Looking at the Egyptian uprising

It all began in a rural Tunisian town. Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruits and vegetables on the streets to make a living for himself and his impoverished family, was publicly humiliated on December 17 by a policewoman Fedya Hamdi. Hamdi slapped Bouazizi in the face, spat at him and forcefully confiscated his goods and weighing scale. An angry and distressed Bouazi­zi, who often suffered harass­ment and abuse at the hands of the local police, went to complain his grievances to the local municipal officials but failed to get any recourse as the officials just refused to meet him. As an act of desperation, Bouazizi doused himself with inflammable fluid and set his body on fire outside the municipal office. The plight of young Bouazizi became the catalyst that sparked off massive anger against the regime of president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who ruled Tunisia since 1987 with an iron fist. Thousands of furious Tunisians came out on the streets to protest against police brutality, the corrupt power structure, soaring unemployment and unending poverty. Weeks of violent demonstrations followed as protesters clashed with the state security forces. Members of the police force clubbed the unarmed anti-regime protesters and open fired on them killing dozens. Sensing the enraging public mood, Ben Ali visited the bedside of Bouazizi in an attempt to draw public support. He also dissolved the government, promised legislative elections within six months and assured to take meaningful steps toward political reform. But his entire attempt was all but too late. On January 4, Bouazizi succumbed to his injuries escalating unrest and further violence. On January 14, president Ben Ali fled the capital Tunis with his wife Leila in a private jet to Saudi Arabia shortly after the army general Rachid Ammar refused to back his orders to keep shooting on the protesters. According to French agencies, the 74-year-old dethroned president suffered a stroke and is now lying in coma at a Saudi hospital.

The failure of “My Name is Khan”

Karan Johar’s over-hyped film My Name is Khan (MNIK) has dealt with a challenging subject – a subject that is extremely serious, pensive and political. The film has attempted to focus on a number of crucial socio-political issues and tried to make a humane statement concerning racial-religious discrimination and stereotyping. But the wide scope offered by the subject was purposely diminished by the director-producers of the film. The story of Rizwan Khan ended up being another feel-good film depicting Bollywood style heroism, romance and eye-wetting brash emotion – all embedded into a fairy tale arrangement. Based on a political subject, the film deliberately moves out of the political arena to engender flimsy humanism and fails terribly to emerge as a politically conscious film. A pseudo-real, fantasy like milieu and an escapist approach to life are the weakest aspects of the film. The self-styled “sensitive” performance by Shah Rukh Khan in the role of Rizwan, burdened with make believe mannerisms, have not only failed to cover-up these shortcomings but has actually become an integral part of it. By exaggerating on the “just a good man in love” side of the character, Shah Rukh’s celebrity presence has diluted the sternness of the subject as well as the film. A hoopla manufactured by the infamous idiots of the Thackeray clan surrounding MNIK’s release, the grand presence of Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol – super-hit duo of Indian mainstream cinema, the arty efforts of a bubbly director or the genuine technical excellence could not lift MNIK from its mediocre rank.

Good people, bad people

There is little doubt that the September 11 attacks were a huge turning point for millions of Muslims living in America. Impact of this catastrophic event had generated a significant amount of hostility towards the Muslims in general and had sharply polarized the American society down to street level. Islam and the Muslims turned into a subject of grave concern for the American state and became an important political issue. Though anti-Muslim bias and prejudices had existed before September 11, the attitude to connect the Muslim community to terrorism and perceiving the entire community as a threat, as a grave security risk, has intensified drastically following the incident. Post September 11, it became more difficult to be a Muslim in America. Non Muslim Americans became haunted by Islamophobia – a common parlance diversely applied today to define the discrimination faced by Muslims or to convey anti-Muslim sentiments. The response of common non-Muslim Americans towards Muslim minorities and their anti-Islamic hostile attitudes against them were also fuelled by certain sections of the mainstream media and political establishment, which had frequently used the term and popularised it among the scared masses. Muslims living in America including the women faced religiously motivated harassment; the Arabs were particularly singled out as objects of suspicion and became victims of official and societal discrimination, especially the younger Muslims who are more exposed to anti-Muslim bias than their parents. They were told to become “good citizens”, instructed to integrate into the multi-religious, multi-cultured American society, reprimanded for exhibiting hate and violence and were strictly warned to keep away from radical activities and extremist influences. The first targets of the American government’s anti-terrorism overdrive were obviously the softest ones – the immigrant Muslims who has arrived in the “land of freedom” virtually from all over the world.

The ambitious screenplay of MNIK had tried hard to depict this turbulent time and the condition of American Muslims. The film opens with the awful airport frisking scene where villain-like security men hounded the hero Rizwan Khan as a terror suspect because he was found to mutter verses from the Holy Koran while standing in a queue. Khan is portrayed in the film as a devoted and duty bound believer. In the backdrop of riot ridden Bombay he has learned from his mother that there are only two kinds of people in the world – good people and bad people. One holds a stick and the other holds a lollipop. In the entire film, Rizwan Khan actually tries to establish himself as the one who belongs to the lollipop holding “good people” class. In the film he is depicted as an extremely devoted Muslim, a loving husband, a caring papa, an innate humanist and ultimately a “good citizen” of America. The film has overstuffed a lot of issues and mishandling them badly. But at the end, it remained principally focused on establishing the “good citizen” aspect of the hero. The director was abetted by an oversimplifying attitude, twisting and fantasising the grim subject into a droopy romantic tale.

American Muslim, Bollywood Muslim

By law, the Census Bureau of America does not count adherents of a particular religious identification. Hence, the account of how many Muslims live in America differs widely in various estimates – from 1.3 to 7 million. This population with its vastly different ethnicity, culture, race and sectarian diversity have constituted a microcosm of the Muslim world. Immigration wave in America has increased rapidly after the American immigration law was reformed in 1965. Between 1989 and 2004, 15.5 million legal immigrants have entered the country. The number of Muslim immigrants is little less than one percent of America’s national population but constitutes the majority of the total Muslim population. Two-third of them is foreign-born, coming from South Asia, Iran, and the Arabic-speaking countries. The single largest group of Muslim immigrants among them are from the three South Asian countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Destitution, ethnic- religious discrimination, class repression, Islamism or anti-Islamism and war are some of the major reasons why Muslim immigrants seek refuge from their respective countries to “smell freedom” in the paradise of America.

All immigrants are not necessarily from the socio-economically marginalized class. A large number of them belong to the wealthy and middle class elite group. They are enticed by the candour of American life, the span of opportunities for a better livelihood, superior professional facilities, socio-political freedom and economic rewards. Immigrants in general are aggressive job seekers and hard-working due to their economical motivations. Likewise, immigrant Muslims are also inclined to resolutely focus on their professional and entrepreneurial careers and many of them possess good educational standards. As a result of these qualities they have achieved considerable economic success over time. Muslims in America today appears to be more educated and affluent than the country’s national average. This affluent economic situation could also be a vital reason behind the post September 11 anti-Muslim bias rather than their religious believe. After September 11, the employment-population ratio among Muslims had declined considerably. The arrogant anti-terrorism policy of the government under President Bush has caused enough humiliation and suffering to Muslim communities living across America. Race and ethnicity became deciding factors for opening an investigation against the Muslims. Mosques were raided to find out suspected terrorists. Surveillance and detention without warrant became a commonplace affair that had created an aura of endless fear within the community.

Where does Rizwan Khan fit here? He arrives in San Francisco after his mother’s death to live with his younger brother and his compassionate wife. Though Rizwan has a super ability to repair any broken machines from his early days, the jealous brother forced him to accept the job of an herbal cosmetics salesman. Rizwan is not economically motivated and dislikes his job. Instead, he gets more involved and occupied in winning the love of a Hindu hairstylist named Mandira. In fact, the director is not interested to focuses on the privations and struggles an immigrant usually comes across in a foreign country, particularly if the immigrant is a mentally challenged person. But privation does not sell! The film is thus packaged with lollipop emotion of love and longing, a utopia of its own kind, far away from the hard reality an immigrant might face in a foreign land. Rizwan Khan belongs to the moderate section of Muslims but at the same time he is also a dutiful practitioner of the laws of Islam – carrying a handful of pebbles to throw upon the devil, muttering scriptures and offering namaz wearing his prayer cap. If read in a different way, one might discover that Rizwan Khan’s religious behaviours are fairly deliberate, and at the same time exceedingly provocative.

One must not forget that Rizwan Khan is actually a Bollywood Muslim in America. Bollywood has its own unique way of characterising Muslims, even in the changed times. Syed Ali Mujtaba has observed in an article that, “Bollywood might be coming good in reaching out to the world but when it comes to creating Muslims on screen it’s closed to a dangerous time warp. Cinematic subtleties, community's sensitivity and societal realism are all thrown overboard. What quickly lapped up is, dirty stereotypes and reckless cliche while sketching Muslim characters.” In the same article he has further noted that, “no one likes to disturb the apple cart of set formulas that Bollywood mindlessly follow while making movies.” (Source)

Bush, Obama and Rizwan Khan

At least on one occasion George W Bush was absolutely sincere when he stated that, “the world has changed after September the 11th”. The twin tower attacks had significantly changed America’s relation and dealing with the world, particularly with the antagonistic Islamic nations. Just four weeks after the attacks, the “war president” and war hawks within his “war administration” had unleashed their infamous “war on terror” and successively destroyed the two sovereign countries Afghanistan and Iraq in cold blood. Although for eighteen long years, from 1980 to 1998, successive American governments were romancing the Taliban in Afghanistan. The attack on Iraq in particular, had nothing to do with the attack on the twin towers except oil interests of America’s business mafia. According to the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, the CIA had already concluded that the hard-nut Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war. This CIA finding along with “pressure from advocates of war inside the administration” led to the secret planning for military action against Iraq. The September 11 incidence made it politically feasible for the coterie to stupefy public opinion and launch a “pre-emptive attacks against countries believed to be a serious threat to the United States”.

America’s war against Afghanistan has helped the film’s storyline to advance further. Rizwan and Mandira Khan’s American neighbour Mark, a journalist by profession, gets killed in Afghanistan while covering the war. The death of Mark changes the attitude of his grieving son Reese who develops racial hatred against his once dear friend Sam – Rizwan Khan’s sweet step-son. Sam gets involved in a brawl with him and dies of his injuries. A devastated Mandira holds Rizwan culpable for her son’s death. She indicts her husband that Sam was dead only because “his name was Khan”. The distressed and irate wife then tells her husband to depart from her life till he is able to ensure the people and the President of America that he is not a terrorist. Dumped by Mandira, Rizwan starts tracking after President Bush across the country to notify him: “My name is Khan, and I’m not a terrorist”.

Although the Afghanistan war is a vital resource to unfold MNIK's storyline, it is surprising that the name of Iraq was never mentioned in the film. When Rizwan Khan was travelling around the country to “fight against the disability that exists in the world”, American military was invading Iraq on phoney grounds “to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger”, bombarding the country and its people into pieces. No “weapons of mass destruction” was ever unearthed from Iraq; no al-Qaeda–Saddam Hussein nexus could ever be proved. America’s Iraq misadventure is completely ignored in the film. Instead, the filmmakers were keen to concentrate on Rizwan Khan’s ultimate goal of fixing the broken relation with his beloved wife. They were less concerned about America’s corporate and military greed. The Iraq war was too insignificant an issue for them to be bothered about.

During his long journey across America, Rizwan Khan lands in a poor African-American neighbourhood in Georgia and finds refuge and console from an affectionate woman, Mama Jenny, who has lost her solider son in Afghanistan. Thus, in one stroke an African-American and an Indian immigrant’s grief becomes one and the same. Sharing the common grief, Rizwan joins the chorus in Mama Jenny’s community church to sing the civil rights anthem We Shall Overcome. From here the story rolls faster to its desired end. Rizwan Khan gets arrested while trying to meet Bush and is tortured in jail as a terror suspect, gets noticed by Indian-American journalists who put him on national news which Senator Obama watches with deep interest. In a mosque he confronts a jihadi doctor, vehemently opposes his devilish views by throwing pebbles at him and immediately informs the FBI. The film has to confirm that in spite of everything Rizwan is essentially a “good citizen” of America! He even performs a superman act to dramatically appear as a saviour at Mama Jenny’s hurricane devastated village to repair the lives of the devastated dwellers. The media follows and make a hero out of him. All of a sudden a disciple of the jihadi doctor stabs him in front of his repentant wife, accusing him for betrayal. But typically, he survives in style.

Rizwan Khan finally succeeds to deliver his message to the President of America. Not to Bush but to the newly elected Barak Hussein Obama who promptly assures him that “he is not a terrorist”. Here the director has clearly made a statement by projecting Obama as a responsive President against Bush. This is a loose statement and one should not read too much from it. The Obama effect or the colour of his skin might have also inspired the director and screenwriter to give prominence to the African-Americans and favorably linking Rizwan with them in the film.

This focal point seems to be essential for a film which is marketed and distributed by Fox STAR Entertainment, a joint venture between Twentieth Century Fox and STAR. Trade news has suggested that MNIK is selling extremely well across the globe through its lollipop message to “repair the world with love”. In America it has “turned out to be the largest weekend grosser Bollywood film ever”. (Source) The film has earned Rs 150 crore from its first week of release in India and abroad.

Everyone looks good against the pathological liar and hypocrite George W Bush. But what are those steps the populist Obama is taking that are significantly different from Bush policies? This is the pertinent question which doesn’t have an easy answer. And the problem with MNIK is that, it has not even attempted to raise any pertinent question. The world has gradually started to taste Barak Obama’s “audacity of hope”. “I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric,” observed eminent historian Howard Zinn who has passed away recently, “and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president – which means, in our time, a dangerous president – unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.” (Source)

Rain Man syndrome

The makers of MNIK were definitely aware of the huge success of Barry Levinson’s 1988 Hollywood film Rain Man where Dustin Hoffman gave a fabulous performance as an autistic savant. To authentically portray the autistic-like traits of his character, Shah Rukh Khan spoke with an emotionless intoning voice, walked in mincing steps, always has his head tilting sideways and never makes eye contact with his addressee – not even in romantic scenes. All these mannerisms can’t help but remind us about Hoffman’s performance as Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man. A critic has objected about comparing Hoffman and Shah Rukh’s performance. The comparison, according to the critic, is “childish and naïve” because “Hoffman plays a highly gifted autistic savant while Khan is just a good man, in love, who happens to have Asperger’s Syndrome”. (Source) This point of view is certainly not of a film critic. It can only be a humble opinion by an ardent fan of Bollywood's “de facto super-star”.

Depicting the hero Rizwan Khan with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism spectrum disorder, did not really help to carry any lofty message except for raising high-pitch sympathy and emotion for the character in the audience’s mind. The idea to portray the hero as an autistic is basically a discreet commercial formula applied by the makers of MNIK. People with Asperger’s have significant difficulties in social interaction and communication which includes “a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others”. Throughout the film, Rizwan Khan acted quite the opposite. Just like a regular Bollywood hero, he had absolutely no problem to stalk and woo the single-mother heroine, to become close and friendly with her son and develop a deep affectionate relationship with an African-American family in up-country Georgia. Here, the director Karan Johar and his screenwriter Shibani Bhatija’s typical Bollywood mindset have prevailed. They have deliberately twisted the basic aspects of the disorder to fit them into a popular Bollywood schema. Asperger’s syndrome became a marketing tool to sell the film. Carried away by this fantasizing feint of MNIK, a mainstream critic has claimed that the film “uses familiar devices to create new meaning”. (Source)

The film has indeed created a “new meaning” of king-size profiteering by effectively exploiting many disabilities of the post-modern world to achieve record-breaking box office success.

NYT image courtesy: brothersjuddblog.com

MNIK poster courtesy: filmicafe.com

Barack Obama and the future of our World

Millions world over has gone buoyant over the first black president in the White House – Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. His swearing-in as the forty-fourth American President on January 20, 2009 has skyrocketed enormous expectations and hope to move ahead from an awful economic condition, to necessitate the end of an unwinnable and unpopular war and to get rid of the policies of a vindictive, ignorant and stupid regime. These are customary expectations. By superbly oscillating the politics of high frequency emotion, Barack Obama has won the minds of a sizable section of his country folks and the world’s populace. Armed with a powerful and effective rhetoric of masterfully employed words, Obama’s orations were capable to create “a belief that there are better days ahead” and have instigated his country to “reclaim the American dream” and raise the demand for ‘a change’. Though critics like the journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens has derided this rhetoric as a stockpile of ten cliché keywords “Dream, Fear, Hope, New, People, We, Change, America, Future and Together” (See Slate Magazine, March 03, 2008) it is hard to be impassive about the fervor Obama has generated. But still the vital question remains unanswered: how much can this ‘prophet of hope’ ultimately deliver?

There is no doubt that Barack Obama’s presidency made a significant impact on the collective consciousness of African-American community. It will be a grave mistake to ignore this overt optimism, uncontrollable passion and pride among the black people concerning Obama. Though American society has walked a long way from the dreadful days of racial discrimination, the evils of institutional racism, discrimination in education, housing, employment, policing and criminal justice continue to exist in today’s America. Poverty and social abuse is still a poignant issue. A major section of the deprived African-Americans therefore cannot get rid of their lifelong perception that a black person has to work harder than a white person to reach the same success, that black people are incessantly used and valued in the American society for their muscles, not for their brains. The media still depicts an awesomely negative image of the black men as “…a bunch of hapless layabouts who spend their days ticking off reparations demands and shaking their fist at the white man.” (See Obama and the Myth of the Black Messiah) The ascending of an African-American to warm the highest chair of the country is therefore perceived as a dream come true, a historic event. Obama is being elevated in the minds of African-Americans as a messiah who can convincingly speak about juxtaposing freedom-hope-change and motivates them to shout ‘Yes, We Can!’

Obama’s mixed-ethnic identity (he is the son of a Kansas-born white mother and a Kenyan-born black father) has also played a vital role. Throughout American history, lighter-skinned blacks have been viewed as less intimidating and have generally received better treatment from white society than darker-skinned blacks. This good black-bad black dynamic based on the darkness of skin tone was definitely an advantage for Obama – the advantage of not being ‘black enough’. He has meticulously built up a multicultural image that crosses ethnic boundaries and has spoken about issues concerning all Americans irrespective of race, culture and religion. Hence the implication of his victory goes beyond any racial symbolism. Whether Obama can particularly address key African-American issues therefore remains doubtful. The popular singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte has warned American people to be ‘careful’ about Barack Obama because “We don’t know what he’s truly about.” According to the Calypso King, Obama is “Obviously very bright, speaks very well, cuts a handsome figure. But all of that is just the king’s clothes. Who’s the king?” Obama has appeared with the alluring cloths contrived with profound care by the American enterprise of manipulative media barons, corporate oligarchs, special-interest groups, Wall Street firms and the American political establishment – those who firmly believe in acting as the masters of the world, propels the American hegemony, proudly carries the criminal legacy of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush and continue to support Israel and its atrocious act of brutality. Barack Obama, according to John Pilger, “…will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.”

Barack Obama’s devious face was uncovered in March 2008 when the ‘patriotic’ American media maliciously exposed a December 2007 speech of his longtime pastor and spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The speech titled ‘The day of Jerusalem's fall’ created a huge disconcert to the Obama campaign. In this now infamous speech, Rev. Wright spoke about an extremely repulsive truth. Admitting that 9/11 attacks was a crime of America’s own making, Rev. Wright said that, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism.” The media and the musclemen of American establishment immediately sparked off an outcry and insisted Obama to denounce the ‘inflammatory rhetoric’. Obama dutifully obliged them by resigning his membership in the church and said that he was ‘outraged’ and ‘saddened’ by the behavior of his former pastor.

Obama had also left no ambiguity about his stand on the Israel-Palestine issue. In July 2008 he expressed himself to the media by saying that “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” What did Obama mean by ‘everything’? Slaughtering Palestinian children in retaliation? Clearly enough, the prospective President of United States was approving Israel’s act of ‘self defense’ and never felt a similar concern to utter a word of disapproval about the thousands of Palestinian children killed by the Israeli attacks. Sajy Elmaghinni of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) has described the traumatic condition of Palestinian children during the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza that, “Many kids have stopped eating. They are inactive, they barely talk, they cling to their parents all the time.” Palestinian children were ‘unworthy’ victims of Barack Obama’s worthy ‘expectation’!

Figures made available by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group has shown that from September 2000 until November 2008, Israeli security forces have killed 2,990 Palestinians in Gaza. During this same seven years, Hamas rockets from Gaza have killed a total of 22 Israeli civilians. (See Question and Answer on Gaza by Stephen Shalom) Does Mr. Obama agree with the official US definition that depicts terrorism as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets”? If the homemade Quassam rockets fired by Hamas is a felonious act and therefore condemnable then why the official Israeli butchery cannot be condemned by the same yardstick? While the recent 22-days of Israeli genocidal assault on defenseless Palestinian populations of Gaza were going on, Obama ‘strategically’ preferred to remain silent by saying that “there is only one president at a time”. This unquestioning support for the habitually racist and neurotically extremist Israel is a very common posture for all American presidents. In other word, it is almost impossible to occupy the highest chair of the country which houses the headquarters of international Zionism and where the Zionist lobby has a ubiquitous influence on the political system and media.

Whatever the inexorable propaganda of the international media might pound on our heads, Barack Obama’s reflection on the Palestinian crisis is one apparent indication of the type of ‘change’ the world is actually going to witness in the coming days. Let all the optimists be assured that the vicious legacy of America’s ‘divine right’ to control everything and playing God everywhere in the pretext of spreading democracy all over the world will continue. Moreover, to impale the existing and newer preys, new midnight agents might get recruited. The possibility of Iran to become the next possible prey is not distant. Israel will then play the prominent role of a strategic military partner because the weakening of Iran will significantly serve Israel’s regional interests.

Apparently, Obama looks more intelligent and smarter than his predecessor George Bush who has finished his term as a shoe-ducking president. Knowing very well that the international community has long became spineless and insignificant, the bigot Bush tried to win support for a superfluous ‘war on terror’ in selective Islamic countries by exploiting the general anger of the American people over terrorism. Accordingly, Afghanistan was bombed into heaps of rubble, Iraq was surgically destroyed. Responding to the question on why there is hatred for America in some Islamic countries, Bush famously delivered a stupid answer, “I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. I am, I am – like most Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are…” Similarly stupid was his charge against the Indian and Chinese middle class for eating out all the available food and creating the world food crisis. Barack Obama is no George Bush. Under his costume he is armed with a much stylish and sophisticated rhetoric. But there are his critics who have gone so far to predict that in the coming days Obama might turn into a master of delusion.

In his Presidential Inaugural Address, Obama lectured American citizens to “Prepare the nation for a new age” and extended his cautioned words to “those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West” that the people will “judge you by what you build, not what you destroy.” It will be interesting to watch how much significant change Mr. Obama can bring to America’s imperialist and violent foreign policy. Initially, Barack Obama will be let free to do rightful things that will justify his choice and assure the world about his positiveness. By signing the executive order to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year and banning coercive interrogation methods are signals of these proposed acts. The avid Obama supporters will argue that this act itself is enough to put to rest all speculations of cynics who “fail to understand … that the ground has shifted beneath them”. Only time can tell whether he has actually inherited the legacy of blatant hypocrisy, immoral double-standards and shameful contradictions of former American presidents or not. The world will eagerly wait to watch how much he builds or destroys in the coming days.

Image courtesy: osi-speaks.blogspot.com, www.time.com

Brutality of Fact: the assault on Gaza

“There is no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed” was the haughty proclamation of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the ‘Iron Lady’ of Israeli politics. From its founding days, the State of Israel has continued to display the same colonialist haughtiness towards the people of Palestine. For decades, this fundamental arrogant attitude of Israel has been duly approved and legitimized by the Western power houses. Israel has been bestowed with satiated military and diplomatic support by them, particularly by America, to secure political and economic objectives in the Middle East. Two vital aspects have blurred the true nature of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Firstly, the Zionist claim based on mythical and religious grounds for a Jewish State in Palestine land has received a longstanding moral support from the West. Secondly, the western world has sought to assuage its guilt over the Nazi genocide of Jews by supporting this ludicrous demand of the Zionists. The West always had great sympathies for Israel, for the ‘difficulties’ Israel is facing from the ‘violent and fanatic’ people of Palestine. If Israel gives up even an inch of the occupied territories, it is viewed as an enormous sacrifice by the Zionist lobbying groups in America and Western mainstream media. But the enormous sacrifices of the Palestinian people get far lesser attention and sympathy. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian political, economic and military strength is also not considered in its proper context while evaluating the ongoing conflict between the two. By some trick of hypocritical logic, the international community has recognized Israel’s illegal confiscation of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Arabs. Since the creation of Israel, there has been no peace in the Middle East. Palestine stands out as the most persuasive symbol of human trauma today.

“Israel is the guard dog of America’s plans for Middle East.” This is how noted journalist and documentary maker John Pilger has described America-Israel relation. United States of America is the principal patron of Israel which continues to receive nearly 40 percent of all American foreign aid. Most of this aid has been granted since 1967 when Israel occupied the territories of Palestinians and other Arab nations. America is expected to provide Israel with $30 billion in military aid between 2008 and 2017. In fact this excessive level of absolute diplomatic, financial, military and moral support to Israeli occupation forces and their policies are not unconditional. American support comes from the recognition of how Israel supports their strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond. Therefore, when reputed human rights groups have observed that the majority of violent actions have come from Israeli occupation forces and settlers, America have always found only the Palestinians to blame. America does not really want peace in the region. Its absence of will is exposed by the dual role it is playing - as the chief mediator of the conflict as well as the chief supporter of Israel’s atrocious crimes in Palestine.

From the earliest days, the Israeli state had used its mighty war machine and shrewd calculations to dominate the region. To fulfill their insatiable appetite for Palestinian land and in order to dominate the Middle East, Israeli’s political establishment has tried to dump indigenous Palestinians from the course of history by either denying or suppressing their identities and has cunningly planned to drive the Arab states into frequent confrontation and wars. Decades of Israeli occupation has compelled the Palestinians to have total economic dependence on Israel. All aspects of Palestinian economy including its workforces are in complete control of Israel. This has enabled Israel to impose economic blockade at will whenever Israel considered squeezing Palestinians. Agriculture has also suffered enormously due to this blockade as the occupied territories largely depend on Israel to vend their products. In many areas farmers could not even work on the fields due to Israeli military seizure. As with everything else, Israel always describe the blockade as a ‘measure to defend itself’ from Palestinian violence.

The birth of the conflict and the subsequent ongoing events are unique, multi-layered and highly complicated in nature. With the disintegration and collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the end of the First World War, the League of Nations in a slapdash manner shared the former Ottoman Arab territories between the constituent ‘great power’ nations as pieces of cake. The rights of the indigenous people of the region received no attention at all during this distribution process. While all the other territories became fully independent states in due course, the British rulers who were allocated with the Palestine territory had a different scheme in their mind. Instead of supporting a sovereign Palestine state of the Arabs, the British Government discretely assured their support to Zionist Organization leaders for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ and to ‘use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object’. The Zionist leaders were fervently campaigning to ‘create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law’, an idea originally formulated by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement. From the beginning, the ultimate intention of the Zionist’s was to create a Jewish State in Palestine. Palestine was the chosen territory due to its ‘historical connection’ with the biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) – the holy land where their ancestors had once lived two thousand years ago before dispersing into the ‘Diaspora’.

During the end of the nineteenth century, Jews were immigrating to Palestine in small groups for purely religious reasons. But from 1922 soon after the First World War ended, large-scale Jewish immigrants, mainly from Eastern Europe started to enter and settle in Palestine territories. From 1930, the numbers ascended extensively and brought an exodus of Jews from Germany and other European countries when the Nazis started hounding of the Jews. Quite naturally, the influx of immigrant Jews caused grave discontentment to the Arabs whose ancestors had been settled in this land for almost 2000 years. They viewed the invasion as a violation of their natural and absolute rights and reacted violently. Demands for independence and resistance against the Jewish influx led to a Palestinian rebellion in 1936. Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the region followed by enduring clashes between Palestinians and Jews. The Jews retaliated against the Palestinian assaults through Haganah, a covert paramilitary force that will later develop into the modern Israeli army. The British Government initiated large scale military action against the Palestinian nationalist guerrillas. When violence ravaged Palestinian situation became too intricate to manage, the British coolly handed over the ‘Palestinian problem’ to the United Nations in 1947.

While the United Nations did acknowledge the natural rights of the Palestinian people but at the same time, strangely, proposed for a partition of Palestine into two independent States – one for Palestinian Arabs and the other for the Jewish immigrants. The UN initiative could attain nothing as in 1948, the Jews abruptly declared independence with the foundation of the State of Israel. The Arab countries refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and soon the Arab-Israeli war broke out. Israelis called this fierce conflict as War of Independence and the Palestinians call it the Nakba (catastrophe). In the rapacious urge to seize all of Palestine, Israeli army occupied 77 percent of the territory of Palestine including larger parts of Jerusalem and forced out more than half of the indigenous Palestinian population from their homeland by applying brutal force. Those who remained were deprived from their national identity, their rights of freedom and held as hostages by Israel’s systematic oppression and cruel occupation.

Since then, the Palestinian people are struggling to regain their lost rights. Most of the 5 million Palestinian ‘stateless’ refugees are now living in various neighboring Middle Eastern countries like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt; many are still living in refugee camps. Twenty-two percent of all Palestinian refugees are currently in Gaza Strip. Though the Resolution 194 of United Nation General Assembly had declared in December 1948 that the ‘refugees wishing to return to their homes…..should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date’, Israel has refused the return of displaced Palestinians to their homeland. Israel has an unmatched record of defying the maximum number of United Nations resolutions, even more than big brother America. The Palestine-Israel conflict cannot be fixed without resolving the Palestinian refugee question.

In 1967, following a comprehensive six-day war with three neighboring Arab countries; Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. Though later, the Sinai Peninsula was eventually returned to Egypt through a peace agreement between the two countries (Israel completed its withdrawal only in 1982), the rest of the two territories are still occupied by Israel. About three million Palestinians are living in these two areas, surrounded by Israeli settlements.

West Bank and Gaza Strip are the only two territories that Palestinians are demanding today as their future Palestine State. One must keep in mind that the two territories represent only 22 percent of the original, pre-Israel Palestine. Subsequent to the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, a five years interim Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was formed in 1994. The organization was responsible to administer some rural areas and major cities in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Unfortunately the PNA rule was tainted by corruption charges. Its stalwart leader Yasser Arafat was losing his authority and control over the people of Palestine who started to sense him as ineffective. PNA was fast losing popularity to the Islamic hardliner group Hamas. Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections in Gaza Strip against Fatah – the largest faction of the former Palestine Liberation Organization has greatly undermined the significance of PNA. Though the PNA president and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas runs the Palestinian part of West Bank he has no influence or control on Gaza.

After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel started to withdraw its forces from the Palestine populated parts of West Bank (17 percent of total West Bank land) but soon started putting up a 703 kilometer long barrier encircling major Palestinian urban areas. On the pretext to ‘safeguard Jewish residents of the State of Israel’, the Israeli government developed a philosophy of forced separation between ‘us and them’. This multi-layered separation barrier comprises barbed fences, vehicle-barrier trenches, high concrete walls and 500 checkpoints. Palestinians residing in West Bank are restricted from free movement, access to water sources, medical aid, education and other essential services. Large areas of fertile agricultural land was seized from Palestinian peasants and eventually destroyed to build the barrier. A 2004 Amnesty International report describes the condition of the Palestinians in West Bank and the effects of the Israeli barrier:

The fence/wall is not being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services.

The condition of the Gaza Strip is even worse. Gaza is one of the most densely populated and poorest areas of the world with little water or natural resources. The territory was occupied and governed by Israel from 1967 to 2005. During this period six thousand Israeli settlers have occupied about one-third area (including the military bases and bypass roads) of Gaza and one million subjugated Palestinians are squeezed into the other two thirds. Like in West Bank, Israel also left Gaza for the Palestinian Authority following the Oslo Accords. On 2005, the Israeli cabinet formally declared to withdraw its military rule in Gaza but stationed military troops surrounding the territory. With electronic fences and military posts, Gaza is tightly sealed from the outside world and has been turned into a massive prison ghetto.

Gaza is currently ruled by Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) which came to power after winning a fair and democratic election in January 2006. After the victory Hamas opted for a confrontational policy by refusing to recognize Israel’s existence in the ‘historic homeland’ of Palestine. Explaining their standpoint on Israel, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated that:

Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us – our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people. (Emphasis added)

Hamas was the creation of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to damage the popularity of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat. At that point, Israeli hawks including the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sanctified the project but could not anticipate that this crafty strategy would eventually transform into a grave future threat for Israel. During 1990-2000, Hamas become infamous for its ferocious attacks on Israeli targets including large-scale suicide bombings that killed several Israeli civilians. The attacks were executed through Hamas’s military wing – the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Soon Israel and the Western world labeled Hamas as a notorious Islamic terrorist group. Hamas has intensified its hard-line confrontations with Israel since their 2006 election victory.

The imposed restrictions and barriers have nearly destroyed every aspect of social cohesiveness in the occupied areas. This will give some idea why Hamas enjoys a considerable popularity among the Palestinians. With an aggressive anti-Israel posture, Hamas also carries out numerous social welfare activities in the occupied areas. This is a vital reason behind their immense popularity. Allegedly funded by Iran and private Arab donors, Hamas spends a major portion of its annual budget to run relief and education programs like schools, hospitals, orphanages, daycare clinics, blood banks, free or inexpensive medical treatments, financial aid and scholarships, community kitchens and sports leagues. The popularity of Hamas is the real threat to Israel and not the hundreds of homemade Qassam rockets that they regularly fires from Gaza into Israel. These rockets do trifling damage to the mighty Israeli establishment but instead provide ample excuse to clamor before the international community.

Israel still controls the Gaza airspace, territorial waters, offshore maritime access and the Gaza-Israel border. It also controls entry of foreigners, the collection and reimbursement of taxes and inflow and outflow of Gaza’s all essential resources. As it’s happening now, Israel has blocked the internal roads and divided the area into smaller penal complexes, each surrounded by Israeli tanks. Even during the June 2008 ceasefire was in place the people of Gaza were not exempted from their troubles. When Israeli airplanes are bombarding their home, school and hospitals, Gaza inhabitants miserably abide the terrible assault as they have nowhere to escape.

The events leading to the present catastrophe began on 18 June 2008 when a bilateral ceasefire was announced between Israel and Hamas through Egyptian mediators. It should be kept in mind that Egypt is a ‘key regional ally’ of America in the Middle East. By November the ceasefire began to break down when Israeli Defense Forces discovered Hamas tunnels in the outskirts of Gaza, intended to infiltrate Israeli territory and sneaking in weapons caches. After Israeli forces fired on the tunnels, Hamas retaliated by firing rockets into Israel. On 27 December, Israel unleashed Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. Israeli fighter planes started bombing the civilian localities of Gaza including police stations, government buildings, educational institutions, residential homes and apartment buildings, hospitals, mosques, busy market places, shops and bakeries, Though Israel has claimed that their systemic attacks are only targeting Hamas leaders and institutions and they are trying their best to avoid civilian causalities, the ground facts are just the opposite. Most of the 700 dead and 3000 injured in Gaza are innocent civilians including numerous women and children. Israeli military has blocked food and medicine supplies; electricity and fuel are cut off. Even humanitarian aid are not been allowed to enter Gaza.

The western mainstream media has deliberately picked up the Israeli version of the account. By undertaking a rigid pro-Israeli stand, the mainstream media has started their wordy propaganda for weakening and eventually eliminating Hamas at any cost. According to the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, weakening of Hamas is important because, “…nothing has damaged Palestinians more than the Hamas death-cult strategy of turning Palestinian youths into suicide bombers…..Hamas’s attacks on towns in southern Israel is destroying a two-state solution, even more than Israel’s disastrous West Bank settlements.” Mr. Friedman has made his apologist standpoint crystal clear when he writes, “Israel has proved that it can and will uproot settlements, as it did in Gaza. Hamas’s rocket attacks pose an irreversible threat.” Surprisingly, Mr. Friedman did not find it important to mention about the crippling Israeli blockade of Gaza that has left the inhabitants completely distressed with no food, fuel and medical supplies for days. Not a single word of condemnation came from him about the atrocious killing of more than 700 innocent civilians. Instead he has asserted that “…death and destruction in Gaza is painful to watch. But it’s all too familiar.”

India and Israel

In these circumstances where does India stand? During the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress were against the creation for a Jewish home in Palestine. After independence, India pompously voted in 1947 against the UN partition plan of Palestine. In 1949 India had also opposed the admission of Israel to the UN. India later recognized Israel but did not establish diplomatic relations with the country for a long time. It was much later in 1977-79 when the External Affairs Minister of Morarji Desai government, Atal Behari Vajpayee laid the foundation of a close relationship between the two countries. Subsequently, the Indian standpoint on Israel started to change.

India-Israel political and military relationship was elevated to heights by the centre-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after it came to power. From January 1992 India became one of the closest allies of Israel after the two countries established full diplomatic relations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was invited by Atal Behari Vajpayee, now the Prime Minister of India, for a two day state visit amid stern protests from the Indian Left parties. BJP had also strongly advocated for a US-Israel-India alliance to “… take on international terrorism in a holistic and focused manner... to ensure that the global campaign against terrorism is pursued to its logical conclusion.” BJP leaders have a special place in their hearts for Israel. BJP’s mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also has an acute and age-old Israel obsession. RSS had hailed India-Israel bond and strongly criticized the Left because, “Both India and Israel are facing Muslim terrorism. Israel has faced the threat from Muslim terrorists boldly and effectively and we should appreciate it.”

In many respects, BJP’s Hindutva and Israel’s Zionism are blood brothers. Ideologically both are hyper-nationalists. Both claim to represent themselves as the sole and authentic spokespersons for the religion they represent. And, most importantly, both are anti Muslim to the core and share a common Islamophobia and hatred against Arabism. Also the RSS, BJP and its affiliates are fascinated with the gutsy nature of Israeli establishment and the adamant way it carries out systemic assaults against the Palestinian Muslims. These Hindutva hardliners passionately desire for a ‘strategic alliance’ between Hindus and Jews to avenge the Muslims. Narendra Modi, BJP’s poster boy and chief minister of the Indian state Gujarat has already tried his hand into an Israel like ethnic cleansing of Muslims in 2002.

Since then, India has continued with its close ties with Israel. Today, Israel is the second biggest supplier (after Russia) of defense equipments to India. The present UPA government led by the Congress party also did not consider changing the ‘friendly’ relation. Here, the India-America connection seems to have struck the right cord. According to the America obsessed Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India’s relation with Israel is of an ‘enlightened self-interest’. After the Mumbai terror attacks, India-Israel relation has taken a new-fangled turn. India-Pakistan situation is now viewed as parallel to Israel’s situation with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. There are plenty of free advices available now on how India can learn from Israel’s experience to “consider cross-border raids against terrorist camps or retaliation to pressure the terrorist sponsor to desist”. From a peculiar perception of terrorism, hoards of lessons are delivered by the national and international experts on how India can possibly emulate Israel. At the same time, India is being continuously advised to ignore the dangerous ‘root cause’ argument and go for all an out offence against the dreaded global terrorists (read Muslims).

What will India do then? Will India consider emulating Israel to fight its own war on terror? Will India take lessons from Ariel Sharon’s guide book? Will India also become a cruel aggressor like Israel? Will India adopt Israel’s ideology of war and start bombarding the home, school and hospitals of terrorist affected regions situated in neighboring countries? Well, these are secret desires of scores of home-bred patriots and international friends. Only time can tell what India will ultimately do. But one thing is certain. India’s choice will determine whether the Indian subcontinent will turn into another Middle East in future or not.

Image Courtesy: Mohammed Omer, Rafah Today

Map Courtesy: history.howstuffworks.com

It’s Pakistan, Stupid!

The perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks have left ubiquitous Pakistani fingerprints, just like in the other recent incidents of dire terror attacks around the globe. Though groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba was banned in 2002 by the military dictator Pervez Musharraf to gratify America, the ban actually had little or no effect as the same group changed its name and reappeared as Jama’at-ud-Da’wah to operate openly. Under growing international pressure, even from the allies like China and Iran, the Pakistan authority after the initial hesitance started to react in their trademark way. First was the blatant denial about the presence of extremists in Pakistan and the deceitful demand for valid proof to act against the architects of Mumbai atrocity. Then followed the continuous double-speak and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, in the pretext of ‘threatening statements of the Indian leadership’, the bureaucratic-military establishment of Pakistan has started creating a war panic to divert the attention from the real issue, its responsibility to act against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. The Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has assured the Pakistani people that his force is ready to mount an ‘equal response within minutes’ if faced with any cross border surgical strike and informed President Asif Ali Zardari that his ‘men are ready to (make a) sacrifice for their country’. The Taliban also responded in a rather extraordinary way. The chief of the Pakistani Taliban Baitullah Mehsud has announced to offer the service of hundreds of its suicide bombers and thousand of its armed militants to fight alongside the Pakistan army if Indian imposed a war. When asked why he wants to support the army that has launched a major assault on them, Mehsud replied, “…the army was acting otherwise (in the past). But now it would fight for the protection and survival of the country, which is why we will support them.” Mehsud has a shrewd strategy. Tension build-up between India and Pakistan suits him and his friends the best as it will shift the attention of the four army divisions of Pakistani force deployed in the western border with Afghanistan towards the Eastern border. Unmistakably, there is a significant number of rogue elements in the Pakistani establishment who also desires the same.

In this whole sequence of events, the role of America is particularly typical. It is trying to pacify India and Pakistan both by playing a balancing act from the sidelines. American diplomats, state department and army officials are paying ritual visits to both the countries and pretending to be genuinely concerned to resolve the crisis. But America’s concerns are fictitious. By counseling the burglar to break the house and simultaneously warning the house-keeper to remain alert, America is playing its well-known game of deceit.

Who is responsible for the steady upsurge of terrorism in Pakistan over the years? Is it the Pakistani military, the ISI or the al-Qaida? What are the underlying reasons that the democratically elected government of Pakistan is visibly shaky to act against their home grown terrorists? A look back at recent history will reveal the truth.

In early eighties, the CIA under Ronald Reagan administration formed a three-part intelligence alliance including Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services to fund, prepare and arm the Afghan and Arab mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The cold war era rivalry had always pushed the two superpowers for a head-on confrontation in almost every place of the globe. The CIA provided the logistics and technological support, the Saudi provided the money and the Pakistanis worked as field agents to run the war on the front lines. Billions of dollars of military aid was secretly pumped in to fund this anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Though America never played a direct role on the front lines and instead used the Pakistani agents for the dirty job, it has significantly influenced to build the extensive terrorist bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan soil to train thousands of radical Islamic guerrilla fighters. The Pakistani Army and its military-intelligence outfit Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, started to nurture and train the most backward elements in Afghanistan, the Taliban, which had subsequently unleashed a series of violent fidayeen attacks against the Soviet backed Nazibulla government. The remote tribal areas of Pakistan abutting Afghanistan, particularly the North and South Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) were virtually turned into a haven of cross-border incursions where thousand of Afghan and Pakistani unemployed youths with militants of foreign origin were encouraged to join the ‘holy war’.

The FATA region comprises seven semi-autonomous tribal agencies. It is a remote, extremely backward and poor province filled with complexity and ethnicity. It is considered to be one of the most difficult terrains in the globe and runs along the Afghanistan border known as the Durand line. This border was drawn as part of an agreement signed by the then ruler of Afghanistan and the British colonial administrators on 12 November 1893 to demarcate Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. FATA is inhabited by 3.50 million Pashtun tribesmen. 90 percent of them live below the poverty line.

The ethnic Pashtun tribes of the FATA region never accepted the demarcation of the Durand line as it had artificially segregated them from the Afghan mainland. It is a volatile boundary which continues to be the mainstay of permanent trouble in the region. From both sides of the unguarded border extremists and militants, drug smugglers and arm dealers freely cross the boundary. The Pakistan government has always kept a blind eye about this infiltration as historically its authority over this region is limited. Today, it has turned into a jumble for different jihadi groups comprising Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, Chechens, al-Qaeda and the Uzbek militants those who are taking refuge and getting trained for terror activities in the training camps. A terrible reign of lawlessness with easy availability of sophisticated weaponry and explosives has transformed FATA into a state within a state. Compared to 102 high schools, there are many as three hundred madrasas functioning in this region. Funded by Saudi money, these networks of madrasas are the humble institutions to brainwash the Muslim youths with lethal jihadi ideology. The flourishing madrasa network also reveals the growing power of Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

From the days of the Afghanistan war, the Pakistan military and the ISI allowed the Afghan Taliban to spread deep into this region, particularly in North and South Waziristan province. Soon after the withdrawal of Soviet army in 1989, the bureaucratic-military establishment of Pakistan interpreted the ‘achievement’ in Afghanistan as a model that could be extended against India - the traditional enemy. Apart from supporting the Taliban, other anti-India notorious militant outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad were provided a legitimized domestic base and were protected as assets or a reserve force to accomplish the dear to heart agenda of Pakistani hawks – to propping up cross-border proxy war in Indian Kashmir. Money and arms from clandestine donors flowed in consistently and the region emerged as the main refuge and supply-route for Taliban insurgents on both sides of the border. Gradually, their activities are spilling out beyond the tribal areas of FATA to the NWFP areas and elsewhere.

America has seldom hesitated to boaster its military might to ‘resolve’ problems. Therefore after the 9/11 attacks, the whole world knew that an American military invasion is imminent. Where and how it will commence was the only question. Pentagon finally pinpointed Afghanistan as the prime cradle of global terrorism from its conviction that al-Qaeda members including Osama bin Laden has supposedly taken refuge here. America’s bombing campaign of Afghanistan, officially called ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ started in 2001 with the aim to destroy the terrorism source. The attacks distorted the al-Qaeda and Taliban bases in Afghanistan but could hardly solve the problem of global terrorism. The Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership crossed the border into Pakistan, regrouped in the FATA region and facilitated the rapidly growing global anti-state terror network comprising about 14 definable anti-state elements. To seek out and eliminate the shadowy foe, American and the NATO forces continued their highly unpopular and superficial ‘war on terror’ in FATA through air strikes and covert operations but avoided using ground forces to fight the jihadis as it has little or no potential for ground combat.

America was never able to establish any support base in FATA due to its inability to have any direct contact or communication with the local people and their leaders. Bombing a weak country is easy but seeking out terrorists from remote mountainous terrains is a tough and dangerous job. It is also a war against an idea where the solution cannot be achieved through military means alone. The destruction of Afghanistan and the successive atrocities in Iraq has mostly isolated America from the hearts and minds of Muslims. The countless killing in Afghanistan and Iraq has definitely inspired a generation of Muslims to take up arms. Illegal and unjustified invasion against a secular and unfriendly to fundamentalist country like Iraq has further helped to strengthen the hands of Taliban outfits. The Abu Ghraib revelation of American military brutality has also helped to fortify enough sympathy to Islamic fundamentalism.

Therefore, to ‘win’ this complex war that skeptics say can never be won, America needed Pakistan’s help and cooperation. But Pakistan is finding extreme difficulty to motivate its soldiers to fight their own people. The army and ISI also do not like to estrange their ‘special force’ and is reluctant to assail the Afghan Taliban. Yet it cannot refuse helping America. The newly elected democratic government is therefore in a dilemma it is struggling hard to deal with. It wants to change its already squat image but do not have the strength to direct its army or the ISI to behave accordingly. Also in reality, only parts of the country are under its genuine control. Pakistan’s economy is in shambles and hugely depending on American money and benevolence for a massive debt write-off and other economic supports. America is already paying them around 80 million dollars a month to endorse the cost of Pakistani troop deployment in FATA.

Obviously, this dangerous game has its spill-over effects. The persistent Taliban incursions have led to the collapse of civilian and tribal administration in FATA. The sanctuary of terrorism along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier has gradually grown into a citadel of wider jihadi movement and the chickens have started coming home to roost. America and its allies including Pakistan are now being victimized by the Frankenstein it has once created. Today in Pakistan, these ‘stateless actors’ are festered like a malignant tumor that might have reached an incurable advance stage.

The recent Mumbai terror attacks should be analyzed in this perspective. Even under tremendous pressure from the people and media, so far the reaction of the Indian government is praiseworthy. Instead of jumping into the jingoistic bandwagon, it has shown restrain and is acting with prudence. India has considerable reasons to do so. Though weak, the candlelight of democracy that is lit in Pakistan today bears significance. If this sole light is blown off, the vast haunting darkness will be intimidating not only for the future of the Indian subcontinent but also for the entire globe.

To understanding the complex subject from a Pakistani perspective, the blogger is indebted to Irfan Husain. Interested readers can read him here at Dawn.

Image courtesy: images.google.com, stratfor.com

Mumbai attacks and the 'conspicuous' Indian elite

The recent terror attacks on Mumbai are occupying a central space in the collective mindscape of India. Everyday there are human stories and revelations oozing out from the devastating wound it has created. Newer information is emerging about the callousness of the security setup, about the hidden rivalry between the security agencies. The investigative reporters are busy to unearth unknown brave hearts of those terrible days. There are also the latest exposures of cosmetic faces on TV talk shows - those who are suddenly looking awakened from their habitual socio-political aloofness. There are plentiful of peace marches, candlelight vigils, endless panel discussions and token gestures of unity. These developments are beautiful to see and sweet to hear. But day by day, this indiscreet clamor with risen fists on front of the Taj Mahal hotel and blabbermouth socialites crying hoarse in front of TV cameras – swearing to protest against hideous politicians, delivering precious advice to stop paying taxes and instigating for an American style robust response are getting harder to digest.

Suddenly the elites have become very much conscious about the importance of good politics and started spitting venom against ugly politicians. Suddenly they have metamorphosed and became socially committed. Suddenly they are presenting patriotic overtures and turned into war-mongers. A significant qualitative change indeed! Their mounting conscience is like the froth of cappuccino. After some time it will settle down.

Who are this elite citizenry declaring war against politicians today? These are the same snobs who always felt apathetic to politics and cherished to consider that politics is the refuge for the third-rate Homo sapiens - the rascals and scoundrels. These are the same lot who are always silent during any atrocious communal riot, during the butchery of Muslims in Gujarat, Christians in Orissa or Dalits in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These are the same people who gladly contribute to fund hate. These are the same people who exhibit their deep love for America but love to hate China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba. These are the same people who are skeptical about Mayavati and scornful about Lalu Prasad Yadav; bitterly critical about mainstream communists but sympathetic to the brutal Maoists. These are the same people who seldom votes but wishes to maintain their larger influence over the democratic system which they are bitterly denouncing today. These are the same people who are now parroting the stupid concept: to replace the politicians by CEOs to run the country.

But is it really the rage or a raucous cry out of deep fear? It is indeed the first time Indian elites are stunned to find themselves in a situation where their lives are just as insecure as the common masses; their symbols of wealth and power look insecure. This is the first time they saw that their ‘own’ people - the creamy layer of the society can also be robotically targeted and brutally killed.

Why did the proactive reporters could not find a single brave heart among the elites trapped inside the hotels? Why are the brave hearts found only among the ordinary? What are the responses of the rescued elite hostages of Taj, Oberoi and Trident about their saviors - the ordinary hotel staff, the ordinary kitchen worker and the ordinary maintenance worker who took terrorist bullets trying to save and shield them? For a while they will emotionally talk about the sacrifice, eulogize them for their bravery and soon will stop thinking about them.

The media bosses, our conscience keepers, have devoted too much space to illustrate this rage of our phony elites. The electronic media has taken the center stage in this aspect. Serious looking anchors with theatrically modulated voice attempted to accelerate public emotion by adding ingredients of detestation against politics into their recipe. Jingoism was carefully promoted (mainly through readers response section) as the ideal balm to the wound. All politicians are brought under a homogeneous group and mercilessly bashed. Placards with thrilling slogans are shown again and again to demonstrate the public anger. Continuous narratives supported with titillating images were conveyed ceaselessly to help create mass hysteria. In the pretext of voicing on behalf of the people, the Indian media issued a clear verdict to the worried nation: in the wake of the Mumbai attack, politicians have lost whatever credibility they might have had before.

Do the Indian media want the public to believe that their activism will mould the politicians towards morality and decency? Not at all. The media only wanted to grab an opportunity to propagate their social worthiness. In situations, idiocy rules the day where anything and everything can be lambasted in the pretext of patriotism. To acquire public applause, the electronic media therefore chose the dangerous path of cheap sensationalism and in a trendy manner ran the Mumbai attacks on TV like a reality show, continuously flashing unconfirmed breaking news. All news channels were principally acting alike – only the upper polish differed from channel to channel since the targeted audience was different. The class bias of their selective reporting was also blatant in nature. By barely covering the massacre on the Chatrapathi Shivaji Terminus (CST) railway station where more than 50 people were killed or the government run GT hospital, all efforts were focused on the ‘dramatic’ events of the symbolic Taj and the Oberoi and Trident hotels.

Lot of the elites now talks about unity. Unity is a sweet word but does not necessarily suggest a solution. Who knows it better than our elites that unity is warm and endearing when it is selective?

During the eventful days, a section of the media has cleverly pressed another ploy - by labeling the Mumbai attacks as India's 9/11. The reason is simple. They were trying to subtly promote the idea of aping the American way to demonstrate military aggression against Pakistan. The Indian public was asked to restrict their vision like a blinkered horse and consider: why the United States has never suffered a major attack on its soil since 9/11. Because they were tough. Because they do not fear to call a spade a spade. The Indian Government was advised with a warning: be tough like America; learn from them how to respond. Otherwise India will continue to bleed forever. A prominent section of the elitist Indians expressed a similar view. Fools rush in where fools have been before.

America’s post 9/11 ‘tough’ and costly response (the estimated cost of the Iraq war is $ 3 trillion, about three times India's GDP) has turned into multifaceted disasters: it has ruined Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilized the north-west Frontier province of Pakistan and made that territory much more generous to terrorists, killed millions including innocent civilians. Nearly 5000 soldiers of American military are also killed and 100,000 of them has returned home wounded and injured, suffering from serious mental disorders. It has acted as a stimulus for Islamic terror groups and aggravated Islamic fundamentalism not only in the Muslim world but also in countries where the words were unfamiliar before America’s ‘tough’ response occurred. It has substantially increased insecurity and fuelled far more terrorism activities worldwide.

On July 16, 2008, the American government has issued a ‘Worldwide Caution’ that says, “Current information suggests that Al-Qaida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks against US interests in multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. These attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings and bombings.” The magnification of worldwide terror attacks is the direct result of America’s ‘War on Terror’ which has gravely angered the Arab and Muslim world. It was not difficult to make out why the terrorists had targeted American and British passport holders in Mumbai hotels and attacked Nariman House, the epicenter of the Jewish community in Mumbai. Israel is a key ally of America and is notorious for their imperious methods of tackling Islamic terrorism.

In the first reaction post after the Mumbai attacks, this blogger had spoken about the need to restrain emotional outbursts and urged to convert the gruesome incidence into a watershed – by looking within to dispose of the enduring vices of this country. There is now an emerging possibility that the incidence could be turned into a watershed of a different kind. The proactive interference of America is showing disturbing signs that the big brother might seize this opportunity and eventually coerce India into their strategic partnership in this subcontinent. They have earlier done the same with Pakistan and the consequences are out in the open. Now it could be India’s turn.

Image courtesy: english.sina.com

The days after the Mumbai terror attack

For the time being the Mumbai mayhem is over. All ten terrorists except one are killed. The one arrested terrorist is now under interrogation. Indian security agencies are trying to squeeze out maximum information from him to figure out the greater plot. Political heads has started rolling. The central and state Home Ministers has resigned. Maharashtra Chief Minister was forced to put down his papers. With international support, the Indian government is trying to get tougher on Pakistan. The Pakistan government after agreeing to send the ISI chief to India later backtracked fearing the strong repercussion it can create in their own country. Mumbai is slowly getting normal. Politicians after a three day lull are back on their tracks. Full volume allegations and blame games has resurfaced. Too much of bombastic talks on the TV have started to show clear signs of dullness. Debates are turning ugly. Even the best TV anchors, worn out after days of continuous showbiz are facing a hard time to break free the clichés. The whole nation is utterly disturbed and bemused. People came out on the streets in large numbers and demonstrating their rage against the political leadership. In due course the disaster dusts will settle and the real questions will start coming out.

The calculation, precision and audacity of the Mumbai attackers have stunned even the most competent security forces of the world. The nature of the attack was so unprecedented that unless a tip-off is acquired from the source, it was almost impossible to prevent an attack of such magnitude. A terrorist insurgency can be counteracted only through building a network of informants in places from where the terrorists originate and operate. The navy chief has accepted that the Mumbai attack is clearly a systemic failure of India’s intelligence and security agencies. This devastating intelligence failure has quite obviously raised unpleasant questions in front of the government. The now revealed discord between the intelligence and security agencies are alarming. From one side there are allegations about the lack of actionable intelligence. From the other side accuses are hurled that intelligence was passed on timely but was not acted upon. It is also amazing to discover the bungling way in which these agencies are maintained. In addition, the sheer callousness of India’s political leadership is not something the people of this country should ever forgive. Even after nearly 200 civilians and 20 security men have died, the stupid manner in which key ministers has commented and acted is an obvious indicator to this callousness. The UPA government is bearing the maximum brunt and has turned into a sitting duck which they truly deserve but the track record of their loud mouthed opponent group NDA was in no way better. The war on terrorism in India has become a petty political subject in recent years and all major political parties are equally responsible for worsening it.

The Mumbai attacks have dropped a ripe apple in the hands of the RSS-BJP combine. The BJP which was initially hesitant supporting the Malegaon blast accused came out openly to hysterically support the arrested sadhvi and sadhu after the RSS-VHP sponsored Panipath meet on 16 November. BJP’s change of position was clearly read out at Panipath by the RSS which has comprehended that their deceptive campaign against Islamic terrorism might fall flat otherwise. Now, they no longer need to do any rhetorical trickery to score their points. They can notify loudly and adequately that their relentless campaign against the ‘soft on terror’ approaches of the UPA government and Islamic terrorism was hundred percent right. Approaching the imminent general elections they will certainly seize the opportunity through an explicit campaign that the country immediately needs to get rid of the Congress led UPA government with an indication that the solution of terrorism in India lies on the doorsteps of the country’s Muslims populace. With lesser efforts now the RSS-BJP combine could be successful in arousing Islamophobia by exploiting public anxiety. As the nation’s attention has shifted, the Hindutva lobby will also find it easier to suppress public mood on the Hindu terror groups and possibly derail the Malegaon blast investigation.

The problem of terrorism becomes virtually irresoluble with an attitude of being tough on terror without being responsive about its causes or vice-versa. Both the issues are concurrent and must be dealt together. The problem with the two major political forces in India is that each of them had chosen to address one aspect of this two sided problem and neglected the other. Their political compulsions are apparent. But it is high time for the Indian political class to escalate their consciousness on the fact that gaining political mileage by encouraging disparity is ultimately an illusion. Political parties are deeply infected by this terrible disease which it preventing them to unite even when the nation is under severe crisis. This is the vital reason why curbing terrorism has become an unfeasible task in India.

The physiological impact of the Mumbai attack will be far-fetched. It is in fact started showing disturbing signals that could have a devastating effect on the future of an increasingly polarized nation. The heinous attack has stimulated an initial fear psychosis and helplessness among the public which has now been transformed into widespread anger. The anger among the urban Indian upper and middle classes are flaring-up in multifaceted directions. Though at present the politicians are the main targets, it will not be difficult for them to recover their positions soon. But this anger is also having the dangerous undercurrents of deep rooted sectarianism. Without much effort or time, demagogic elements in the society can divert this anger towards familiar targets of class, caste and creed. Anger intensifies emotion and if not restrained can obstruct reasoning and tend towards paranoia. The babble on the TV screens about a robust response could easily get misdirected towards a quasi-chauvinistic leaning.

Many celebrity civilian and media experts are referring to the ‘American response to 9/11’ as a solution. Some of them have even turned into warmongers with bombastic proposals like ‘attack Pakistan’, ‘carpet bomb the Lashkar-e-Taiba camps’ and ‘gun down the jihadi leaders’. Either intentionally or foolishly, these armchair experts tend to forget the fact that in vengeance to the horrific events of 9/11, America had invaded countries like Afghanistan (in October 2001) and Iraq (in March 2003) situated about ten thousand kilometers away from their international border. Due to the huge distance between the countries, the impact of these attacks has never brought any direct retaliatory effect on American soil. Also the military might of America cannot be compared with the weaker countries it had invaded. If India attacks neighboring Pakistan, will the impact be similar? Even if one ignores the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear powered country armed with long distance nuclear missiles, will India really be able to teach Pakistan a fitting lesson without receiving an equivalent lesson in response? Will there not be any civilian casualties? What will India really achieve by raiding Pakistan? Will the country completely get immunized from terrorism? These are pertinent questions that might not have happy answers.

After 9/11, the George W. Bush regime brought on the vague phrase ‘war on terror’ and instigated military invasion on targeted countries. It apparently seems that the main objective of America’s military campaign has succeeded because after 9/11 the country did not face any other terror strikes. However, skeptics believe that the actual purpose of the war on terrorism was to establish the American hegemony and acquire control over Middle East oil. But there are also ample examples and studies that has shown that the enormous destruction and casualties of civilian life caused by the attacks (causalities in Afghanistan is estimated between 1,300 and 49,600 and in Iraq it is between 62,570 to 1,124,000) has been counterproductive in many ways. It has consolidated anti-American sentiments world over, radicalized disillusioned Islamic youths, encouraged them to take refuge under the terrorism fold and increased the possibility of terror attacks against America and its allies. This is the basis why the Mumbai terrorists were after foreigners, looking for British or American passport holders when they have invaded the hotels. In 2006, The New York Times had reported that “American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” In the same report it was also said that the Iraq war has worsened the overall terrorism problem by fueling radicalism. Till now India was keeping a safe diplomatic distance from this ‘war on terror’ agenda. After the Mumbai attacks, there is a dangerous possibility of India falling into the infamous loop. There is a near hand possibility that India might line up as a close strategic and military partner in the region and serve the foreign policy objectives of Washington. Do not forget – the Indo-US nuclear deal is operational now. (See the post India and the Nuclear Deal.)

Therefore, in response to today’s inflammatory circumstances a sensible approach is expected from the Indian government, the Indian media and the people. As several military experts have explained, military action will be the last option for the Indian government in dealing with Pakistan. The democratically elected new Pakistani government has not yet shown any convincing sign about their ability to control the dreaded ISI and the rogue elements of their military establishment. A paradigm shift from the attitudes of previous regimes towards anti-India terrorist groups who are comfortably operating from their soil is also not visible. Yet, the first option of the Indian government is to undertake a tough diplomatic position in cohesion with the global community and force the Pakistan counterpart to act in co-operation. Today Pakistan is also suffering from similar terrorism threats. Pushing themselves in the verge of a full fledged war will therefore not be a pragmatic and desirable option for either side.

Image courtesy: ABC News