Why mullahs and morons fear Kashmir's all-girl band

In another clear indicator of ‘cultural terrorism’ ruling the roost, the Kashmir all-girl band has decided to pull the plug on themselves a day after the Grand Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad termed singing as un-Islamic and told them to abandon it.

Though a wide range of eminent person, beginning with Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, came out in their support and asked them to rock on ignoring the ‘morons’, the scared girls have decided to call it a day.

While condemning singing, the mullah seems to have forgotten the liberal Sufi-inspired culture of Kashmir and the tolerance of Kashmiriyat. Ever since the Valley began to see the rise of West Asia-funded Wahhabis, the core cultural values of Kashmir has witnessed a decline — usually staring at the business end of a Kalashnikov.

The band, Pragaash (light), symbolises everything the mad mullahs, their Pakistani and West Asian benefactors and the militant groups fear — return of hope and normalcy to the region.

There are some major concerns that arise for those who fan unrest and live reaping its benefits: How can fundamentalists claim the support of a population when teenagers are chilling out with music and not attending terrorist-training camps across the border? What answer will the domestic stooges give their paymasters across the border? When there is peace, stability and semblance of governance in the state, why would youth want to support irrational shutdowns and raise slogans in praise of Pakistan?

These moron mullahs who are never short of ridiculous fatwas may have silenced a few scared teens, but it is not the end. All their diktats, guns, threats and violence put together are not powerful enough to break human spirit.

The clouds of extremism may cover the sunshine of aspirations of the people for a while, but ultimately it will be the radiance of Kashmiriyat that prevails.

Only generals stand to gain from an Indo-Pak war

There is much tension in the air since the Pakistani cross-border raid at the Line of Control (LoC) killed two Indian soldiers. Media is full of emotionally-charged statements.

A bunch of news anchors have literally declared war on Pakistan and calls from the likes of Sushma Swaraj to bring “10 Pakistani heads” only add to the existing tensions.

Calls by a section of media for surgical strikes and war make it sound like a cakewalk. Pakistan military is no pushover and is competent enough to give us a bloody nose if any hastily-planned cross-border adventure is initiated.

Their forces are well-entrenched and are trained to stave off attacks from its eastern neighbour. American military aid in return for support role in the ‘war on terror’ has added some lethal firepower to Pakistan’s forces — not to mention the massive supply of military hardware it keeps receiving from China.

There is no doubt that Indian armed forces enjoy numerical superiority and possess better equipment. However, there is no guarantee of keeping the battles theatre-specific and short of the threshold that would provoke use of nuclear weapons.

More than anyone else (even more that news anchors who deliver what ‘THE NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ at top decibel) it is the generals of India and Pakistan who desperately need a war.

The image of Pakistan’s military has taken a serious beating in the last few years. An American SEAL team sneaked into their territory and bumped of Osama bin Laden and waltzed out before GHQ bosses in Rawalpindi could bat an eyelid. CIA drones operate in Pakistani airspace with impunity. Death of civilians when drone strikes go wrong has created a strong public resentment against the government and the ‘incompetent’ military.

Several incidents of military bases being targeted with ease by militants have caused the security establishment to lose their face. The military is also losing hundreds of soldiers in battles with Islamic militants — a situation into which it was arm-twisted by Uncle Sam. They are desperate for a diversion; something that would repose the faith of public in them as defenders of Pakistan; and nothing like a war to get this done.

Their Indian counterparts are much better off in terms of internal security. However, the uniform has lost much sheen after the Kargil conflict — thanks to scams involving high-ranking officials. From corruption in supply of rations to illegal sale of military land, a series of scams have seen generals being indicted and cashiered.

The birth certificate controversy involving the previous army chief saw some serious lows in civilian-military relations. General VK Singh’s outbursts about the shabby state of India’s military preparedness, quality of ammunition (and lack of it) and offer of bribes have caused the military’s image to hit a nadir. Therefore, the tough talk and pressure for cross-border strikes are only natural.

The LoC ceasefire that has been in place from 2003 has survived relatively unscathed despite several attempts by hawks among state and non-state actors on both sides of the border.

This has helped us divert resources for development and allowed us to stand tall when the rest of the world faced recession. It also allowed security forces to deploy more effectively and combat militancy in disturbed areas. A war would change all of this.

The sanctity of our borders must be safeguarded through appropriate mechanisms at each level. A local incident should not be allowed to hijack our national agenda and push the countries into a war that they can’t afford to fight.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on January 16, 2013.)

Khaps are our Taliban, crush them before it is too late

After decades of deafening silence or being hand-in-glove with caste councils (khaps), the politicos seem to muster courage to speak out against these kangaroo courts, if Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s forays can be considered as an indicator.

Political parties have banked on caste votes to fuel their journeys to power and therefore it is natural that they don’t tread on the turf of their benefactors. This is not purely an India-exclusive phenomenon. At the zenith of Nazi power, the Catholic Church maintained silence on German atrocities in return for sparing the interests of the Church. Spain’s brutal dictator Franco too enjoyed similar privileges.

Haryana is not the nucleus of the menace of khaps — its tentacles reach the nook and corner of the country. Even while public outrage against khap-ordered atrocities, especially against women, are on the rise, political leaders are very measured in their response — Sonia too is no exception to this unspoken rule. Though she condemned the rise in crimes against women and called for the severest punishment for rapists, her response to a question regarding the ‘authority’ of khaps was surprisingly mild. She said only the government and courts have the authority to prosecute people. The statesman-like statement did not directly attack khaps nor did it say the kangaroo courts need to be done away with.

Khaps are nothing but an Indian version of Taliban, which has been instrumental in crushing the lives of millions of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The colour of the flags may differ, but the obsolete and suppressive ideologies are same.

The khap advisory to get girls married off at the age of 16 to curb rapes is not much different from the logic of proponents of female genital mutilation that physically and mentally scars millions of women across the world.

The primitive justification of male superiority and importance has over the decades created a demographic disaster across the country with plummeting sex ratios. The result has been an overdose of testosterone in social life. Coupled with the tradition of glorifying suppression of women’s rights, an environment dangerous for the fairer sex has been created.

Though our politicians take umbrage at comments on a wide range of matters and their wisdom spans from personal etiquette to art, philosophy, and literature, no one has the courage to take on the scourge of these extra-constitutional cancers that have been gnawing away at the core of ideals of democracy and liberty — ironically, guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by court rulings.

Mahatma Gandhi once said that India lives in its villages. And if the women in our villages are forced to live under the reign of khap terror, what kind of rule of law can we boast of?

Unlike the urban folk, the rural heartland turns out to vote in large numbers. When they exercise their electoral franchise, they hope their representatives will create a better future for them. However, our democratic model has remained a pathetic failure in this department.

When a country cannot protect its women (No, locking them inside houses and teen weddings are NOT solutions); when it cannot ensure freedom of choosing life partners for its youths; when law and order machinery fails to do its duty, we are no different from the failed states that are our neighbours.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on October 10, 2012)

Superpower status a distant dream

As the 16th summit of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) kicks off in Tehran today, the world watches with keen eyes the position India will take in the global stage.

The NAM took birth due to the Cold War when a host of countries, then newly-independent or in dire poverty, decided they could not afford to offend either blocs. Though the NAM claimed moral high ground, it was primarily the desperation for aid from both the blocs that necessitated the movement.

The NAM had strength in numbers, but its role was inconsequential in international politics as all international bodies, including the United Nations, were structured to allow control by superpowers. The group of developing countries were reduced to fence-sitters and in course of time many drifted to either of the blocs and reduced their non-alignment to lip service.

India too could not escape this as the 1962 war with China made it realise that applause from its NAM friends do not translate into political and military power. Realpolitik considerations drove India into an all-weather friendship with Soviet Union and those bonds strengthened our position.

With the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a new world order, the relevance of NAM has come under question. Erstwhile Soviet satellite states are now Nato members and China has emerged as the uncrowned superpower.

However, Indian foreign policy continues to have one foot in the bygone era and is hindering our transition from a reg­i­onal player to a global power. From gas exploration deals in disputed waters off Vietnam to safeguarding our territory abutting the Line of Actual Control (LAC) — which Chinese patrols violate with impunity — we are being cowed down by our giant neighbour.

The Communist state has beaten India in most commercial undertakings across the world, especially in Africa, where the states were once India’s strongest allies. Sheer economic might and a ‘no-strings attached’ policy in regional politics have given the dragon a big edge.

Though nuclear-armed Ind­ia is considered a force to reckon with and its growing economy is emerging as a big draw for investors, there are policy flaws that undermine our credibility.

Pakistan continues to bleed India through a thousand wounds, terrorism being the primary weapon. From circulating counterfeit currency to the recent SMS/MMS campaign that triggered the exodus of people of North East from South India, our estranged sibling’s unabated attacks reduce our economic and military might to mere paper tigers.

Our deafening silence on decades of dictatorship across in West Asia and feeble support for Palestine shows that we are still incapable of pushing our agenda in the global arena. We were forced to scale down our support to Aung San Suu Kyi after the Burmese junta began harbouring and arming anti-India militants.

In the last few years, India has allowed the US to arm-twist it in several matters, including doing business with Iran. The nuclear liability Bill has been watered down to appease possible partners. Though they voice protest about its ‘stringent clauses’, Indian follow-up of Bhopal Gas Tragedy has demonstrated amply that the rules would be more of an irritant than measures that would enforce liability or accountability.

With government after government at the Centre crippled by alliance compulsions and giving in to populist (and incredibly stupid) measures, we have little offer to the rest of the world as a power that has the will to get its way — and unwilling to go all the way.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on August 29, 2012)

Cheers from stands can’t drown 26/11 screams

If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

It’s been barely four years since India was hit by the most audacious terrorist assaults into its territory when the 10-man squad waltzed in through the porous coastal security and unleashed their wrath on India’s commercial capital.

If it was not for the selfless sacrifice of a Maharashtra policeman, India wouldn’t have had even a Kasab to save its face.

The cleansing agents may have removed the blood stains from the CST and the mammoth railway hub is bustling with activity, but justice remains a distant dream for the dear ones of those who were gunned down. Ever since the attack, India has been doing sabre-rattling, and nothing more, to make Pakistan accountable for its actions.

Despite more proof emerging about Pakistan’s institutional involvement in the attack, mostly through work done by foreign intelligence and investigative agencies, Indian resolve to pursue the case has mostly remained on paper. Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Abu Jindal, who has been recently arrested with the help of Saudi Arabian authorities, has revealed the shocking extent of Pakistani agencies’ involvement in orchestrating the 26/11 attacks.

Like it does after every provocative incident, India took a tough posture cutting off all engagements with Pakistan for a while — only to concede ground later. While the 26/11 dossiers India sent to Pakistan might soon be requiring a room for storage, any other country (with self-respect, which we are desperately lacking) would have put open bounties for terrorist leaders; and Hafiz Sayeed wouldn’t be roaming the streets organising rallies and protests.

Even in the latest round of talks in New Delhi, India was grovelling for action on 26/11 and Pakistan kept to its regular stand of ‘requiring credible proof and sharing of information’. Their only real interest was resumption of cricketing ties! And the shameless ‘super-power-to-be’ that we are, it was granted.

The government actually left the decision to the cricket associations to take the call. If cricket and sports ties were never part of bilateral relations, this could have been considered a ‘mature’ call. However, that is not the case. And since when has the BCCI, which is not even a government body (actually run by a bunch of businessmen for their interests), been allowed to take decisions on behalf of India?

Are the guys at the helm of the government such dimwits that mass entertainment is allowed to be a priority over national interests.

The decision to resume cricket ties as ISI smiles smugly sends out a wrong message to Pakistan and Indian public. It is a not-so-subtle declaration that the government would rather have the game raking in crores in revenues for some private stakeholders than stay resolute in its resolve to not go soft on Pakistan and terrorism. Former Indian skipper Sunil Gavaskar has rightly criticised the BCCI for its decision.

While Pakistan has never let up on supporting terrorist activities targeting India, we have have been going out of our way – and at times bending backwards – to woo our bête noire. We have fought four wars; have between us around 400 nuclear weapons meant for all-out conflict; miniscule bilateral trade; and continuing acts of terrorism. What is the point in pretending that all the touted ‘confidence-building measures’ will bear fruit and we will be best friends one day.

We should have the courage to declare Pakistan a ‘terrorist state’ and invest in strengthening our military and intelligence capabilities. Pakistan is nothing but a threat and never a possible friend.

Cricket is great fun, millions love it, but the cheering galleries won’t take away the screams of those who were butchered in Mumbai from the nation’s conscience.

We must not let BCCI to become Board of Cricket Controlling India.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on July 18, 2012)

Let India, not Time, judge Manmohan

It was only a few days back that Time magazine had branded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as an ‘underachiever’ on its cover. The grave fault the US magazine found with the economist PM was that he ‘refused to stick out his neck’ for the liberalisation reforms.
Well... The magazine is entitled to its opinions as it operates from a free country. We regret to tell you that majority of the 1.3 billion citizens of our country live on below $1 per day (Though according to Planning Commission that might be upscale lifestyle) and their priority is not exactly rolling out red carpet welcome to Wal-Mart and other global giants circling the Indian retail skies.
The BJP was quick to grab the new stick to beat the Centre with, but seems to be oblivious to the fact that the same magazine had described its stalwart and former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee as ‘asleep at wheel’ in 2002. The main Opposition party must not forget that it is not in the best of health and is yet to catch its breath after putting out fires in its Southern base Karnataka, where a local caste strongman got the national party on its knees.
The BJP constantly uses terms such as ‘weak, puppet, indecisive’ to describe Singh but forgets that the ‘strong’ NDA prime minister was comparatively less effectual. The Parivar campaign of going ‘swadeshi’ was the first casualty when the NDA government overtook the Congress in the road to liberalisation and selling off PSUs.
While in the Opposition, the BJP was always ranting about how it would strike at terrorist camps in Pakistan if elected to power. The much-touted nuclear tests failed to stop Kargil intrusions.
When terrorists attacked Indian Parliament, the government launched the biggest ever troop deployment to the Western border in Operation Parakram, but chickened out when generals on the other side of the border threatened to use nukes.
Terrorists continued to strike with impunity and the controversial anti-terror law Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) was used mostly for political vendetta. But the biggest blot was the Gujarat riots of 2002. In a well-planned and methodical manner, thousands were butchered while the state machinery looked the other away or acted in complicity.
And for the regional outfits, caste parties and Mao-worshippers, they have all proven their hypocritical sides by diverging from declared policies and ideologies to retain power, fatten wallets and woo vote banks. Media is a vital constituent of democracy, but it is not the last word.
The Fourth Estate is not devoid of vested interests. Most media houses have business interests and this reflects in their analysis of news. In India, the most recent example was regarding the implementation of Wage Board recommendations for journalists.
The publishing houses, who are otherwise at each others’ throats, united in publishing story after story about a grand conspiracy to bleed the industry — and never implemented the recommendations. If Singh’s hands have been tied, it’s due to coalition compulsions.
When your government’s survival is dependent on people like Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee and Karunanidhi, the elbow room available is little.
 Despite all that, Singh has steered the country through economic doldrums in different capacities. He is free of corruption (though not the same can be said about his colleagues and allies), a gentleman and a statesman of international standing. He has never responded to vicious criticism by stooping to that level.
He might have several shortcomings, but is still the prime minister and the hope for this country to ride out of economic and political storms. And those baying for his blood must come up with credible alternatives (no, not the BJP).
Let Indian public, and not Time, be the judge of its prime minister.
(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on July 11, 2012)

Uncle Sam roars at terror, India purrs

The US announcement of $10 million bounty on Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Sayeed has sent the entire Indian government, security and diplomatic circles into an applause overdrive. Little time was lost in appreciating the US gesture while reiterating New Delhi’s demand to Pakistan to bring the mastermind of 26/11 attacks to justice.
However, India’s reaction and subsequent rhetoric from various quarters resembles a kitten baring its claws in the shadow of a roaring lion and expecting to generate equal amount of awe.
Global diplomatic circles and definitely Pakistan are not fooled by the Indian sabre rattling. India has an abysmal record of following up its threats of punitive action and retaliation.
This was last evident when Pakistani terrorists attacked the Parliament in 2001. India mounted its biggest ever mobilisation, termed Operation Parakram, threatening to react with force if Pakistan did not rein in the terror operatives.
However, India chickened out in the face of Pakistani threat of first use of nuclear weapons. The massive operation which saw almost half-a-million troops and war equipment moved to forward offensive positions fizzled out — the balance sheet was thousands of crores wasted, several lives lost in accidents and loss of face in front of the international community.
More than a decade has passed and there has been no dearth of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks on Indian soil. India has been liberally handing out warnings and threats at each occasion — hot pursuit a favourite phrase.
Even on this doctrine, the Indian establishment has not been able to speak in one voice. When a General talks about targeting militant camps across the border, the bureaucratic and political leadership openly declare their commitment to self-restraint.
The ultimate result of lack of political will to pursue the country’s national interests is that neither Pakistan nor the terrorists groups it nurtures take India seriously. And we have an inglorious legacy of letting every terrorist group to slaughter and walk away with impunity.
The chiefs of all Pakistan-based terrorist outfits have been travelling all over Middle East raising funds and the super-secretive RAW’s operatives have not even plucked a hair of any one of them.
Indian public could watch only with helplessness when Dawood Ibrahim and his confidants, who engineered the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, were seen LIVE on TV cheering during a Sharjah Cup match. This was at a time when Indian sleuths and international agencies such as the Interpol were following every procedure in the book to get him extradited (if they could locate him in the first place) for crimes committed in India.
No country allows terrorists to mess with it and walk away unscathed. After 9/11, the Americans launched a global war on terror and did not rest till Osama bin Laden was killed. The Russians, the French, the British and the Israelis go to any extent to seek and destroy the elements who threaten national security.
However, India is content with cumbersome procedures and strict adherence to international covenants, and that too in a complacent manner which would make the techniques of the 19th century Congress moderates look like militant nationalists.
After begging all over the world for information and extraditions, our result is always blank. India’s ‘most wanted’ criminals and terrorist operatives continue to ply their trade without any interruption. At times one can’t help but wonder if our government is waiting for god to punish them.
For all the touting of our military might and the elite special forces, we remain toothless by choice while the enemies of the country continue to bleed us through a thousand wounds.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on April 4, 2012)