EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 15 October 2007  

Fight Against Terror

NEEDED: FEDERAL POLICE FORCE

By TD Jagadesan

India has stood witness to two dastardly terror attacks in the last ten days alone. The first at the dargah of the Sufi saint, Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti in Ajmer, Rajasthan, a shrine in revered alike by Muslims, Hindus and Christians, which killed 2 and left 17 injured. The second at a cinema hall in Ludhiana, Punjab which killed 7 and maimed over 40 people.

Coming on the heels of the twin blasts at Hyderabad last month the incidents have once again pushed the Centre and the State Governments into the dock. More so, as the Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil had issued a stern warning against terror attacks to the States at the conference of Director Generals and IGs of Police New Delhi last fortnight.

Raising a million dollar question: How does one fight terrorism and stem the tide with a firm hand? The answer is to create a Federal Police Force to tackle this two-headed monster, always hungry and always on the move.

Sadly, till now India’s counter-terror strategy usually follows a predictable pattern after ever act of terror. Grandiose statements are made by our polity that we will not “tolerate” terrorism and the nation will not be cowed down by such acts of “cowardice.” An avalanche of VIP visits follow, disturbing the law and order machinery.

After this a competition starts within the media with different news agencies airing divergent theories about the perpetrators. Subsequently leaks appear that the Central agencies had already alerted the State concerned. But the latter had failed to act upon the prior “intelligence.”

The State Chief Minister hurriedly announces that a “new” agency would be created to tackle terrorism. In the end, everything dies down. Until another terror attack takes place and the charade starts all over again.

The Hyderabad attacks are a case in point. Immediately after the two incidents at Lumbini Park and the Old City, media speculation about the perpetrators ranged from the Naxalites, HUJI, LeT, Dawood and the JeM. Initially, the Andhra Chief Minister Rajasekhar Reddy pleaded helplessness asserting that the conspiracy had been hatched abroad. His statement regarding the complicity of Pakistan evoked a sharp riposte from Islamabad.

Then the Government changed it tactic and stated that an allied force like the “Greyhounds” would be created. It was also announced that the State would recruit 100 linguists (knowing Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Pushtu, Bangla, Uzbek, Baluchi, Kurdish, Hebrew, Spanish and Chechen) to “fight terror”. One only hopes that this will not give rise to another diplomatic furore, since the countries which use these languages can legitimately protest that they are not the places of origins of such terror.

After which another information got leaked that the State had failed to act upon the Intelligence Bureau’s (IB) warning. The contents of the warning were never spelt out. Only one newspaper published that the warning “was too vague.”

It also said that the modules could take up “some sensational terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Bangalore or Hyderabad.” Does this amount actionable intelligence? A retired IB Director defended such alerts by stating that it was left to the State police to infiltrate such modules and extract actionable intelligence.

However, recall that after the railway attacks of 7/11 in Mumbai last year, the then Mumbai Police Commissioner had asserted that he had never been given any indication that the Mumbai suburban railway system would be attacked in his several meetings with the IB at the highest level before the incident. In fact, it seems that the Central intelligence agencies had only indicated that the religious places would be targeted.

Yet, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gently chided the Mumbai police in one of his speeches. Clearly, this shadow boxing has to stop. The public is tired of these ping-pong battles between the States and the Central agencies. The State satraps have to realize that they cannot replicate national intelligence agencies at the State level. Immediately after 7/11 it was announced that Maharashtra would “revamp” its intelligence machinery and recruit “non-police officials” similar to the Old Bombay Special Branch.

One does not know what happened to that. Even if such “revamping” is done, its results will be experienced after decades. The Old Bombay Special Branch had a hard core of non-transferable non-police officials who met the then challenges admirably. Unfortunately, that system was allowed to wind up and the non-police officers gravitated to “profitable” police influence. Where is the guarantee then that something similar will not happen again?

Acting upon the Maharashtra and Andhra decisions, other States might also announce the creation of such “elite” forces. But recruiting 100 linguists for a State force for communicating intelligence can at best be a pipe-dream.

Especially against the backdrop, that even our Central agencies are perennially short of linguists proficient in foreign languages. Shockingly, most of these posts are lying vacant. Even if one is able to recruit linguists has anyone considered the sheer volume of data that has to be transcribed and converted into actionable intelligence?

Our State leaders must realize the inherent handicap the forces face in penetrating terrorist modules. Terrorism is transnational, professional and secretive in nature, conducted by highly motivated cadres. On the other hand, the State police units are fragmented, largely inefficient, slow in reaction, badly trained and highly politicized.

Not only that. The operational efficiency of the police units differs vastly from State to State. Coordination between the police units is hardly satisfactory. Worse, the interrogation reports are not shared promptly. Needless to say, a Centralized operation against terrorism has always produced better results, although there is no guarantee that it would eliminate terrorism. However, at least there would be greater accountability as none would be able to pass the buck.

Recall, a Group of Ministers (GoM) set-up by the previous NDA Government had recommended the setting up of a Federal Police Force to tackle a federal crime like terrorism and to curb the Naxalite menace. However, the meeting of Chief Ministers called by Manmohan Singh in September 2006 to take up the NDA proposal brushed aside the recommendation. In fact, even Chief Ministers belonging to the BJP opposed the move, fearing the erosion of their power.

Since then, several eminent jurists have supported the idea of having a federal anti-terrorist force to tackle this nation-wide scourge. But it is the State Chief ministers who are resisting the idea.

How many more 7/11s, Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad, Ajmer and Ludhiana incidents need to take place before these power hungry politicians are made to agree to this excellent suggestion of a federal police force! ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 8 October 2007

Pakistan At Crossroads

WILL MUSHARRAF CONTINUE?

By Sreedhar

(Former Sr Fellow Institute for Defence Studies & Analysis)

Finally the October 6, 2007 Presidential election in Pakistan took place. Gen. Musharraf got 98 per cent of the votes polled for another five year term. Apparently, if he is declared elected some time during this month he may give up his position as the Chief of Army Staff in the next few weeks and pass on the baton to Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

The circumstances in which he managed the election for his second term as President, raises the question of legitimacy of his Presidency. In examining this issue one has to take cognizance of three factors.

First, is the mass resignation of the Opposition members from the National Assembly belonging to various parties. By 2 October, 85 Parliamentarians’ resigned --- 62 from the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), 20 from the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), and three others, including cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.

Second, there were moves to dissolve the Provincial Assembly of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) headed by the MMA. Had this happened the Presidential election itself would have been postponed. However, the MMA Government in NWFP was not able to do this because of a no confidence motion moved by Opposition parties. This would have necessitated the Government proving its majority before dissolving the Assembly.  

Apparently, the politicized Pakistan judiciary allowed the Presidential election process to be completed but wanted the election result not to be declared till it disposed off the petitions. It appears they wanted to see which way the political winds in Pakistan will blow after Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chief Benazir Bhutto’s return on 18 October. 

Moreover, Gen. Musharraf’s understanding with Benazir has acquired its own momentum. In desperation, Benazir agreed to support Gen. Musharraf in the Presidential election in return for giving her indemnity against corruption charges.

According to media reports, the Musharraf-Bhutto agreement, in the form of a “national reconciliation ordinance,” is likely to grant indemnity to all those who held public office or were in Government service between 1985 and 17 November 1999 and against whom cases were registered but who have not yet been convicted.

Also, there is bound to be realignment of various political parties. Already, Nawaz Sharif’s wife, Kulsum Sharif, is expected to come back to Pakistan before end October and lead the Association for Movement of Restoration of Democracy. In such a situation one can envisage political chaos in Pakistan.

Lastly, the role played by the US in the ongoing political drama appears to have undermined Gen. Musharraf’s authority already. By publicly acknowledging Washington’s role in negotiating a pact between him and Benazir, clearly indicates that the US role in Pakistani politics can not be diluted.

Whether this power sharing between Musharraf and Benazir brokered by the US will be on the same lines like in 1988 is yet to be seen. If it is on the same lines i.e. with the Foreign and Defence portfolios manned by the Armed Forces or its nominees, it is bound to create considerable amount of friction between the Armed Forces and the Executive.

Besides, Benazir’s understanding with Gen. Musharraf has sufficiently undermined her charisma in Pakistan. A leader who is in exile and away from people for almost a decade is not expected to win a thumping majority in any election, if the election is fair and transparent.

Added to it, Gen, Musharraf’s popularity itself is dwindling and Benazir’s deal with him has further eroded his credibility. According to some observers, Benazir’s PPP may not get more than 50 seats in the forthcoming elections for the National Assembly when they are held.

In this emerging uncertain scenario in Pakistan, observers feel that there is a possibility of another round of Martial Law in the next few months. The question that is being debated is whether it will be peaceful like in the past military coups or will it be a violent one?

Going by the past history, three of the four military dictators in Pakistan came to power in a bloodless coup. But Gen. Zia went a step further.  After coming to power through a bloodless coup, he later hanged the ousted Prime Minister Z.A.Bhutto.

Even Gen. Musharraf who was selected as Chief of Army Staff by Nawaz Sharif as a trusted and loyal person, decided to capture power in October 1999. He too thought of doing the same to the Prime Minister like his predecessor Gen. Zia had done. It is a different story why Nawaz Sharif was not hanged.

Interestingly, in this new situation in Pakistan both the President-elect and the Chief of Army Staff-designate are from the army and wield considerable clout in the Armed Forces. They may not allow political parties to lead the country in to a chaotic situation. Many observers feel who so ever is supported by the Armed Forces will rule Pakistan in the coming days.

Already there are media reports about the emergence of the al-Qauidistan in the FATA area of Pakistan. In these uncertain times another division of Pakistan seems to be quiet possible.

Thus, in these circumstances, it remains to be seen whether Gen. Musharraf elected as President in the dubious election of 6 October, will be able to hold Pakistan together. This is the million dollar question. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Events & Issues

New Delhi, 23 September 2007

Sethusamudram Controversy

EXPERTS VOICE VARIOUS CONCERNS

By Radhakrishna Rao

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M.Karunanidhi’s controversial remark which questioned the very existence of Lord Rama and his ridiculous observation “from where Rama acquired his engineering degree” has started creating ripples of protest in the South. In Bangalore, a group of pro-Hindu activists dared Karunanidhi to paint the “venerated figures of non-Hindu religious streams” in the same brush and thereafter attacked the residence of his daughter, Selvi, in the posh Jayanagar suburb of the city.

According to   the watchman of the house, about 50 young protesters, shouting anti-Karunanidhi slogans, hurled stones and petrol bombs at Selvi’s house. They handed over a leaflet threatening Karunanidhi with dire consequences and demanding the resignation and arrest of the Union Minister of Roads, Highways and Shipping, T.R.Balu. A Tamil Nadu state-owned bus was burnt down on the outskirts of Bangalore, killing two passengers. This too was believed to be the act of Hindu activists though the Bangalore police are yet to establish a link between the statement of Karunanidhi and the torching of the bus.

Similarly, letters appearing in the mainline daily newspapers of Bangalore have roundly condemned the “irresponsible and unsavoury statement” of a person occupying a high Constitutional position. For instance, in a letter addressed to the editor of the leading English daily Deccan Herald, N.S.Ramaswamy, former Director of the Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore) observed that the religious belief of the masses need not be disturbed for political purposes. Ramaswamy argued that even if Rama was not a historical figure, it did not in any way diminish his value.

At a panel discussion “Bridge between Faith and Reason” held recently in Bangalore and joined in by a galaxy of scientists, historians, scholars and environmentalists, speakers expressed their dismay over the glaring apathy of the politicians to the public concern. Well known historian N.S.Rajaram stated that an ulterior political-economic agenda was driving the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi, to deny the existence of Rama.

Dr. Rajaram observed: “The theory of Rama as an Aryan God pitted against Dravidians, has been discredited. However, Dravidian parties still have to go back to it because that’s the founding doctrine of the Dravidian movement”.  He also expressed the view that Rama need not be seen as real or mythological, but as representative of certain values that should not be attacked with “distorted facts”.

In New Delhi, taking a position diametrically opposed to that of Karunanidhi, the Union Minister of Science and Technology, Kapil Sibal, said that he believed in Lord Rama and added that one should respect public sentiments over the issues of faith. “We must respect people’s view on Rama Sethu or the existence of Rama. I personally am a believer of Rama”, quipped Sibal. Nevertheless, like the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, which has created a spat between the Congress and Left, the controversy over the Sethusamudram project has the potential of driving a wedge between the Congress and the Dravidian parties.

Happily, for the BJP, the main opposition, the Sethusamudram issue has come as “a God sent opportunity to revive its sagging fortunes”. It has asked Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh to clarify the ruling party’s position on the statement of Karunanidhi. The BJP spokesman, Prakash Jawedkar, has made it clear that the observation of Karunanidhi was more offensive than the affidavit submitted by the UPA Government on Ram Sethu (also called Adams Bridge) to the Supreme Court.

“Raising questions about the college from where Lord Rama acquired an engineering degree”, he added, “was not only insulting but a direct affront to the faith of the Hindus”. According to Jawedkar, the statement made by Karunanidhi had exposed the inherent contradictions within the ruling dispensation.

He also reiterated the BJP’s stand on the Sethusamudram project: “it was not against the project per se but wanted an alignment that would not disturb the Rama Sethu.” It is not an issue of science versus faith, which does not offend faith unnecessarily. It is not an issue of progress versus heritage but a case for progress, which does not trample upon heritage”, further quipped Jawedkar.

Meanwhile, many environmentalists have questioned the ecological viability of the project, which could seriously affect the marine biodiversity of the region. The Rs.20,000-million 83-km long Sethusamudram project was first mooted in 1860 and was studied from various angles over the last five decades. However, it received the green signal only in 2004.

All the political parties in Tamil Nadu support this project which could involve the dredging of about 88-million cubic metres of sand and other material from the sea bed in Palk Bay. It has been estimated that the material would be equivalent to 7-million truckloads, which could easily fill Tamil Nadu’s largest natural water body Chembarbakkam lake in the Chingelput district .As projected now, more than 2,000 ships and vessels are expected to make use of this shipping channel.

As things stand now, this project is expected to enable the smooth movement of bigger vessels from the Arabian Sea to the eastern coast of India, without having to circumnavigate the island of Sri Lanka. Once the project is implemented in full, it would cut short the navigation time for the ships cruising from the western coast to the eastern coast by about 30 hours and the distance by about 4,000 nautical miles. The project would, moreover, quicken the economic development of southern Tamil Nadu.

The Tuticorin Port Trust is the nodal agency for the entire project and for the smooth execution of this challenging engineering project, an agency by name Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd has been put in place. Based in Chennai, it will have an equity participation from the Shipping Corporation of India SCI), Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT), Chennai Port Trust, Vishakapattanma Port Trust and Paradip Port Trust.

While the fishermen along the southern coastal belt of Tamil Nadu are worried over the possibility of the project depriving them of their livelihood, marine ecologists have their own concerns. They fear that this biologically diverse coastal region of India, with 36,000 species of plants and animals, could be subjected to “yet unassessed damage”.

They point out that the creation of a high trench in the depths of the Gulf of Mannar could instigate serious “gravitational and geological changes in the oceanic dynamics of the region”. Of interest in this context is an in-depth, multi-disciplinary study of the possible fallouts of the project by the Coimbatore based Doctors for Environment, a voluntary group. They claim that “the safety and stability of the canal project is a matter of concern”. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 17 September 2007

Ram Setu Bridge

FAITH vs NATIONAL INTEREST

By Syed Ali Mujtabha

The case of "Adams' Bridge" nee Ram Setu, a mythical bridge situated south-east of Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu connecting the Talaimanar coast of Sri Lanka, has snowballed into a major controversy of faith verses national interest. The matter is before the Supreme Court of India, which is hearing a public interest litigation petition on the multi-crore Sethusamudram canal project that involves dredging of a sea channel cutting across the Adams' Bridge across the Gulf of Mannar.

Many Hindu groups believe that the mythical barrier was constructed by Lord Rama for his attack on Lanka to rescue Sita, his wife, from the demon-king Ravana, who had kidnapped her. These groups have been opposing the construction of the Sethusamudram canal since it would destroy the mythical bridge they revere as "Ram Setu" and with which their faith is emotionally involved.

The Rs 2,427 crore Sethusamudram project is designed to establish and maintain a navigational canal from India’s west coast to the east coast without the ships having to go around Sri Lanka. Cleared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the project was inaugurated with much fanfare on July 2, 2005 by the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.

Two years after the commencement of the project, the Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court to stop the Centre from blowing up the "Adams' Bridge" for constructing the canal. He wanted the Apex court to intervene and stop tampering with the mythical Ram Setu with which the faith of millions of people across the country was attached.

On August 31, 2007, the Supreme Court put on hold the demolition of the "Adams' Bridge" and issued an interim order saying: "The alleged Ram Setu shall not be damaged in any way.” However, it “allowed the dredging activity to continue to the extent it did not cause any harm to the mythical barrier."

The Central Government submitted a 400-page document to the Apex court in its defense stating that the canal project was being constructed strictly in accordance with the law and that it had a high degree of strategic and financial importance to the country. It also stated that the Adams' Bridge formation could be classified "as a series of shoals or a series of barrier islands, both of which are natural formations caused due to several millennia of tidal action and sedimentation." Adding that in the light of the various scientific studies conducted on the formation, it could not be said to be “a man-made structure.”

Quoting an article in the journal published by the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, the Centre said nothing had been observed at Adams' Bridge except coral and sand formations which could not be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance. At best, the Bridge was a case of disputed mythology and not a matter of historical importance.

Significantly, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which filed the affidavit, added that: “It duly respected the deep religious import bestowed upon these texts by the Hindu community across the globe," but such claims could not be vouched by it without "tangible material evidence".

It further stated that the contents of Valmiki’s Ramayana, Tuslidas's Ramcharitmanas and other mythological texts could not be treated as historical record to prove the existence of the characters mentioned in the book. The ASI elaborated that there was no "historical record" to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrences of the events, depicted therein.

The existence of human remains, according to the ASI, whether in the nature of bones or in other forms of artifacts, was essential to prove archaeologically the existence and veracity of a historical fact. But no such human remains had been discovered at the site of the formation known as Adams' Bridge.

The ASI asserted that the Adams' Bridge could not, therefore, be treated as a "protected monument" under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 since it did not satisfy the requirements necessary for being qualified under the Act. It further said that till date the bridge had neither been declared as a "protected area" nor "protected monument" or for that matter as an "ancient monument."

The Centre told the Supreme Court that it was, in fact, the earlier NDA regime which had approved the project in 2002 after which it was subjected to the mandatory environmental impact assessment. Fourteen public hearings and other discussions were held before deciding to execute the project. It urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition as it was filed two years after the commencement of the project and termed the opposition to it as motivated by "extraneous considerations." It also urged the Apex court to "impose exemplary cost" on those opposing the project.

The affidavit filed by the ASI and the Centre’s stand on this issue has sparked a row in the country. The BJP, in its bid to embarrass the Government for its “anti-Hindu” stand, has taken up this issue in a big way. The Leader of Opposition, LK Advani, expressed his anguish to the Prime Minister at the latter’s dinner for the visiting Bulgarian Prime Minister and demanded immediate action --- and retraction.

The BJP President, Rajnath Singh, while rejecting the Government's explanation, demanded an “unqualified" apology from it for the affidavit stating: "Why is there a picture of Ram and Krishna in the Constitution of India, if Ram and Krishna did not exist? And why did Gandhiji, the Father of the Nation, repeatedly talk about 'Ram Rajya' as the ultimate in good, people-oriented governance. Were all these fictitious?”

The BJP President went on to add that the affidavit filed by the ASI “directly hurts the religious belief of the majority of the people and may trigger inter-religious conflict in the country." He demanded that unless the Centre apologised for the affidavit and withdrew it, the BJP would support the VHP-RSS demand for scrapping of the Sethusamudram canal project by mobilizing public support against it.

Fortunately, the Central Government has withdrawn the “offending” affidavit which had stirred a hornet’s nest by stating that “there is no scientific or historical evidence to prove the existence of Lord Ram.” Moreover, the Union Law Minister, H R Bharadwaj, on his part, promptly moved in for damage control and told the media: "Lord Ram is an integral part of Hindu faith and his existence can never be doubted." He also announced that the Government would file a fresh affidavit on the issue before the Supreme Court.

That apart, a new twist to the controversy has been given by the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa. She has moved the Supreme Court afresh stating that the Ram Setu issue not only involved public sentiment, but also impinged upon national security and welfare. The Adam’s Bridge is said to have softened the blow of the tsunami, which played havoc in South India.

Jayalalithaa’s move is also significant for one other reason coming as it does after breaking rank with the Third Front. It reflects an apparent bid for rapprochement with the BJP. Her petition avers that the Ram Setu is a symbol of might and power of human will. Calling the construction of the bridge by Lord Ram’s Vanar Sena (Monkey Army) as the victory of human endeavor in the face of adversity.

Tamil Nadu’s political heavyweight has additionally cautioned the Government that any destruction of the mythical barrier would expose the country to a grave security threat from the US. India and Sri Lanka, she has submitted, had always treated the Palk Bay, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Straits as historically part of their territorial rights. The US has, however, objected to such claims and considers the waters international.

That, however, is not all. Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, Karunanidhi has jumped into the controversy as one who has been championing the cause of the Sethusamudram Project, which is viewed as a catalyst for the economic development of the State. He has supported the ASI’s stand on Ram Setu and cautioned the Manmohan Singh Government against falling a prey to the “fundamentalist forces.”

Clearly, the Supreme Court is faced with Hobson’s choice. Can a court arbitrate over issues of faith? The Apex court’s task has become much more complex since it involves the sentiment of the majority community, which comes in direct clash with India’s national interest. Its judgment is awaited eagerly as it may also have far-reaching repercussions on other cases relating to matters of faith. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)