Desicritics Category: Politics: War on Terror

Bernie, You Touched Me

temporal — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:00:13 EDT

I did not know you Bernie. Can I call you Bernie?

Were you married? Did you celebrate your 20th or 25th anniversary? Did you have children? Were you a good father? Were you good friend?

If I do some research I can find out more about you. But that would be later. Here in this park I can only guess.

You must have had your share of cloud nine days just as you would have had pit days.

****

The full moon peaked through the clouds and the waves in Lake Ontario near Lock 1 of the Welland canal reflected the peek-a-boo moon. the light house of the St. Catharines Marina warned the sailors. Sitting under a weeping willow, just east of Jones Beach, the distant lights of Whitby and Oshawa visible over the horizon, a sense of calm prevailed.

It was an unreal calm that for a few moments pushed the headlines mentioning Georgia, Russia, Kashmir, Occupied Palestine, Musharraf far away.

Few moments? Try 3:30 am! Next morning….er….afternoon, after brunch we headed out to a local bird sanctuary and zoo. In the pond a turtle crept up on a rock and was philosophically musing about the world around. A flock of Canada Geese rested in the shade. Past the pond a sign read Nature Trail. I thought, nature does not trail, we do.

There were weeping willows, oaks, maples, birches on this trail. At the end of this short trail we entered a well manicured small park: a memorial to the 47 Canadians who were killed in the twin tower collapse.

Trees found in Eastern Canada were planted and a plaque in front of each tree mentioned the names – Cynthia Connolly, Albert Alfie William Elmarry, Colin Macarthur…

I stopped at Bernard Mascrenhas, born Karachi, 1950.

****

I don’t know you Bernie. Your life was extinguished at a ripe age by the dastardly act of a former CIA golden boy Osama bin Laden. He did not know or care that you were on the 97th floor of the North Tower.

After the fall of former USSR, the US desperately wanted an opponent and 9/11 created that opportunity. At the cost of innocent civilian lives like yours and the others whose misfortune it was to be in the twin towers that day, they nearly succeeded in creating an enemy group that could fill the vacuum of the erstwhile bi-polar world. It found willing accomplices in Islamophobes organizations and states.

Whether Osama still sings to Langley, Va. tunes is open to conjectures.

At lock 1, of the Welland Canal I saw BBC Elbe pass through. I could have touched it. It appeared huge, almost 12 stories high. Later I saw it in Lake Ontario, still big, then growing smaller before fading from view. You will always be close to those who love you, even though you have faded from the memory of others.

I am against the loss of a single civilian life at the hands of a deluded individual, an organization or a state. Not knowing you personally I mourn you. May you be peaceful wherever you are. And may the tree planted in your honour thrive.

Book Review: Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:16:09 EDT

A few years ago when Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan appeared on television and confessed to having orchestrated the proliferation of nuclear technology to various ‘rogue’ states like Iran, North Korea and Libya all on his own, I had my doubts. I’m sure many of you also thought along the same lines. Surely all this could not have been done by one man without the consent of his government? However, I had shrugged it off thinking that it would be too much to expect anyone else within the Pakistani establishment to be held to task. Especially not when Pakistan and its CEO were both playing such a crucial role in the War on Terror.

Deception is a gripping book which confirms the suspicions which so many of us felt at that time and on various other occasions. Levy and Scott-Clark track in excruciating detail, almost on a blow-by-blow basis, the development of Pakistan's nuclear programme from its inception till the present day. It is a scholarly tome created with a lot of attention to detail. The notes to this book alone run to over eighty five pages. It has an elaborate index and a lengthy bibliography. The main book spans over 449 pages. In fact, at times the amount of minute detail crammed into this book makes it slightly heavy reading, even though it is mostly riveting stuff.

Deception is a mix of political and personal detail. It has details of A.Q. Khan’s household, stories about Zia-ul-Haq, Benazir and Musharraf, power play in Washington D.C., Delhi, Islamabad etc. According to Levy and Scott-Clark, deception took places at various levels all over the world. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Americans choose to turn the Nelson’s eye towards Pakistan’s activities. Later when they knew that proliferation was taking place on a large scale from Pakistan and were about to act on it, 9/11 occurred. The US needed Pakistan’s services once again. Therefore, rather than take Pakistan to task, Khan’s confession was stage managed so that everyone else could be off the hook.

Even thought most of what’s detailed in Deception consists of stuff we know or would have guessed, there were a few surprises for me. For example, Levy and Scott-Clark say that the Americans came to know Iraq had received nuclear technology and know-how from Pakistan under a deal made in 1990 only after the Iraq invasion.

If there is to be something negative to be said about this book, it is that at times Levy and Scott-Clark adopt a tone that has too much shock and bitterness written into it, the sort of bitterness that can only be caused by deception and betrayal by someone you deeply trusted. The chapters in this book have names oozing melodrama such as “Into the Valley of Death”, “A Fragment of the Zionist Mind”, “Gangsters in Bangles” etc. There is no attempt made to examine whether Khan’s activities could ever be justified, even to a limited extent. India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”) which prohibits its signatories from developing nuclear weapons or passing them to anyone else. That is, all signatories except the established five nuclear powers. If Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, why should it be restricted from selling or passing on nuclear technology to other countries? If Khan acted with the full knowledge and consent of the Pakistani government (as argued by Levy and Scott-Clark), then his actions were those of a sovereign state not constrained by the NPT.

I am not for a movement arguing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good idea. However, it is possible to argue that if the USA, UK, China, Russia and France can possess nuclear weapons, so can Pakistan, India, Libya and Sierra Leone. The proponents of the NPT have always adopted the attitude that many wanna-be nuclear powers are too irresponsible to be given access to such powerful weapons. In other words, a nuclear armed Iran or Libya is much more likely to use the N-bomb, than say, France or the United States. Even though it is possible to pick holes in this argument, it cannot be denied that if the number of nuclear powers in the world were to go up, the chances of a nuclear conflagration somewhere in the world will also undoubtedly increase. Therefore, I do agree with Levy and Scott-Clark that the actions of Khan and his sponsors and abettors have placed the world in much greater jeopardy than it would have been otherwise.

Despite this irritant, I really enjoyed reading Deception. The authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark currently work for The Guardian as senior correspondents. They are the authors of two highly acclaimed books, The Amber Room: The Fate of the World’s Greatest Lost Treasure and The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Secret History of Imperial Green Jade. Currently Adrian Levy lives in London and Catherine Scott-Clark is based in France.

Stingers: Sores That Hardly Heal

Harold Bergsma — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:45 EDT

The pain was almost intolerable. Burning, searing fire that ran down the side of my face onto my neck made me shout and scrabble about like a mad man. I had been picking oranges from a tree in our central Nigerian compound when I disturbed a nest of wasps that had taken residence in that tree, not more than two feet above my head. Six of these warriors descended on me and began to sting, each one multiple times. Wasps do not commit suicide when they attack, they use their stingers again. Years later, in 1985 I was reading on the verandah of our Model Town home in Lahore and a bee landed on my neck. I brushed it aside, but not quick enough and got stung. It was not as painful as the wasps had been but there was one difference. It left its stinger behind, and in doing so had committed suicide, tearing out its guts as it was brushed aside. Pindi, my cook pulled the stinger out with a tweezers, warning me not to leave it in as it would create a bad sore and become infected. I had to hear the terrible stories of children in his village that had been stung and had suffered terribly because the parents did not know enough to get rid of the deadly stingers and not to leave them embedded.

I had been reading the Pakistan newspaper, Dawn, at the time and news about the very beginning of the defeats and withdrawals of the Soviet military forces from Afghanistan because of such effective rebel fighting, like “persistent wasps”. This withdrawal eventually culminated in 1989, supported by the many small victories of the Mujahideen in their fight against the cursed invaders, and the support given by the Americans to this effort of the guerrillas during Operation Cyclone, support by the supply of arms and weapons to the freedom fighters. Stingers! Yes, these were supplied by the CIA in the hundreds to the forces fighting the Soviets. Some sources say as many as two thousand stingers were given to the Mujahideen. After the withdrawal of the Russians there was a concern that the Taliban now had many of these weapons, Stingers, which, with their heat seeking devices had been lethal against Soviet helicopters and low-flying aircraft. Now American forces could become targets of these very weapons.

But, allied experts said, the battery systems which operated these weapons became useless after a few years. (But the technology to repair and put in new battery systems existed; in fact Pakistan now has its own version of the old Stinger) I love the title of the article by Ken Silverstein in the State Oct.2, 2001, “Stinger, Stingers, Who’s Got the Stingers?” In that article he reviews the Reagan administration’s programs to arm the Mujahideen with Stingers to battle Soviet aircraft, he says that the Taliban now possess many of these weapons as do others to whom they were sold who ‘reverse-engineered’ these and made their own. Many worried about this because Islamic fundamentalist who loathed the West, about as much as they hated the Soviets, could possibly share these wonderful high tech weapons with, and think of this, with terrorist groups.

In 1986, Congress had approved the deal and CIA then shipped 300 Stingers to the rebels and the next year 700 more. The Stingers were now embedded, not only among the rebel forces, but according to some sources, Pakistan stock piled the Stingers it got, and some say, sold a few to the Chinese for sums unknown, who were clever and reverse-engineered them and produced their own, and since there was a hot market for these, reverse sold these to the ones who first had them. According to Silverstein’s article these weapons now were dispersed by the rebels to Tajikistan, Chechnya and Algeria. And, he says that the Pentagon approved the sale of Stingers to at least 21 countries, mostly NATO of course, such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. ( I love the word mostly. The selling of American weapons by Americans is a really big business, and this does not just include little Stingers, it includes weapons of pretty ‘mass destruction’ in the form of high tech aircraft and their missile systems. You know, keep the economy going.) The Soviets stole the design and made their own SAM-14 Gremlin, a virtual copy of the Stinger. Oh my! What a hornet’s nest!

The CIA later, in its $65 million program, (It is as if they gave each Afghan citizen $2) offered $150,000 to $200,000 to the very ones they had supported by giving them these amazing weapons. This was more than production cost, but cheaper than having their planes shot down. This buy-back program resulted in the return of very few of the Stingers and the authorities were concerned that the Taliban, who later waged a bloody insurgency, had stockpiled these weapons. In fact, the coalition authorities had no idea where most of these lethal Stingers were. These were a hidden threat and are still a threat today, imbedded, festering Stingers. This was a sore spot. The buy-back flopped, by and large. If the Americans thought that Stingers were worth about Rupees 1,200,000 each, these must be pretty good things to keep around, just in case. And it is a well know fact that in bargain situations, when one party seems a bit desperate to buy something, it may be a good strategy to hold back a bit and wait and see if the buy back price will rise. Imagine getting the Stingers free and then later selling them back at highly inflated prices to the donor and making a few dealers rich in the process. Riches buys land, good land for growing poppies.

These embedded Stingers may still be around. India claimed that in a 1999 attack Muslim rebels in Kashmir used a Stinger to down a military aircraft.

Kathy Gannon’s book I is for Infidel: From the Holy War to Holy Terror: 18 Years Inside Afghanistan, 2005, Perseus Book Group, speaks about the war in Afghanistan as being “yesterday’s war”. “The wider world had done the most dangerous of things. It had stuffed this tiny country with massive amounts of weapons, including the precious Stingers, turned over the countryside to the volatile discordant mix of mujahadeen factions—and then walked away.”

In 2001, following the Sept.11 attack the U.S. launched “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a military campaign to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist camps inside Afghanistan, the very ones with whom they had had a common cause, you know, the Afghan Mujahideen and who now said thanks for the free Stingers. The Stingers were not like those of the wasps, burning, searing, but temporary. They were like those of bees, which left imbedded, make their way deep into the flesh while pumping venom all the while and leaving a festering sore that hardly heals.

In the 2008 political campaigns new political solutions are being suggested about Afghanistan, new efforts that will need to be made to subdue the rebels in their mountain dens in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan and hopefully get the really bad guy, bin Laden in the process. What a holy terror our soldiers will face once again when ‘Yesterday’s War’, thanks Kathy, becomes Today’s Military Operation in which, on their turf, using our weapons, our Stingers, they, the bad guys, face off against us, defending their holy land with religious Islamic zeal, cursing oaths of vengeance.

Not to worry folks. Dear Wikipedia gives us the answers, “The US inventory contains 13,400 missiles. The total cost of the program is $7,281,000,000.” Let’s see, if we divided this by the population of Afghanistan which is about 33 million people it could set up the entire population with a nest egg for small business development that would put it on its economic feet, peacefully. Imagine what that money could do to build schools for Afghani boys and girls. I forgot; inventory means that the money has already been spent by U.S. tax payers to engineer and manufacture these arms which now exist and are waiting for new batteries and need to be used.

That is a lot of bees to contend with, a pretty big hive. Let the Taliban be warned, our hive is bigger than yours. The pain will be intolerable, a real pain in the neck! But for whom?

The Human DNA

Shantanu Dutta — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:48:48 EDT

As the violence in Jammu and Kashmir escalates beyond what bounces of our television screens, the vibrations are also cascading across our borders. Pakistan has of course reacted harshly to the “excessive use of force” to control the civil unrest there and in a typical knee jerk response, the Indian government has condemned the comments from the Pakistani Foreign Minister as an interference in India’s internal affairs.

There is this much to be said in that all countries in the sub continent are from the same genetic make up very literally and all can be blackened with the same brush. A lot can be perhaps said about Pakistan or any other country around making pious statements about human rights considering the overall record of every one here. But still the question begs to be asked – when do political boundaries blur and our human identity begins asserting itself?

When do we feel free and are given the freedom to express a genuine agony and anguish at the violence, broken and bereaved families that every unplanned funeral brings in its wake? This is not about fishing in troubled waters or scoring political brownie points at all. But I wonder - does it become treason to mourn the loss and grief of another because they live across a border that is not even a century old when cultural and ethnic bonds go back a thousand years or more?

When a lament from a neighboring country at the violence that is prevailing here and is flashing globally across television channels and internet news sites is understood to be interference, then the question arises for Indians as to what should they do. People with ethnic backgrounds and languages spoken in India live in all countries that surround us – Bengalis – even Bengali Hindus (for those whom this distinction matters) in Bangladesh, Tamils in Sri Lanka being the most prominent but by no means the only ones.

It seems easier to reach out across borders when natural disasters strike – like tsunamis or earthquakes or cyclones; but some how there is an insurmountable barrier when it comes to even making statements of empathy and condolence when the tragedy is manmade. Even a word can impute a motive when at least at the level of the common man or woman, none is intended,

Most of us are it the political establishment or those who are part of civil society will find it well nigh difficult to look the other way in the guise of non interference in the internal affairs of another country. If Tamils were to be in the midst of widely publicized media footage be subjected to violence or the Bengalis were, it would be politically inexpedient to sit back and do nothing.

If non interference in the affairs of others is the norm, then nobody in the international community should be speaking into what is happening in Zimbabwe, or Sudan, and India itself should not have moved resolutions in the United Nations when South Africa was still practicing racism. But it is good at times, indeed necessary for people to speak up, take note and make a point in the international communities and forums so that what would otherwise have gone unnoticed and remained hidden in shadows

Of course there is such a thing as undue interest in the affairs of another country; as perhaps best exemplified by the US invasion of Iraq. But there is also such a thing as too little of an interest in the affairs of the world. After all, it is only those who live in glass houses who are scared of stones and so they do not throw any. The world’s largest democracy should not be fighting shy of facing criticism when there are plenty within the country’s own borders who are concerned. Let us own up to the fact there is a common human DNA that makes us all speak up.

The Grey Lady of Bagram: Dr. Aafia Siddiqui - Kidnapped, Tortured and Now Arraigned

temporal — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:33:36 EDT

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

One day in March 2003, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui ordered a cab to take her and her three children (oldest 4, youngest an infant) to the Karachi Airport from her residence in Gulshan. She had not been seen since until her arraignment in US District Court two days ago, Aug. 5.

Her recent appearance has to do with a series of events that began with an appeal by the Asian Human Rights Commission.

Aafia Siddiqui has a biology degree from MIT and earned her PhD in cognitive neuroscience from Brandeis University. The only charge claimed by FBI (Newsweek June 23, 2003) against Dr. Siddiqui is one of renting a post office box in the name of a Majid Khan, an alleged Al Qaeda suspect.

The US was forced to admit that it had Dr. Siddiqui when two weeks ago in a press conference British journalist Yvonne Ridley demanded that the US hand over Prisoner 650, whom she dubbed The Grey Lady of Bagram. Yvonne Ridley quoted Elaine Whitfield Sharp, A human rights advocate and Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's lawyer: "We believe Aafia has been in custody ever since she disappeared and we're not willing to believe that the discovery of Aafia in Afghanistan is coincidence."

Teeth Maestro writes:

"Ms Ridley, who went to Pakistan to appeal for help, said the case came to her attention when she read the book, The Enemy Combatant, by a former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg. After being seized in February 2002 in Islamabad, Mr. Begg was held in detention centres in Kandahar and Bagram for about a year before he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. He recounted his experiences in the book after his release in 2005. Mr. Imran Khan, the leader of Justice Party (T.I) suspects that prisoner 650 is Dr. Afia Siddiqui and USA and Pakistani authorities are hiding facts of 'Prisoner 650'."

Three months prior to her kidnapping on March 30, 2003 she divorced her husband, Dr. Amjad Ali, a US based anesthesiologist. In May 2003, Mazhar Abbas wrote for Newsline:

"In yet another twist, her husband Amjad Khan, whom Afia divorced three months before her disappearance, is also apparently under suspicion*. According to Ismat Siddiqui, Amjad had wanted his eldest son to go to a madrassa, while Afia wanted her children to get an "English education." Mrs. Siddiqui hinted that her former son-in-law was wanted by the FBI, but was not sure in what connection. Amjad Khan has no political background nor is he affiliated with any group, but his staunch Islamic beliefs may have motivated him to back or support Islamic extremist groups. According to Mrs. Siddiqui, he used to call his wife and mother-in-law "American agents." [* Dr. Siddiqui’s husband allegedly purchased night-vision goggles and body armour on the internet.]

In a news report filed Aug. 5 from New York City, Khalid Hasan writes: "According to a FBI announcement, officers of the Ghazni province Afghanistan National Police arrested Siddiqui when they searched her handbag and found numerous documents describing the creation of explosives, excerpts from the Anarchist’s Arsenal, and descriptions of various US landmarks. It says that on July 18, a party of US personnel, including two FBI special agents, a US Army warrant officer, a US Army captain, and US military interpreters, arrived at the Afghan facility where Siddiqui was being held."

The kidnapping, detention, and allegations of rape and torture of this frail woman, her disappearance from Karachi in 2003, her reappearance in NYC Tuesday under intense public scrutiny, the "ridiculous" statements put out by FBI, all led to a travesty of justice for this woman.

If there was a fair trial, the truth would come out.

And while the truth would emerge, it is too far fetched to speculate that all the participants — the Agencies in Pakistan, the Afghan Agencies, the FBI and US forces and the Bush Administration official involved — will face the music they should if found guilty.

The Hague, anyone?

India's Response To Terrorism - Are We Losing The War?

Abhinandan Mishra — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:26:26 EDT

The country again wakes to a morning that is laden with news of the increase in number of dead and injured in another set of bomb blasts. This time it was Ahmedabad and a day before it was Bangalore. Who knows by the time I conclude this write-up another blast could have 'rocked' the nation.

Since October 2005 when a bomb went off in the crowded Sarojini market of Delhi, just a day before Diwali in which more that 60 people died, 11 more such incidents have rattled India, the most deadly being the July 2006 serial blasts in Mumbai's trains in which over 200 people were killed. Not surprisingly, we cannot say that we have been able to solve the cases or even figure out the identity of the perpetrators. In most cases, the obvious answer that one gets from the investigative agencies is the SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), the HuJI-B (Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh) or the HuM (Harkat-ul Mujahideen).

The country witnessed its first major strike in 1992 when the financial capital of India was rocked. It was said that the fundamentalist behind the Mumbai attacks were avenging the demolition of the Babri structure and the subsequent riots. Then also the think-tanks of this country talked of formulating counter-terrorism policies that would make such future strikes much harder.

In very simple terms, terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. Terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular victim audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

Terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim responsibility for their acts.

None of the two major political parties, the Congress or the BJP can escape blame when it comes to who stands tall on the criteria of which of the two countered terrorism efficiently.

When the BJP-led NDA was in power, the country saw two major terrorist strikes that will be forever embedded in our memory. The Hijacking of the aircraft IC-814 and the attack on the Indian Parliament which until then was considered impregnable and unthinkable.

The Indian Airlines flight, IC-814, carrying 178 passengers was hijacked on 24th December 1999 after it took off from Kathmandu. The aircraft landed at three different places (Amritsar, Lahore and Dubai) before it flew to Kandahar. No counter-hijacking action was taken while the aircraft was still in Indian airspace. In fact the pilot of the craft deliberately delayed the departure of IC-814 from the Amritsar airport and waited for more than half hour to give the Indian agencies a chance to mount a takeover. His wait was in vain. Later, the then national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra stated that while the plane was still in Amritsar he had given instructions to the security agencies to shoot at the tyres of the craft so as to make it immovable. He also very candidly admitted that his instructions were not heeded to; why? Even he doesn't know.

Brajesh Mishra at that time was no ordinary man or a bureaucrat. He was the national security adviser and the closest confidante of the Prime minister, even LK Advani who at that time was the Home Minister couldn't boast of sharing the same intimacy with Vajpayee when it came to Mishra. If he says that his instructions went ignored then we can well imagine the whole anti-terrorism machinery the country had at that time.

It can be termed as nothing but a diplomatic failure that the Vajpayee-led government was not able to take either Pakistan's or Saudi Arabia's assent for a commando-led operation to take control of the craft when it was still in their respective airspace. Surely a commando operation was more feasible in Pakistan or Dubai rather then Afghanistan as it was subsequently discovered.

The subsequent chain of incidents is well-known as the Indian government had to resort to a face-saving exercise and release 3 dreaded terrorists in return for the safe release of the passengers aboard the ill-fated aircraft.

The then foreign minister personally took the terrorist to Kandahar. The three were Maulana Masood Azhar, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh.

After his release Maulana Azhar set up Jaish-e-Mohammad in early 2000 which is accused of the deadly attacks on Indian targets, including one on the parliament in Delhi in December 2001.Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar after his release renewed the activity of Al-Umar Mujahideen in Muzaffarabad, close to the LOC, in recruiting and training of young Muslims to the independence war in Indian occupied Kashmir.Zargar while in custody revealed his enormous hatred for Non-Muslims especially Jews, Hindus and Christians and once famously said "If you want to end these terror strikes in the world then either accept Islam or wipe out Islam" .

The last of the freed terrorist who was once a LSE attendee, Sheikh Omar Saeed was later arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore for his involvement in the Pearl kidnapping and sentenced to death.

The whole IC 814 incident and the way in which it was handled is a terrible blotch on the BJP and India as a whole and is often used as an example of "how not to deal with hijack situations".

Though the terrorist strike on the Indian Parliament was thwarted by the individual bravery of the sentinels, yet it pointed out the glaring deficiencies in the overall security setup of the seat of democracy and the weakness and failure of the intelligence gathering mechanism of the country. It was not the first time that the intelligence agency had failed us. Kargil was happening right below our noses and we were in deep slumber.

Since then the terrorist strikes have increased at an alarming level and on an average a major terror strike is being carried out almost every 3-4 months.

Although the security agencies have been successful in busting quite a few modules, the most recent being the SIMI module which was taken out in Indore which led to the arrest of scores of SIMI operatives including the arrest of SIMI chief Safdar Nagori and the discovery of many nefarious designs, yet terror has no sign of abating.

Terrorists too are evolving and now have taken a liking for soft targets and are shying away more and more from hard targets like military bases. Soft Targets are relatively unguarded or difficult to protect from terrorists, and therefore yield a higher probability for a successful attack. The recent blasts in the markets of Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, and Delhi confirm this shift.

Similarly, they have also adopted the serial bombing method which are more "productive" in terms of the number of deaths and have a more deep impact psychologically. Also, since the serial bombings do not require huge amounts of explosives at a single place, they stand a much better chance of being undiscovered, hence causing maximum damage.

After every such strike, the political establishment wakes up and the President, the Prime Minister and the various political parties issue statements of condemnation. The Home Minister issues stern warnings that terrorism would not be tolerated and that the terrorists involved in the latest attacks would be brought to book. Ministers then visit the hospitals in the city where the terrorist attack has taken place to show their sympathy. Then they move on to business as usual.

Nothing concrete is done, some knee-jerk reactions at the state level; transfer of officials is the standard statutory method to mollify the public sentiments.

The country earlier had stringent POTA laws. The Prevention of Terror Activities Act (POTA) might not have been successful in deterring the hardcore terrorists but it had the desired effect on those minds that were still at the stage where they could be brought back in to the social mainstream. It deterred the gullible minds from taking the path that was both detrimental to them as well as the country.

But the law was revoked after the Congress came to power. In fact the Congress in its election manifesto had said that it would revoke POTA if it came to power. It said that POTA was a draconian law and was aimed against the minorities. There might indeed have been cases of police excesses under the law but it should not have been done away without an alternative legal tool.

The minority appeasement policy that is followed by political parties in general and the Congress party in particular has not helped either. A Former police commissioner of Mumbai said that the state minorities commission, civil rights activists and mohalla committee workers had cautioned the police against conducting combing operations, random checks and making preventive arrests. Time and again intelligence agencies have expressed helplessness in wake of political interference that has hampered the agencies from effectively investigating the incidents

The failure of the implementation of the findings of The Justice Srikrishna Commission report after the Mumbai riots acts like fuel to fire. It indicted 31 police personnel (from officers to constables) for abetting the rioters. But no action has been taken against the bigger leaders that have been named in the report.

The politicians play their game of linking the minorities to the terror strikes. They stand on the dais and scream of 'stopping the state from alienating the minorities', thereby giving the perpetrators an identity based on religion.

States like Maharashtra have their own set of stringent anti-terror laws. The MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) has been termed draconian by some rights activists but they conveniently forget that it's this draconian law that has curbed the terror incidents in the state. Similar anti-terror laws passed by the Gujarat and Maharashtra are lying with the president office for the past 4 years for the necessary assent. This speaks volumes about the Centre's attitude on its mindset to tackle terrorism.

Terror strikes can never be completely eliminated, but they can be minimized to a negligible level. Effective steps are the need of the hour. A closer and increased co-ordination between the Center and the State on measures to curb terrorism is needed. Recently the Central Government had issued a high alert warning to all the states asking them to step up their vigil, but it seems that either they were not taken seriously or were completely ignored. Also it would be more effective if the special Anti Terrorist squads (ATS) that are present in most of the states work in tandem.

In the long run, the political establishment should think of forming a special agency that would specifically deal with terrorism, something on the lines of the IB or the Vigilance Agency, both of which have specific responsibilities. The agency should be headed by a senior-ranked IPS officer and should be directly under the PMO so as to reduce political hindrance and interference. This will help in fixing responsibility and channeling of concentrated resources and efforts in the right direction so as to curb terrorism.

The political will to weed out terrorism is the foremost requirement. If that is not present then even the best of counter–terrorism measures will be rendered ineffective. Stress should be laid on intelligence-based policing. Due importance has not been given to the intelligence branch and in most states it is used by the political parties to gauge the mood of the voters and the strengths and the weaknesses of their rivals.

On the morning of the 22nd of July when the confidence motion was to take place, the CBI chief gave a courtesy call to the Prime Minister's residence. It is anybody's guess what the nature of the courtesy call was.

If such terror strikes are not curbed then the hitherto sporadic demands for a state-supported attack into foreign territories and into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to destroy the terrorist camps will gain more recognition and appreciation and then the situation may get trickier for the government

A lot of funding is required to support intelligence-gathering activities which unfortunately is not happening in this country. Similarly, sensitization of people and greater awareness on sustained basis in the battle against terrorism will pay a great dividend as the terrorists work while staying between us. Also religion and fanaticism should be looked through two very different perspectives, they should not be mixed for anyone's convenience.

Finally, our resolve to spring back to life after every such attack is the most effective method that can be undertaken by an ordinary citizen to combat the evil designs of these terrorists.

US Allows Pakistan Aid To Be Used For Fighter Upgrades

Ashish — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:31:05 EDT

For the last several years, there has been an ongoing political discussion about whether the United States is following the correct policies with regard to getting rid of terrorism emanating from the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, rated by many as the most likely place to generate the next big terrorist attack in the Western World. Part of that discussion is whether the United States has relied too much on Pakistan, and not pushed it hard enough to get rid of the entire support structure for terrorism in the tribal border regions. Implicit in this discussion is that Pakistan is not really doing all it can to get rid of terrorism in the region, to take on the vast support for the Taleban and terrorist elements in the wild ungoverned regions. Now, Pakistan has always claimed that this was a difficult task, that these regions have historically had a reputation for resisting any attempts to enforce a central governance; and that periodic pushes by the Army and border guards have only met fierce resistance and let to further embittering of the population in these regions, thus leading to a further support for the so-called resistance fighters.

At some point it is difficult to blame only Pakistan for this. The US has had a huge amount of analysis that claims that there is a lack of governance, civil reconstruction, and enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan. What was required that there be a push to strengthen the regional paramilitary forces, combined with an active and huge construction program in these regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is when the affected population see only a military push, and the same old bad conditions with no scope for improvement that they tend to move further towards the extremist position. And in Pakistan, the Bush Administration seems to have had a blinkered vision with taking the actions of President Musharraf at face value, not applying the pressure that might have made things much better. For example, there has never been much pressure to improve the condition and training of the regional paramilitary force that might be able to help turn the tide.

All this came to my mind when I read this news report:

The United States plans to shift about $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counterterrorism programs to upgrading the nation's aging F-16 fighter jets. The new government is facing "a terrible financial crisis with food and fuel problems," the official said, and the Pakistani government "would rather tell its public they are spending their money on food and fuel," so it asked the United States to pay for the F-16 upgrades from the U.S. aid fund. Last year, Congress mandated that $300 million in aid to Pakistan go toward fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, partly by beefing up law enforcement and developing tribal areas of the country that are hostile to the United States.

Skeptical lawmakers worry that the F-16 upgrades will divert funding from crucial counterterrorism programs and could be more about helping Pakistan competing with its rival, India, than fighting terror. Nita Lowey, chairwoman of a House subcommittee on foreign operations, said the request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reprogram the funding "raises serious concerns." Lowey is asking for more information before signing off on the change. "Congress provided these funds specifically for counterterrorism and law enforcement activities," Lowey said in a written statement.

This is about as short-sighted as can be. It is of critical importance that funds be spent on improving the lot of the tribal areas and improve the force that works over there. Instead, if these funds are used for improving F-16's, machines that are hardly of much use in anti-terrorism except when a force needs the support in a head-on fight with the terrorist, not something that is typically seen in the border regions.

Book Review: Who Speaks For Islam?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:08:47 EDT

Since 9/11, there is a desire from all ends of the world to know what Muslims think? And who speaks for Islam. And as it so happened, I came across a book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed which claimed to report on a 6-year study of what hundreds and thousands of Muslims said and a research paper on what a few Canadian Muslims said and think. Here are my thoughts about the book and paper and my thoughts about the questions itself.

Let me get one thing out straight. This book by Esposito and Mogahed is one of the most useless pieces of analysis that I have ever seen. To top it all, a whole host of other luminaries have praised the book and findings. This worries me. For reasons which I will explain, the two authors made such basic mistakes in analysis that I am frankly bewildered. Could have been written by some zonked out undergraduates and these two senior academicians must have been busy or something, and the book went to print. Also, all these various senior people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Deepak Chopra, Karen Armstrong, Vali Nasr, Jessica Stern, Robert Pape, and Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian etc. seem to have had their press people give a statement on their behalf without reading the book.

This book was so bad that I gave up after page 139 and the ironic part is the book starts with a premise that it is scientific and based on data. But still, there are some good and interesting points and in all fairness I should mention those first.

They do mention most Muslims live in Asia and Africa and the Muslims are wonderfully diverse in terms of language, ethnicity, customs, dress, location, nationality, and what have you. So lumping all Muslims into one bloc is as appropriate as to lump all Christians into one or all the “west” into one lump (mind you, while saying that, they go on to make the same mistake, for example in page 97)
Page 47 talks about how significant majorities in all Muslim countries have pushed for freedom of speech. This is a good thing indeed, although sits uneasily with the cartoon demonstrations seen across the world.
A 2006 Gallup poll talked about how most of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation. This was not surprising to me, but if they add in the West and all countries which have a liberal democratic framework such as Japan, India and others, the results will be different. But the numbers from Iran are similar to that of the USA. Curious, no?
Countries like Iran and Indonesia do not seem to like Sharia in their legal systems, but countries such as Egypt and Jordan want it. Curious, no? Is this because the latter two countries are Arab?
Page 66 talks about a reasonably good point, the USA does not know what the enemy wanted or thought about. Presumably the reference is to the Al Qaeda chaps. Well, from the perspective of intelligence agents, yes, the Americans knew what Al Qaeda wanted. OBL’s sermons and speeches are well-known. And as I have also found out, I am not sure if that knowledge would have helped anyway.
Interference by America and other countries in the business of Muslim (and frankly many other countries) is not something that I condone, they poke their noses into far too many places and is a classic example of imperial overstretch. So yes, good point that USA is interventionist and it should stop it.
A good Chapter 4 on women, nice coverage of women’s issues, how they work and behave, what they wish for and what their current situation is. While the data and issues mentioned were useful, it is a bit of a confused chapter which does not draw out the basic issues facing Muslim women. How to reconcile their religion with modern life. Unfortunately, when one looks to religious books for women related issue resolution, remember that others will do the same. So while one might argue using Sharia that women should be liberated such as in page 118, remember that using the same Sharia, female genital mutilation is allowable (it is debatable, but there is a case for it, which is against what they say in page 117).

The serious mistakes that this book makes are legion. This book is not scientific, it is not based on what one would understand as standard social science data, the analysis is horrible and the report is written by a drunk undergraduate. It is clear that this book, the Gallup research and the analysis is written not for the American populace but for the international non-American populace in a polemical, biased and ignorant manner. What is curious is why these other people got all excited about it and admired something like this?

How come they ignored India as a source of Muslim thought? curious and a big lacunae in the study as I would posit that those results would have made a substantial contribution to this study.
Why call Francis Fukuyama as a former neoconservative theorist in page 29? There is no reference to political theories before or after, no reference to realism or conservatism or liberalism. But mention it they did, and this started to turn me off because it was obviously meant as a personal slur.
And from page 32 onwards, this book shows up one of its biggest flaws. The severe and seriously ignorance confusion between Arabs and Muslims. After spending the first chapter talking about the fact that only about 20% Arabs make up the overall Muslims, and the fact that Arabs are Christians, Druze and many other types of people, the authors promptly forget it. Being an Arab is to be part of a linguistic group, not a religious group. And because of this basic mistake, every conclusion and recommendation they draw is miserably wrong.
The authors also confuse the terms west, USA, the Iraqi coalition, the neoconservative movement and the like. This confusion means the authors often rely on references to “some”, “they”, as the strawman (for example pg 95 and 99). So the authors pick up one comment by a right-wing commentator, extrapolate it variously to the entire West, USA, United Kingdom, the Western Press, you name it, and then try to answer it based on a vague formula.
On Page 36, the authors talk about there being no difference between Islamic Law and human rights. I found it curious that they did not mention the fact the Islamic world pushed for their own declaration of human rights when they said the universal declaration of human rights was not “appropriate”.
The authors also seem to be confused about what Democracy means. Democracy not only means that governments are elected by the people and sovereignty rests with the people, but also the people draw up the laws and they can change it. When laws emerge from a religious book helped by religious people, it is called as a theocracy, not democracy. So when people say that they love democracy but want Sharia as a source of laws and legislation, there is a certain inconsistency which has not been explored fully.
Their basic problem with Arabs and Muslims shows up in the next section and then continuously onwards, why is democracy absent in so much of the Muslim world. And despite pointing to South Asia, the authors forget that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh were all beset by imperialism equally. But India, Nepal and Sri Lanka have managed to hold on to democratic standards while Pakistan and Bangladesh have not. So just pointing to Imperialism as the main reason for democracy not holding ground in Muslim countries is far too simplistic which blows their arguments to bits.
Page 41 shows another fascinating confusion in the minds of the authors. This time its the conflating of the “west” and “secularism”. Secularism as an idea has a long history and it is not just from the West. I am not sure the authors have understood what secularism means and the philosophy behind it. It is the only way to handle heterogeneous populations.
While talking about imperialism, there are some big problems with that argument. The authors did not mention the Ottoman, Mughal or other Muslim imperialistic empires. They do not mention the fact that imperialism with respect to Muslim countries has been mainly European rather than American, but let us not confuse matters there. How about the fact that Japanese imperialism overran many Muslim countries as well in the east, but let us not go there either.
While saying that Sharia should be a source of law and then saying that they do not want religious figures to influence laws or the constitution. Erm, who will be the people who will be working on Sharia? Non-religious people? And how will that work? And then on page 93, a theoretical construct is made up about how Sharia protects citizens from the depredations of rulers. Well, it has never worked before in a millennium, has it? So what makes one think that it will ever? And why would the mullah’s be advisors to the rulers? See the confusion?
Around page 56-57, the authors talk about Islam and democracy in a confused sense. And this is another example of their total ignorance of what Secularism means. They give the example of France and state funding of churches, but do not talk about the concept of “lacite’”. Plus this debate is strange. In Islam, sovereignty is with God, the Quran (plus sunnah, hadith, etc.) is the constitution and Sharia is a sort of the / part of the legal system. How on earth are they even trying to draw any equivalence here?
Huge clangers of mistakes are made in the analysis of political radicals starting from page 67. Very confusing. They refer to many experts without actually giving any references. The authors assume things, such as terrorism is because of poverty and unemployment, a theory that I have rarely read from any expert. And after talking about a badly and wrongly drafted expert opinion, they slip into another badly drafted argument based on media reports. No consistency and very badly framed strawman arguments. And then in page 70, they compound the mistake by devoting a full section to this type of strawman argument which might be fine in polemics and emails but not in what is purportedly a serious book.
For example, while they spent much time talking about how the 9/11 attackers were not religious Muslims, they do not talk about the obvious next step. So what DID bring these attackers together? I am not going to talk about the obvious answer but the fact the authors did not even understand the next step is symptomatic of the poor analysis in this book.
In the next section, they went out and gathered few comments from some far right commentators and build up a huge counter argument based on those foamy arguments. This sounded childish to me and disjointedly argued.
In page 77, the old chestnut of the Pape’s Suicide Terrorism is dug up. Well, I do not have to say this again but trying to give me references to that silly study does not fill me with confidence that this particular study is any good either. But they go on to make more mistakes like trying to say the Tamil Tigers appeal to Hindu links to the Indian Tamils.
Page 81 throws up more issues. While the authors talk about anti-Americanism and talk about radicals. But hey, here’s the issue. You don’t hear about antiGermanism or AntiSpanishism, but they both have terrorism issues. So is that antiwesternism? The authors refer to far right commentators but do not mention George Bush has clearly said the war on terror is not against Islam. But then, that does not fit in neatly with the author’s biases.
Again in page 85, there is confusion between Muslim states and Arab states. And yet again ignore the glaring counter-example of Pakistan and Bangladesh compared to India as Muslim states. Frankly, a poor argument.
Page 87, “the war against Islam and Muslims” is nothing new, that slogan has been raised since time immemorial I am afraid. For example, one of the big things that Mughal Aurangzeb or any of the Ottoman pashas did when faced with challenges was to raise this same slogan or words to the effect. And guess what? The open-ended question of what do you resent most about the west, the answers were “sexual and cultural promiscuity”, “ethical and moral corruption” and “hatred of Muslims”. undefined, no? and no further analysis of it either.
Outright inconsistencies emerge, for example in page 92. Yes, I agree with the fact that Western countries should stop interfering in the Muslim countries, while saying that, I did not notice any mention of Lebanon where Muslim countries interfere with both hands and legs. And this is where the issue comes up, because if you don’t have the clear idea that you will always find countries interfering with others, you are living in cloud cookoo land.
Also, curiously, they continuously confuse Sharia with Fiqh. This is not the place to go into it but for them not to make that distinction (such as in pages 92-93) is worrying. Because of this, they tend to make some basic mistakes. For example, saying that what restricted Muslim rulers from acting like tyrants was Sharia. Erm, that is wrong on both formulation as well as knowledge of history. Its fiqh and secondly, Sharia never stopped Muslim rulers from being tyrants. This also leads to a massive confusion around what the mullah’s can do about government and legal society. Are they the rulers? Advisers? Lawyers? Senior House of parliament? What? And the authors do not address this point and just leave it dangling at “advisers”.

I am now tired of listing the flaws of this book. It is useless and frankly a waste of time and money. No basic data is presented nor is the analysis rigorous. As I said, what were worrying are the legions of congratulatory messages on this book. I do not think any of the so-called great and good have read the book and if they have, they have not understood it. More curiously, why on earth are these two so-called respected academics writing such drivel? Shame on Gallup, a respected organisation for producing pap like this. So in the end, this book does not tell me what Muslims really think. Or who speaks for Islam. And the fault lies solely with the authors, not with the people who they interviewed. (Here’s something which I wrote earlier on who actually speaks for Islam and who influences Muslims) The biggest problem with the book is the underlying theme that every American who reads the book is an idiot and has this patronising theme running through it. As a public policy book, this is pathetic and I am deeply disappointed with the authors. These authors have contributed more to the civilisational schism than trying to help cover it.

Which brings me to the other paper. It was published in a peer reviewed journal called as Government Information Quarterly in 2008, written by Nadia Caidi and Susan MacDonald of the University of Toronto. The paper is entitled, Information practises of Canadian Muslims post 9/11. Now this is what research looks like. A scientifically rigorous treatment of how Muslims think and do. While the area of investigation is different (and equally important and interesting), the methods that these researchers use, the analysis they come up with, all are fascinating and much more believable than the pap that Esposito and Mogahed have come up with.

It was a good sensitive study, asking intelligent literate Canadian Muslims, about their information practices, use of information sources, attitudes and opinions about information rights in a post 9/11 world. What the authors find is the Canadian Muslims hold a deep mistrust of the media, but they think that knowledge of media and information literacy is important. They also feel there is a need for far greater introspection within Muslim societies.

But fascinating public policy recommendations drop out, about how multiculturalism can help or hinder. Some issues with the study related to the fact that they did not consider another society, United Kingdom, which has seen home-grown Muslim terrorism in 7/7. Also, they did not consider Canadian Sikh immigrant terrorism either. Both of which would have provided a much richer analysis of this factor of multiculturalism and nationalism, but that can well be done in another piece of research. Immigration was another factor but not so much. What about the information media sources in themselves? Would it help to have public advisory councils which will help improve these fellow citizens’s trust in the media? What can be done?

Both pieces of work are interesting from many perspectives. The first one is for knowing how not to do research and put across public policy recommendations on such politically and religiously sensitive issues. The second is how to utilise information and information practices for Muslims who are definitely facing Islamophobia and a feeling of being targeted. Very thought-provoking indeed and much needs to be done to address these issues (but please, not how Esposito and Mogahed do). So while we do not know what the billion Muslims think, we can do something about making sure that the information channels are better managed and transparently dealt with in order for us to draw the poison of Islamophobia and support for terrorism.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Book Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:00:23 EDT

This monologue of a novel traces the journey of an upper class Pakistani-Punjabi youth from Lahore to Manhattan – and back. Changez, the protagonist, wins a scholarship to Princeton, lands a dream job at Underwood Samson, a very reputed valuation firm, dates Erica, a trophy WASP girl, rubs shoulders with the best of America, identifies with New York, and then gives it all up and returns to Pakistan.

Why does he do that? Because Changez realizes that he is a mercenary, not unlike the Janissary soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, trained from childhood to fight for the Sultan, even against their own homelands. Changez’s revolt starts after 9/11. When the World Trade Center towers fall, Changez is in Manila on work. Until then, Changez has nothing but admiration for Princeton, Samson Underwood and America in general. But when the twin towers fall, Changez is surprisingly happy. It takes him a bit of time to sort out his feelings, but soon he realizes that he identifies more with Pakistan and Muslims than with Americans or even New Yorkers. The antagonism towards Muslims post 9/11, America’s unwillingness to shield Pakistan when India threatens to invade Pakistan (in retaliation for terrorists attacking the Indian parliament) makes it easy for him to make the journey back to his roots.

The narration, addressed to a visiting American in a Lahori restaurant, is almost lyrical at times and is brilliant. Changez the protagonist does not make any attempt to understand the other side’s point of view. Not once does Changez find any fault with the Taliban or with Pakistani society, which is hardly egalitarian. While constantly blaming the US for not standing by Pakistan when threatened by India, the author does not for a moment pause to wonder whether Pakistan invited some of the trouble on itself by training the terrorists who attacked the Indian parliament. Until 9/11, Changez’s values are solidly rooted in the can-do liberal spirit of New York. But after the attack, he quickly slides into feudal values. Changez’s people have been attacked and he will have nothing more to do with the attackers. By staying on in New York and working for Samson Underwood, he will be helping America continue its attack on Afghanistan. So, even though he needs to hold on to his job very badly (so that he can help his once elite family stay on its feet), he quits his job and goes back to Lahore.

If Changez had lived in the US all his life instead of having moved there after finishing school in Pakistan, would he have behaved as he did? This is one of the numerous questions left unanswered. However, these gaps do not do the novel any harm as it unashamedly projects a single point of view in beautiful prose.

This novel is Mohsin Hamid’s second book. The first one, Moth Smoke was published eight years ago and won various awards and prizes, including the Betty Trask Award. The Reluctant Fundamentalist was (quite deservedly) shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 2007. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand how a human being may react when his collective ego is hurt or his nationalistic feelings are bruised.

Book Review : Speaking of Empire and Resistance by Tariq Ali

Shantanu Dutta — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:07:11 EDT

Tariq Ali is one of the most articulate leftist and secularist thinkers to have come out of Pakistan and has been living in exile in London since the 1960s when he began to speak out against the country’s first military dictators. Nearly fifty years later, he has lost none of his fire and has consistently spoken out against imperialism, colonialism, religious fundamentalism. In his book Speaking of Empire and Resistance conducted as a series of interviews with dissident thinker, David Barsamanian, the focus is on Anglo – American engagement in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab world.

In this extremely readable and extremely articulate book, Tariq Ali, reaches way back into history to recreate the history of imperialist involvement in the world- both the overt, in your face British imperialism, and the comparatively overt American imperialism. For instance Tariq talks about the nature of British imperialism – viceroys and governors ET all all imported from the mother country – and the American version where they simply bought off purchasable allies willing to do their bidding. King Hussein of Jordan, Suharto, the Pakistani generals, the Shah of Iran, the several Gulf Sheikhs Emirs is cited as examples.

There are also examples from India too – Tariq for instance mentions that except for World War II, when the country served as a transit point for Allied troops headed East, at no point did the British ever have more than 36,000 troops of their own in the huge territory of undivided India; yet they were able to retain control, by buying off the allegiance of the rulers of the princely states as well as the landed gentry and aristocracy. The Americans refined the process and bought off the leadership of countries en masse.

Some observations in the book are quite poignant. Citing numerous instances, Tariq Ali establishes how during the cold war era, in the name of suppressing communism, the secular elements of the polity of many nations were either weakened or completely eliminated. Indonesia which once had the world’s largest communist party outside the socialist countries is one example where Suharto’s brutal repression wiped the nation of a secular, non sectarian voiced. Afghanistan is another example cited where a secular government was first destabilized prompting Soviet intervention and then once the Red Army moved in, reactionary Islamic fundamentalists were intentionally marshaled, trained and then coaxed to fight the godless infidels. The vacuum left by the destruction of these secular forces has now been filled by the rabidly religious, for which the US and its allies alone are to blame.

The book has been written in the context of 9/11 and the subsequent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and has that anti war focus, but surprisingly enough does not appear to be biased. Tariq Ali traces out the many failings in the early communist states – particularly the Soviet Union and points out that their own failings were also largely responsible for socialism losing popular support and subsequently collapsing.

Tariq Ali’s consistently anti American stand may not be popular with those who support the American foreign policy and the actions of the current Bush Administration in particular; but so potent and well researched are his arguments going far back into history and tracing many of today’s burning issues to their very roots, that it would take back breaking research to counter his extremely logically argued point of view. And ultimately of one thing we can be sure; no matter what view point we hold- this book will make the reader sit up and take note that there is another way to go- even if it is a path hardly ever trodden.