems to have seared the psyche somehow as you can still hear the fundos complain bitterly about the loss of these two territories and maintain that they will win them back again (see below). But while the story of India is well known, it's only the loss of the Spanish kingdom by the Moors that is known. Nobody knows much about what happened after the invincible armies of the Moors rolled over North Africa into Spain and then into southern France till they were stopped by Charles Martel. After the Islamic kingdom was created and formed in Spain, what then? What happened in the immediate aftermath? We know about the reconquista, but what about the intervening period?

This paper sheds some more light on what happened. The first reason for the success of the resistance was the negation of the use of cavalry by the Muslim forces up in the mountainous region. Without the quick ability to move around the battlefield, the Muslim forces suffered serious casualties and were simply unable to push through to their ultimate conquest of the total peninsula. Also waging war in the mountains is a disaster for the attacking forces and all the advantages lie with the defenders.

The second problem was the inequitable distribution of booty and this caused severe fighting amongst the Muslim nobles. Booty and looting is an accepted part of the Islamic laws of warfare, but then those lovely laws cannot deal with the normal human greed. Time after time, whether in Spain or in the Ottoman Empire or in India, you find that the seeds for the disaster or downfall of the Islamic empire can be related to this factor. Also one has to remember that succession in most Muslim empires and kingdoms was a very bloody affair with siblings being slaughtered regularly. One can see this in the Moorish Kingdoms, in Ottoman times, in Egypt, in the Arab regimes or in the various assorted empires or kingdoms in South Asia. Not that the Christian kingdoms were not better with revolts, but they were less afflicted than the Muslims due to the steadily accepted primogeniture rule, which made the crucial difference.

It took 800 years or so before the Moors were pushed out, but push out they did. Time seems to have moved differently at that time. But then, this kind of time frame isn't surprising. Take Greece for example, the Ottomans went in by about the 13th century and were not chucked out till the 19th century.

How about the Mughal Empire? It started around 1500 and frankly didn't end till 1857 or so. Mind you, I just read an article which claimed that the British were responsible for the demise of the Mughal Empire. Actually, the Mughal Empire was pretty much dead much before the East India Company had anything to do with it, not least because of Aurangzeb’s administration and activities. What was left by 1857 was a pimple on the rump of the grand empire which was soon pricked.

So it takes time. The Christian rebels in Spain also benefited from the proximity of other Christian kingdoms from where they got their sustenance and support as well. Also, the Spanish resistance maintained their northern Christian kingdoms which ultimately provided the bedrock and bedspring from which the reconquista started.

The other factor which is common in these countries such as Spain, Greece and India was the strength of their respective beliefs. In other words, the local populace didn't give in to the blandishments of the Muslim conquerors and retained their faith. It is this factor which allowed the native population to resist and ultimately overthrow the Imperialistic invaders unlike in Arab and other lands where they gave up. Quite an interesting paper which sheds light on the very early days of the reconquista. Without this period of resistance, one can well imagine that Spain could well have followed in the same footsteps of Algeria, Egypt, etc. who became Muslim countries (although that comment about Egyptians not being Arab is interesting, I might return to that argument sometime)

Which leads me to the second interesting paper. Why is Spain so important to the fuglies? The abstract quotes:

The purpose of this article is to look at the importance and treatment that Spain receives in jihadist propaganda. This study offers a series of empirical observations based on a content analysis of a sample of propaganda produced by jihadist groups between January 1994 and September 2008. The analysis of this material, the context in which it was spread, and a comparison with other Western countries leads to the conclusion that the role played by this country in jihadist propaganda can only be understood by taking into account “structural factors” that have little to do with a greater or lesser level of interference in “Islamic affairs.”

Out of the 2233 documents that the researchers studied, Spain appeared in 2.3% of them, USA in 67%, UK in 5%, Russia in 3%, France in 2.7% and Israel in 14.2%. In particular, the issue of Al Andalus seems to be seared into their psyche. I quote:

In this category have been grouped all the mentions made that refer to the period of Muslim occupation of the Iberian peninsula, understood as between the invasion begun from the north of Africa in 711 until the elimination of the last Islamic redoubt in Spain in 1492 with the taking of the Kingdom of Granada by the Catholic Monarchs. This is a period of history with a profound evocative power in the Muslim collective imaginary. To use the term “Al Andalus” implies speaking about a past of artistic, architectural, literary, and scientific brilliance, but also implies speaking of a period of greater Islamic political power. Said term forms part of the conceptual baggage for all of the world's Islamic population, independently of the degree of religious practice, political affiliation, or attitudes toward terrorist violence. This remembrance has a character of yearning, of lament and pain for the loss of a territory that symbolized the highest level of splendor of Muslim civilization.
This remembrance of a painful episode for Islam is present in jihadist discourse. It is significant that the first mention of Spain on the part of bin Laden was precisely in these terms: “Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Al Andalus will be repeated in Palestine.”
However, for Al Qaeda these allusions, far from constituting a mere rhetorical resource, acquire the character of an aggressive claim. For jihadist terrorism, the Iberian Peninsula is “dar al islam,” a land pertaining to the ummah, an Islamic land, taken and occupied by infidels. Jihadist terrorism incorporates among its objectives the “return” to Muslims of any land that at some time was under the control of Islam; it is a fight that must lead to the restoration of the original borders of the medieval Caliphate. According to Ayman al-Zawahiri: “Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq.” This defining of the original and immovable boundaries of Islam has become a true “mantra” for Al Qaeda. Although it is true that this objective is seen as a long-term goal, and that first it will be necessary to complete a series of prior objectives of great importance, its repetition is replete with meaning in the sense that it sets out an unrenounceable goal for the jihadist movement. In fact, the “obsession” of Al Qaeda to recover the “lost Al Andalus” now forms a part of the discourse of the rest of the networks that integrate the jihadist constellation. Thus, for example, in a communiqu from April 2007 produced by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb the following can be read: “By Allah, we will neither return our sword into its scabbard nor enjoy life until we liberate every Islamic land from [the hands of] the Crusaders, the apostates, and the collaborators, and until our ritually cleansed feet walk [once again] in the stolen [land of] Al Andalus and in desecrated Jerusalem.”…….
……Of equal importance is seeing how this aggressive demand has been incorporated into the ideology of groups geographically distant from Al Andalus, such as the Afghan Taliban. In June of that same year, the prominent Taliban leader Mansour Dadallah stated the following in an interview broadcast by Al-Jazeera: “Jihad will remain an individual duty incumbent upon us, until we regain Al Andalus and all the countries occupied by the infidels.” Regarding the Al Andalus category, it is an authentic exception among the “far enemy.” The jihadists make no territorial claims on any other Western nation, which leads to the amplification of the presence of Spain within the totality of communicative activity of jihadism.
The weight of history in the Muslim imaginary means that the mention of Al Andalus is full of implicit meaning. The targeted public understands perfectly not only to what is being referred to, but also what is the approach of the jihadist groups. Accordingly, the jihad against Spain is justified, not only for Spain's military presence in Afghanistan or its clear support for the U.S. enemy, but also as a legitimate struggle to liberate Islamic land from its Christian occupier. In this sense, the confrontation with Spain goes beyond Spain's policies toward the Muslim world and has a structural character, given that the nation is situated over a territory that by right belongs to Islam and its peoples.

The researchers note that it’s only in the case of Spain that they call it as Al Andalus, the rest of the benighted infidel countries are usually referred to in their current usage names like America, Israel, etc. etc. What really worried me was the ending of the paper and I quote:

In short, one can conclude through analysis of the presence of Spain in jihadist propaganda that independently of the degree of implication of this country in the Islamic world, Spain must endure a threat of structural character that converts it into a perennial target of jihadist terrorism.

While I do not have the data-set, looking at the fulminations that happen in Pakistan and the assorted beards in Pakistan, Kashmir and other unsavoury locations and the arguments made for Spain, there is a chance that India will face threats of a structural character of this ilk. The keyword is stolen. In other words, even if the Kashmir problem is resolved, the threat will only be diminished, not fully removed as long as Al Queda and its compatriots exist. See for example the explanation made for LET at the CFR site. As the BBC reports:

Lashkar's professed ideology went beyond merely challenging Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir. In a pamphlet entitled "Why Are We Waging Jihad?" the group defined its agenda as the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India.

See the word “restoration”? this is what is the operative word. And if more corroboration is required, read this report by Husain Haqqani, the current Pakistani Ambassador to the the Court of Saint Obama. This report talks about the ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups.

Exchange Ajmal Kasab for Sarabjit Singh

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:45:29 EST

Sarabjit Singh has been sentenced to death and his sentence has been upheld by Pakistan's Supreme Court. Sarabjit has been convicted for carrying out bomb attacks in Pakistan. According to the Pakistanis, Sarabjit is an Indian spy. Sarabjit, on the other hand, claims that he is just a villager who strayed across the border after having had one too many. In the world of espionage, if a diplomat is caught spying, s/he is expelled. Diplomatic immunity is something which non-diplomat spies have. If caught, they are usually disowned and left to their own fate.

There are exceptions of course. Jonathan Pollard was a Jewish man working as an analyst for the American Naval intelligence. Caught spying for Israel, he was sentenced for life and continues to be in prison in the United States. For many years, Israel denied all official ties to him, though Pollard managed to get Israeli citizenship while in prison. However, the High Court of Israel ordered the Israeli government to admit that Pollard was its agent. Ever since then, the Israeli government has been trying to free Pollard, but the US has refused to let him go. Israeli has always done more than most other countries in getting in nationals back home. At present it is bargaining with Hamas over a deal that will see the release of almost a thousand Hamas militants for a single Israeli soldier held by Hamas. Pollard is apparently not very happy with this, but then you can’t please everyone.

Even if India doesn’t concede that Kasab was spying for India, there is no denying that he is an Indian national and nothing prevents India from doing more to get him home. The traditional (and generally speaking, the only way) of obtaining the release of someone in Sarabjit’s position is to exchange him for someone else. India has a mixed record in exchanging prisoners for its people held in custody elsewhere. When Rubaiya Sayeed (daughter of Mufti Muhammad Sayeed, India’s first Muslim Home Minister in the V.P. Singh government) was kidnapped by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, India released five militants to secure her release, despite the objections of Farooq Abdullah’s state government. Years later, a BJP led government released three top militants so that the hijackers of an Indian Airlines plane taken to Kandahar would let their hostages go. One of the militants released was Maulana Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammad. However, India hasn’t been able to secure the release of PoWs from the 1971 war who are reportedly still held in Pakistani jails.

I want to see Sarabjit released and sent home to India. I don’t know if he was a spy or just a villager who got drunk and lost his way. The Indian government has made various appeals for his release, but can’t it do more I wonder. Is there any Pakistani national in an Indian jail, one held to be a spy by India and renounced by Pakistan, who can be exchanged for Sarabjit? I don’t know. However, I know that India has custody of a Pakistani national who goes by the name Mohammed Ajmal Amīr Kasāb. Kasab is currently undergoing trial in India for having taken part in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Caught on CCTV, the case against Kasab appears to be an open and shut case and a death sentence seems to be very likely. After initial denials, the Pakistani government has conceded that Kasab is a Pakistani national, but it maintains that no Pakistani agency was involved in the planning or execution of the Mumbai attacks last year.

What would be the reaction if the Indian government offers to exchange Kasab for Sarabjit? The Pakistani government is likely to refuse. Sarabjit the official Indian spy has nothing to do with Kasab the Pakistani freelancer who fought for an Islamic militant organisation which is at war with Pakistan at the moment, Pakistan is likely to say. Kasab himself might not want to be exchanged for Sarabjit. However, just as there are many Indians who would like to see Sarabjit return home, there could be many Pakistanis who like the idea of exchanging Kasab for Sarabjit. Kasab was a pawn in a larger game. I don’t doubt for a moment that he is guilty as charged and deserves no leniency. However, if by giving him up, India could secure Sarabjit’s release, it should, in my opinion, do so immediately without wasting a moment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Sarabjit is due to be executed soon. There are still a few good people working for his release. If you were to lend your support to his cause, he might still make it home.

Another Bungled Blow-up: Passengers Safe, Suspect Apprehended

temporal — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:04:46 EST

Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on the runway after arriving at Detroit Metropolitan Airport from Amsterdam. Northwest and Delta have merged. (J.P. Karas / Associated Press)

They arrived safely. It was a merry Christmas for the 278 passengers aboard Northwest/Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Republican Congressman Peter King identified the suspect as Abdul Mudallad, a Nigerian. King said the flight began in Nigeria and went through Amsterdam en route to Detroit.

The alleged terrorist tried to set fire to an 'incendiary device' as the plane began its descent.

The suspect, identified by a U.S. government official as 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was placed in custody and is being treated for second- and third-degree burns on his thighs, according to federal law enforcement and airline security sources.

The sources said the suspect flew into Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on a KLM flight from Lagos, Nigeria, and is not believed to be on any "no fly" list, although his name does appear in a U.S. database of people with suspect connections. He did not undergo secondary security screening in Amsterdam, the administration official said.

The administration official said there was no evidence that Abdulmatallab was a hard-core, trained member of al-Qaeda.

According to Syed Jafri, who was sitting three rows in front according to CNN, or three behind according to CBC and L A Times, a young man jumped on the alleged terrorist and subdued him.

He suffered minor body burns and is being hospitalised.

***

Questions:

* How much more can the airport security be tightened?
* Is there a better way to detect potential terrorists?\/
* Will this lead to more racial and ethnic profiling?
* Why don't they stop all carry on save medicines, diapers and baby food?
* What is the IQ of the alleged terrorist? (The timing of the act).

Pakistan's Insider Jobs?

C N Anand — Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:24:21 EST

To turn against one's own country and work for an enemy organization, one has to be embittered to the core, face repression, thwarted in ambition, blocked at every corner, or witness family members raped and killed. Money can only nudge a person into working against his country, the underlying motive has to do with something snapping deep down. The motivation behind the assassination of Indira Gandhi was a perceived sense of repression.

Pakistan started off well with Mohamed Jinnah promising a secular government. Secularism did not last long. Christians and Hindus were soon made second class citizens and those who could afford it fled the country. Those who could not leave, subsisted doing lowly jobs. They could not do any damage to Pakistan as they were not in a position to do so as they lived a hand to mouth existence, and were not employed in sensitive positions. The Ahmadiyas were declared non Muslims and many fled the country. The Shias of the Northern Areas were brutally put down and could not stand the might of the praetorian Pakistani army. The Baluchis have been putting up a fight blowing up gas pipe lines, but have not managed to take the fight outside Baluchistan into the hinterland. There are no Baluchis, Sindhis, Shias of Northern Area and Ahmadiyas in the Pakistan army. The Pushtuns and Punjabis are well represented in the Pakistani army.

The Pakistani offensive in the NWFP could not have endeared them to the Pushtuns. Video recordings of Pushtuns being beaten and tortured in Swat is reverberating across Pakistan. Pushtun refugees streamed out of Swat just before the crops could be harvested. The Tarbela dam Pushtun oustees are yet to be compensated, and are refugees in their own country. Pushtuns outside NWFP, living in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad are not known to own businesses or occupy high government offices, with many living in slums. However, the Pushtun representation in the army is 15 to 22% among officers and 20 to 25% among the rank and file, where as they comprise only 16 % of the population. Four chiefs, Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Gul Hasan Khan and Waheed Kakar have been Pushtuns. However, there are no all Pushtun regiments.

The Pakistani army is known to back-seat-drive Pakistan when a civilian government is in power, and is a government within a government. However, the last few months have seen the inner sanctum of the Pakistani army being violated. The army Head Quarters was attacked and officers taken hostage. The officers Mosque near the Head Quarters, a heavily guarded shrine, was penetrated and many high ranking officers slain. Marriots hotel, frequented by the glitterati of Islamabad was devastated. All this could not have happened without insider help. The Pakistan army must have investigated and the findings must be shaking them to the core. When will the Pushtuns in the army be disarmed is the question. The cracks in the Pakistan army are bound to show soon.

Politics - Pigs At The Trough

Deepti Lamba — Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:19:11 EST

If we were told that Azim Premji or Narayana Murthy spent Rs. 13 crores on themselves what would we say? We'd call them all kinds of names for this sort of monstrous expenditure but if the government spends crores over a report that has been lagging for over two decades or over a now-toothless terrorist, none of us bat an eyelid. Why is that?

Is it a reflection on our government or a reflection on us who let our government and bureaucracy get away with wasteful expenditures?

Are these expenditures transparent for us to review? More importantly, is the government audit acted on seriously? So much for the Congress's austerity drive when food prices are at an all time high and power hikes under BJP's rule in Karnataka will see a hike of 40 paise per unit.

But no, none of us bat an eyelid. We cannot hold the poor for not mobilizing protests. They are trying to survive each day as it comes but its us the smug middle class driving our Tata SUVs or American/Japanese cars who have to raise a hue and cry.

Heck, we never did it under the socialist era when they ate into the coffers and made the country bankrupt and we didn't ask why the fuck are we so poor? And now like well fed pigs we whine and let them loot us once again.

Crores spent on a pip squeak of a terrorist who should have been hung long time back and no protests? Why the fuck not?

There will be people who will protest over my cuss words but not the money wasted by the government. Yes, personal morality has nothing to do with bigger picture, nothing to do with being treated like personal piggy banks by the big saabs in their bullet proofed Ambassadors.

Stay away from pointless trips to foreign lands, Mr Prime Minister, we have a bone to pick with you. We will never forget 26/11 nor the wasteful expenditure you people have sucked from our wallets in the name of national security or 'good governance'.

That being said, its time for us to move from criticizing governance to participatory governance, and from political won't to political will.

26/11 - 'One India' is an Overstatement, Solidarity a Farce

Sanjukta Basu — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:57:18 EST

I am sorry to say but on this anniversary of the Mumbai terror attacks I can't help but being at my cynical best. Cynicism, despair, anger, frustration and helplessness have hit an all time high. All these talk of unity and solidarity seem to be such overstatement and the idea of one India is such a farce.

One India: Same India: Assam -

Sunday, 22nd Nov 09 - Twin blasts within a gap of 40 min, 8 Killed 50+ injured. How many candles did the Mumbaikars light?[link]

On 30th Oct 09 Assam silently remembered the victim of the serial blasts, 9 in total, that left 90 dead and 800 injured in 2008.[link]

April 09 - Assam again saw serial blasts, killing 8 people.[link]

I would not even dare to tread the path towards the even lesser known and ignored states of Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya but if you care, do a basic google news search on any given day with these states' name as key words and you will only see blood all around.

When was the last time anybody lit a candle for any of them. I don't have the statistics handy, but the number of people who have died in the North East of the country, and in region / language / caste / gender / sexual politics runs into 100,000s.

No body cares, they don't even know about the blood and gore going on in so many parts of the country. From media to the youth on twitter, the so called 'one India' consist of Bombay, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad and few more.

So much talk about unity and solidarity, why can't the people of Mumbai come out in large numbers on the street when another home grown terrorist tries to divide and kill people on the basis of language and region? Why don't they come out light a candle hold hands and dare Raj Thackeray, why don't they look straight into his eyes and tell, we would stand united no matter what language we speak.

But they won't do that, they would rather stay away from language politics. Because it is not their problem. It is not the rich and influential who are being beaten up by Sena goons. Only the poor, low class, labour class suffer.

Tonight these people stand in this very fashionable style of remembrance and solidarity, all the English speaking rich and influential, the actors, pop stars politicians and industrialists neatly lined in front of NDTV cameras holding hands. Did you see any body from the low class, the rickshaw puller, the coolie? No! Because who cares about their solidarity, only the rich should unite and collectively step on the poor's shoulder.

Talking about Pakistan not doing enough to curb terrorism growing in its land, when was the last time any country did anything about the terrorism growing in its land? How about India for example? What about the Naxals / Maoists? How many more terrorist attacks will it take for Indian Government to take action against them? If we can't tackle these state grown terrorists what right do we have to point a finger at Pakistan?

So people please stop talking about this myth of one India, for all I know its a disgrace towards the marginalized states and communities to brag any of these activities as symbol of unity and solidarity.

Movie Review: Kurbaan - Typically Stereotypical

PH — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:37:37 EST

Kurbaan proves yet again – if proof were needed – that Karan Johar is incapable of churning out anything but the worst stereotypes. Harsh, perhaps, but it is my honest assessment of his work so far.

In Kuch Kuch Hotaa Hai, for instance, Rahul (SRK) is attracted to Anjali (Kajol) only when she trades in her Western outfits for sarees, loses a basketball game to him, and drops her pallu for his gaze. This is as offensive to men as it is to women. In Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, the women suffer silently to feed a patriarch’s gargantuan ego, and when he finally caves in – presto! – all those tears that poor saas and bahu had shed are suddenly water under the bridge.

True, Hindi cinema isn’t exactly big on independent women with a mind (let alone sexuality) of their own. But, unlike Johar’s films, there’s no duplicity in the works of the other blockbuster directors. So when Sooraj Barjatya makes a Hum Aapke Hain Kaun or a Vivaah, he seems to believe in his work; the universe of these films, and the characters that inhabit that universe are extensions of his world view – the sincerity shows. Whereas Johar’s yuppiness on his talk show (his rather bold assertion, for instance, that he doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage) doesn’t quite square with his championing of the traditional on celluloid. There is a cynical marketing strategy at work here: given the big bucks he puts in to a film, he’d rather pander to an imagined lowest common denominator than speak his mind - a deception that is the politician’s stock in trade.

Johar may liken himself to Yash Chopra, but no woman in his films has ever had an iota of Rekha’s sexuality in Silsilaa (which, incidentally, never made the kind of money Johar's films do). In fact Johar is closest to Ekta Kapoor. (That both have a 'K' fixation is no coincidence. When you don't believe in your work, superstition is all you've got. Unless, of course, Johar doesn't know that the word is qurbaan). Since he doesn't understand the characters he creates, stereotypes are all he can come up with – it may not be intentional but it is inevitable.

In Kurbaan, the worst stereotypes are the Muslim characters: Riyaaz (Vivek Oberoi), the only young Muslim male who isn't a terrorist, asserts that he's American and that “our side” is the embedded media version of events; his father, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, sides with “his people” on religious grounds (“mazhab se wafaadaarii”). No one objects to the American invasions on secular, humanist bases: the issue here is framed in a classic 'with us or against us' binary. The Muslims live in eerie suburbs, killing wives and planning attacks in their spooky basements; the “ali maula” number plays in the background when the terrorists are carrying out their dastardly attacks; the damsel in distress is a liberal Hindu girl (couldn't she have been Muslim, or is that asking for too much imagination?) who probably should've respected her father's reservations about marrying a Muslim. (At one point, I hoped that the heroine would turn out to be paranoid-schizophrenic, driven by the desolate suburbia and an Electra complex to imagine the worst about Muslims – some kind of a comment on latent biases. Then I remembered it was a Karan Johar movie.)

To top it all, there's the Hannity and Colmes phenomenon - the good Muslim is Vivek Oberoi and the terrorist is Saif Ali Khan. Guess which one is more charismatic. If the Muslims have it bad, the Anglo-Saxon Americans aren't spared either. The white students that speak out in a classroom debate are all pro-war – a gross misrepresentation if there ever was one; and the cops are geeky, clueless and ineffective. There isn't a shred of the nuance or sensitivity we've seen in Kabir Khan's Kabul Express and New York, or Mira Nair's short on 9/11. All we have is insiduous stereotypes - all unintended perhaps, but inevitable, given the absence of conviction.

Even if you look past the issues of representation, the pretensions of topicality, and the simple minded politics, the script is riddled with craters left over by blasts – far too many to enumerate.(And what on earth was Anurag Kashyap doing co-writing dialogues for this?) Someone in the row behind mine quipped, “Should've stayed home and napped”. “Curb-yawn huwaa”, anyone?