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)

Just let them be happy and gay

In a landmark judgment in the Naz Foundation v/s Government of NCT of Delhi on July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court struck down most of the provisions of Section 377 of the IPC, holding it violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The verdict came as a major relief to the covert and overt homosexuals in the country, who have been stigmatised by society and persecuted by the draconian law introduced during British Rule.
It was also hailed across the world by political leaders and human rights organisations as a right move in the direction of inclusive policy empowering minorities of all hues.
However, the revolutionary ruling was too much for religious leaders to stomach and they soon moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision.
The apex court sought the stand of the Central government on decriminalising homosexuality — and that is where the drama unfolds. Ever since the SC directive to seek its opinion, the Centre has been shuttling the issue from ministry to ministry, and has been delaying the decision. Opinions on the issue differ between ministries and there has not been a consensus yet.
At a hearing on February 28, 2012, addition solicitor-general PP Malhotra, who appeared for the Home ministry said, "Gay sex is highly immoral and against social order and there is a high chance of spreading of diseases (like AIDS) through such acts."
As civil society breathed fire over his ‘inputs’, the government distance itself from the controversial remarks — the apex court came down heavily on the flip-flop. Even a month after that, the Centre was not able to come out with a clear stand, and this angered the Supreme Court.
In a scathing observation, the SC on Tuesday rapped the Centre for its ‘casual approach’.
All across the world, countries are decriminalising homosexuality and giving legal recognition to same-sex unions. Such moves will ensure that they are not discriminated against and can enjoy their rights like any other person.
Homosexuality is a reality that cannot be wished away, whether the self-appointed guardians of social moral fabric like it or not. If an adult can make a choice to follow a religion, elect political representatives and take decisions on numerous life-altering choices, he/she can decide on what their sexual orientation should be. What’s the point in calling yourself a democracy when all voices aren’t allowed to be heard?
Nothing unnatural about it

Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl who has authored Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity has documented evidence of homosexual behaviour among at least 1,500 species of animals. Therefore the argument that homosexuality is ‘against the order of nature’ or ‘unnatural’ doesn’t hold ground. While we are still stuck in a time warp trying to call homosexuality unnatural and immoral, other countries have move far ahead — using scientific logic rather than emotion. In a 2003 landmark judgment, the US Supreme Court cited documented evidence of homosexuality among animals to strike down sodomy laws of Texas and 13 other states in Lawrence vs Texas. Sculptures and Khajuraho, which date back to 9th Century BC, vividly display several representations of homosexual intercourse among both men and women.

Salient features of Delhi HC verdict on Section 377

Criminalisation of consensual gay sex violates rights to dignity and privacy, which falls within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 377 runs contrary to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, because it creates an unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class. Public hostility or contempt for a particular social group is not a valid ground for discrimination by State. Discrimination based on sex, prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right to life under Article 21 of Constitution includes the right to health, and Section 377 of IPC is an impediment to public health because it hinders HIV-prevention efforts. Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent where it criminalises consensual sex between adults in private. None of the above exemptions apply to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.

  (This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 21, 2012)

Why I wouldn’t cry for the clan of the Tiger

The Rajya Sabha was yesterday forced to adjourn after the DMK and the AIADMK created a ruckus over a recently released footage of LTTE chief Prabhakaran’s 12-year-old son, who was allegedly executed by the Lankan army in the concluding phase of the civil war. They wanted India to take a pro-active stand against Sri Lanka over the alleged war crimes that took place.
While there is no justification of the murder of a boy who wasn’t even an adolescent, the gory fate of Prabhakaran and his kin were sealed when the rebel chief embarked on his inglorious path of ruthless violence for his cause.
From a small-time militant activist who shot to fame (or notoriety) with the assassination of the mayor of Jaffna in 1975, Prabhakaran grew into a megalomaniac warlord who dealt with dissent through brutal killing of his opponents and their families.
The LTTE chief did not believe in sharing ‘revolutionary’ space with any other organisation and systematically annihilated all other outfits. Tamil organisations based in the US and Europe allege that more Tamils have been killed by the LTTE than by the Sri Lankan army and Sinhalese violence put together.
In making its presence felt, the LTTE employed methods that would put world’s most infamous dictators to shame. The Tigers never had any qualms in attacking the civilian population and they never spared women, aged or children.
Thousands of civilians — a substantial chunk of them women and children —have been clubbed, axed, stabbed and shot by the Tigers to enforce their reign of terror and ensure allegiance to the outfit.
Anyone who questioned their methods were tried in Kangaroo courts and were either maimed or executed; even their families were not spared.
For a group that pioneered suicide bombings, which kill scores of civilians along with the intended target, LTTE stood little chance of mercy at the hands of their enemies.
The LTTE also forcibly took away children from their homes and used them as child soldiers and suicide bombers. Bullets will kill whether the hand that pulls the trigger belongs to a 12-year-old or an adult and bitter experience had taught the Lankan forces that hesitation will prove too costly.
Maybe our southern politicos who are crying hoarse over the war crimes of the Lankan army would like to explain the international procedure followed by the LTTE in 1990 when at least 800 Sri Lankan police personnel, who had surrendered on promise of safe passage, were executed.
Or they could try talking to the relatives of the Kattankudy mosque massacre where an LTTE squad mowed down worshippers as they knelt in prayer and lobbed grenades to finish off survivors. About 150 Muslims were killed in the attack.
The commuters at Anuradhapura bus station or the child monks at the nearby shrine were not combatants. Death toll; 150. Any explanations?
Why don’t the regional satraps explain how key state leaders, especially the Congress heavyweights, miraculously escaped the blast that blew Rajiv Gandhi to shreds?
The Rajiv assassination proved counter-productive to the Tigers as it pitted India’s entire machinery against them. Despite a ‘hands off’ policy since then in the island’s internal matters, India clearly switched sides to throw its weight behind the Lankan government — covertly though, owing to ‘regional sensitivities’.
Awash with cash from Tamil diaspora and various businesses across the world, the LTTE ensured that funds flowed to its paid barking dogs in the region, the minor chauvinistic groups who are open in their adulation for the rebels.
Let this be crystal clear. The Tigers were no saints. Their track record on human rights and war crimes would match any dictatorship. Prabhakaran was instrumental in ruthless execution of hundreds of civilians and dissidents — something that would come back to him and his family in an equally gory manner.
Note to the venerated parliamentarians: 
We have a lot of business in the House that is of paramount importance to national interests. Terrorism, corruption, education, food security, national budget, governance, infrastructure and economy are among the key issues that need to be addressed by the elected representatives. Those who want to woo vote banks with eulogies for the slain terrorist and his kin please do that outside the Parliament at their own time. The taxpayer doesn't spend Rs1.5 crore per day to keep the Parliament running to hear paeans to terrorists.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 14, 2012)

Think twice before you pull that trigger

When 75-year-old Sriramulu Patel was woken by the incessant barking of his dog, he knew something was amiss. The septuagenarian took his licenced revolver and went to check the source of disturbance. Barely did he open the door, a man tried to push past him into the house.
Patel fired twice and the intruder collapsed on the floor. After dragging him inside, Patel called the police.
The burglar survived the gunshot wounds and was taken into custody after being discharged from hospital. He was booked under Section 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code for ‘trespassing with the intention of committing a crime’.
So far, the police have refrained from filing charges against Patel as their preliminary investigation revealed that the act was in self-defence.
However, legal luminaries beg to differ. M Ranga Reddy and Justice Iyaapu Panduranga Rao, former High Court judges opine that Patel should be charged under relevant sections of the IPC. They are of the opinion that it should be the courts, which should judge Patel’s actions and no the police.
The whole episode calls our attention to the injury or death caused while exercising the right to self-defence. The Constitution provides us with the right to life. Naturally we have the right to defend it when someone threatens it.
When the threat materialises in the form of a physical confrontation, it is only natural that resistance to it will result in use of force — injury or death of assailant is always a possibility.
The question is; where do you draw the line between a desperate action to survive and intentional attempt to murder? Burglars or assailants don’t give notice before they strike. Under usual circumstances, the civilian gun-wielder has only a few seconds to react before pulling the trigger.
Therefore, following the legal procedure, of shouting out a warning followed by firing in the air and then, as a last resort, firing below the knees, is practically impossible.
One also has to take into consideration that the assailant/burglar is likely to be a hardened criminal with no qualms to kill you. He is likely to be better than you in close-quarters combat and use of knives/firearms — the worst part is that there is no way you can know.
Since most such incidents occur at night when visibility levels are low, judging the level of threat posed by the assailant becomes even trickier. The only option before the victim of an attack is to target the attacker with the intent to cause maximum damage.
All rules, though created with the best of intentions, can be bent and the laws providing for the right to self-defence are no exception to this.
Ours is a country (in)famous for ‘staged encounters’. Every year there are more exposes of the police, armed forces and intelligence agencies faking circumstantial evidence for illegal executions.
If those killing in self-defence are allowed to walk free even without the botheration of registering a case, it is only a matter of time before the rich and the well-connected start fabricating circumstantial evidence and bumping off their opponents.
Due course of law must be followed when injury or death is caused by an act of self-defence. Instead of taking the incident at face value, the investigative agencies must conduct an objective and thorough probe. Then it should be left to the courts to consider the merit of the case and arrive at a decision.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 7, 2012)

The king is naked, but don’t say a word

When do you find non-partisan behaviour among legislators?
When their images are at stake.
No wonder the parliamentarians were up in arms taking umbrage to Team Anna member Arwind Kejriwal’s comments on ‘criminal MPs.’ Some are planning to send privilege notice to Kejriwal for contempt of the dignity of the House.
"In this Parliament, rapists are sitting. In this Parliament murderers and looters are sitting," Kejriwal said at a rally in Ghaziabad criticising politicians for refusing to pass the Jan Lokpal bill.
Now the question is whether the legislature, State or Central, is above criticism and scrutiny.
Based on the mandatory affidavits filed by the candidates before the Election Commis­sion, several NGOs and civil society organisations have come out with disturbing statistics of our elected representatives. Almost one third of the parliamentarians (150) have criminal cases pending against them, 72 of them face serious charges.
Though the BJP could not beat the Congress in the 2009 elections, it overtook its rival in another department by getting 42 people with criminal cases elected, compared to the grand old party’s tally of 41.
There is no reason why people would not look down on the legislators considering their ‘illustrious’ conduct. An analysis of the whole bunch would require an encyclopedia-sized edition, so let us glance through conduct of a few luminaries in the recent past.

• Three Karnataka BJP ministers were forced to resign after they were caught on camera watching porn on their smartphones during Assembly proceedings.
• Twenty-six ministers have been sacked by Mayawati on charges ranging from abuse of power to corruption, from goondaism to rape and murder.
• A Trinamool minister in Mamata Banerjee’s ministry asked what a rape victim, a single mother of two children, was doing in a night club and that the rape charge was probably an extortion attempt. The CM who called the case ‘cooked up’ and her junior colleague had to eat their words within 24 hours when the police arrested the accused and found solid evidence.
• It was not long ago that khap panchayats, which are infamous for their role in ‘honour’ killings and gang rapes, found open support from the US-educated business magnate MP Naveen Jindal, who praised the kangaroo courts for their services in upholding the moral fabric of the society. 

The exalted members find time to pass doubling of their paychecks but can’t agree over key legislations that would power socio-economic change and governance — Women’s Bill and Lokpal Bill are the best examples.
A check on their finances would show that someone who entered politics with a monthly income of a few thousand rupees has become a billionaire (rupee) in less than a decade while devoting all his time to ‘serving the people’. Financial geniuses such as Warren Buffet are reduced to amateurs before the growth model of our representatives.
The legislators are human and err like humans. So what is the point in living under the self-conferred unassailable status of parliamentary ‘privilege’?

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

Blast from the past may blow us away

Russian scientists have set a world record by raising a plant from genetic material extracted from a 30,000-year-old frozen fossil recovered from Siberia.
While I marvel at the prowess of the advanced technology, I can’t help but wonder if it is wise to recreate a living being of another time. When you read Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park and watch the movie years later, the possibility of bringing back an extinct species, you realise is nothing more than the imagination of a fiction writer.
No, I am not paranoid about corporate conspiracies of hatching deadly species in their secret labs nor an evangelic apocalypse-monger who cries hoarse with a don’t-try-to-play-God propaganda.
The plant, Silene stenophylla, is not an extinct species and is still found in Siberia. However, according to a BBC report on the development, when the scientist compared today’s plants against the samples that have been ‘resurrected’, they found several differences in the shape of petals and the sex of flowers and they could not explain the anomaly.
Though human intervention has been a major reason for extinction of several species, there are several natural phenomena, which bring about this process — and in turn trigger the process of evolution.
Bringing back to life something that has been dead for 30 millennia or for that matter from any point in the past brings with it the dangers of introducing into our environment an entity that we aren’t ready for or in control of.
For example, a 1,000-year-old fossil might have embedded an equally old parasite, which had natural predators or counter-mechanisms in hosts those days. When the host organism is recreated, the parasite is also resurrected and a possible contamination of today’s defenceless ecosystem could trigger an ecological catastrophe.
Nature has distributed its variety across different terrains and has raised and annihilated species according to climatic and environmental requirements. Whenever humans, the apex predators and the intelligent creatures, have attempted their hand at this, the results have had undesirable fallouts.
Almost every country suffers from infestation of some form of the other. Life forms that were artificially introduced to alien lands accidentally or deliberately have become pests that have grown to uncontrollable proportions and wiped out several local species.
One of the worst affected regions in the world is the continent of Australia, where several animals like rabbit, cat, fox and cane toad are wrecking havoc on local environment. Several species have become extinct due to these animals and more face the same fate in future if the present scenario continues. Australia is just one example. Almost every country has its share of pest problems from introduction of non-local species.
With all the advancement in science and technology, we can’t still solve problems regarding creatures of our times. So the proposition of a face-off with species from the past becomes even more complex. We may be faced with a war, which we may win only with unacceptable losses to ourselves and the supporting ecology.
The phrase ‘blast from the past’ has a ring to it, but that may be the last good thing we remember before eventually joining the mighty dinosaurs in the pantheon of the extinct greats.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 22, 2012)

Iran-Israel imbroglio in Indraprastha

With Iran being blamed for the simultaneous magnetic bomb attacks on Israel embassy personnel across different parts of the globe, India finds itself in a particularly difficult diplomatic fix where it has to make some hard choices.
India imports 12 per cent of its crude from Iran and has continued to do so despite immense pressure from the EU and US to stop it and choke Iran’s finances, which they say, is funding its covert nuclear weapon programme.
Iran has been a friend of India and has honoured its commitments on supply of oil and bilateral trade despite India voting against it in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meetings, siding with the US and its allies.
However, with more evidence emerging about the similarity in the modus operandi of the attackers in using ditto style that was used to assassinate key Iranian nuclear scientists and the coincidence with the anniversary of killing of Hezbollah leaders, India would find it difficult to believe the Persian republic’s story.
Since the end of the cold war, India has been slowly but steadily strengthening its ties with Israel. Counter-terrorism and defence are areas of shared interest for both countries, bordered by hostile neighbours and constant targets of terrorist attacks.
Co-operation in these fields has grown multi-fold in the last two decades. Today India is the largest customer of Israeli military hardware and sources a substantial chunk of its high-end weapon platforms from the Jewish state.
Israel has also emerged as India’s second largest military supplier after the Russian federation. Israel has gone out of its way to persuade the US to allow it to sell sophisticated weapons systems it developed with American collaboration.
The attack on Israeli diplomatic personnel on Indian soil has been a first and comes close to the two countries celebrating establishment of diplomatic ties in January 1992. The ease with which the attack was carried out in broad daylight very close to the prime minister’s official residence has also exposed an embarrassing hole in the radar of the dozen-odd security agencies tasked with keeping the Capital secure.
Tensions are high in West Asia. Israel is preparing for a unilateral pre-emptive air/missile strike on Iran, with or without the US support. A cornered Iran, feeling the economic crunch of harsher EU-US sanctions, is threatening to cut off oil supplies to Europe and close the Straits of Hormuz — a vital route for international oil trade.
The US has responded by sending its carrier group to international waters close to Iran and has vowed to defeat any attempt to block oil routes. Iran responded by testing additional land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles and unveiling two indigenously built submarines.
The current dicey situation is also a wake-up call for Indian planners and the need to diversify from the country’s over dependence on import of oil and military hardware.
Another key area that needs addressing is intelligence gathering. Despite all the gung ho about overhaul of security apparatus after 26/11, several terrorist attacks have taken place in the country — the Delhi incident being the latest feather in the cap of intelligence failures. A conflict is looming and the ripples of the tensions have reached Indian shores.
It is time for India to man up and tell its squabbling West Asian friends to stop dirtying its backyard.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 15, 2012)