Divided we stand as Pakistan's puppets

Assam riots and its ripple effect have come as a disgrace to India and its leaders who love to flaunt the 'unity in diversity' tag.

While the violence displaced close to 4.5 lakh people in Assam, at least 50,000 people from North East fled from other parts of the country to their homes as random targeted attacks and hate campaigns via SMS, MMS and social networking sites created a fear psychosis.

Some media reports claim that the sheer magnitude of the displacement is the biggest that has been triggered in the history of the country since the post-partition bloodbaths.

While the violence in Assam has behind it complex and intertwined factors such as illegal migration, ethnic identity, vote bank politics, militancy, unemployment and lack of development, its 'fallout' across the rest of the country defies all logic.

One cannot fathom why lives and property of people of North East, very much the citizens of this country, must be held to ransom by elements who support Bangladeshi immigrants (according to government statistics, there are at least 3 crore of them). Can someone who threaten his countrymen on behalf of protecting illegal aliens be called a patriot? Their actions are nothing short of treason.

Now more evidence is emerging about Pakistan being the epicentre of the mobile and internet hate campaign (like most of terrorism directed at India). Indian intelligence agencies have said that it is a psychological warfare that has full support from Pakistani intelligence agencies.

Therefore, any act of violence that would hurt Indians and undermine our national security security will be the moral equivalent of being on the payroll of Pakistan.

What difference does it make if someone in Bangalore or Mumbai attacks people with oriental features? Will it solve the problems of Assam? Can even one among these brainwashed mobs differentiate between an Assamese from a Naga, or a Manipuri from a Mizo? Do they know anything about the unique culture and heritage of the North East?

India has been battling militancy in the North East for decades. The continuing conflicts and the resultant military presence have already made the people of the region wary of the designs of those in the 'mainland'. Even without the racially-targeted violence, they face enough humiliation, harassment and discrimination across the country. Reservations, economic packages and inspiring speeches on 'our India' will not work when our citizens are made refugees in our own country.

An anti-Assam-violence protest in Mumbai on August 11 turned violent, killing two people and injuring over 50 — most of them policemen. The thick-skulled mob did not even spare the Amar Jawan Jyoti memorial (for martyred Indian soldiers).

The exodus of North East people from 'mainland' cities have given a major boost to Sangh Parivar organisations. The likes of Raj Thackeray and his vitriolic MNS are hogging the limelight and whipping up communal passion. The way of life India adopted after partition has ensured that we did not end up a failed, savage, theocratic dump like Pakistan, and it is only natural that our western neighbour wants some parity in the department.

It will be an acid test for us as a nation to uphold the values enshrined in our culture and the Constitution so that we do not end up like our estranged (and deranged) sibling.

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

Exchequer needn’t foot bill for salvation

The ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that the Central government phase out the Haj subsidy (currently about Rs600 crore per annum) in 10 years has drawn bouquets and brickbats alike.
The Haj subsidy is being handed out since 1954 and around 1 lakh people avail it every year to travel to Mecca to fulfil the requirement laid out by Islam.
India is the only country to offer this subsidy.
The flights carrying the pilgrims to Jeddah are usually chartered ones because they return empty, and naturally the fare is two to three times higher than the usual flight charges in the same route.
The subsidy was introduced to allow the pilgrims some cushion in this regard. Some Islamic scholars are of the opinion that Sharia prohibits a pilgrim from availing aid in any form to travel to the Holy Land.
“A Haj is undertaken only if you have the money, are in good health, and have performed all your duties towards your family. Going on a Haj with money you borrowed from someone is absolutely prohibited,” says Shahi Imam of Delh’s Fatehpuri Masjid Mukarram Ahmed.
While some agree, others beg to differ. According to them, the withdrawal of the subsidy will take away from the poor faithful the only opportunity to undertake the pilgrimage.
The subsidies are not just confined to Haj alone, the Centre plays an active role in facilitating Amarnath and Kailas Manasarovar yatras. Hundreds of crores of rupees are spent indirectly in maintaining infrastructure and providing security to the pilgrims.
There are a few states that subsidise Christian pilgrimages to Israel and Palestine.
Subsidies for various communities and their religious activities are nothing more than a time-tested tactic of vote bank politics. The political leadership wants to be seen as the ‘providers’ who will cater to the spiritual and material interests of the masses.
When humanity was taking baby steps towards political organisations, the tribal chieftains and kings came up with their ‘divine origin’ theory where the ruler was the representative of god on earth and his authority was unquestionable.
Over the millennia, the spheres spiritual and temporal became separated (at least in the democracies) but the ability to swing public support through favouring religious affairs never lost its popularity among ruling classes.
The preamble of our Constitution clearly states the India is a secular state. The addition of ‘secularism was made 26 years after the Constitution came into effect, through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The government must not favour or discriminate against any religion. So the government policy of subsidising religious activities is in contravention of the constitutional provisions.
Instead of following the pattern of separating religion and state, we have been following a policy of appeasement of communities. Governments of all hues have shied away from taking bold decisions on social reform for fear of backlash from one vote bank or the other.
The absence of a Uniform Civil Code allows each community to force their primitive justice system on their members.
Most of the times, it is the judiciary that has thrown the light of rational wisdom into the labyrinths where the stranglehold of religious leadership keep the faithful in medieval darkness.
Pressure from religious hawks kept the LGBT community under state-sponsored persecution under the draconian Section 377 of the IPC. Even under sharp criticism from courts, the government took several years to acknowledge that consensual sex between adults belonging to the same sex is not illegal.
The more the state dabbles in religious affairs, the more problems it will create. There will always be discontent and charges of bias.
We have plenty of material problems such as poverty, unemployment, social evils, illiteracy, inadequate housing and infrastructure, social justice and corruption that need all the attention and resources of the government.
Religion is each citizen’s personal matter and its pursuit should be left to them. It’s not fair to ask the people to foot bills of those in search of salvation.
(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on May 9, 2012)

NCTC split will cripple counter-terror ops

‘United to protect’ is the motto of the National Counterterrorism Center of the United States which was formed in 2003 to co-ordinate national and international counter-terrorism efforts of the country in the wake of 9/11.
However, ‘united’ would be an oxymoron if used in the motto for its Indian counterpart of the same name — thanks to the states which put their ‘autonomy’ before a threat that does not discriminate between the Union or states.
The contention of the states is that a Central body that operates independently and to which all official machinery of the states have to extend co-operation is an infringement on their longstanding monopoly on the ‘law and order’ segment. In their rush to preserve their autonomy, the states are forgetting that trying to put terrorism under law and order is like trying to control a tyrannosaurus rex with a dog leash.
Whether the ever-politically-correct intelligentsia of the country agrees to call them terrorists or not, we are faced with dozens of forms of terrorism across the country.
From the Maoists who have killed thousands of civilians and security personnel to religious/ cultural fundamentalists who kill, maim and strip people of their dignity, the population is being subject to terrorism that takes away the Constitution-guaranteed rights of the citizens.
Over the years, the states have shown a continuing trend of forgetting the bigger picture of national security and giving in to populism — usually based on vote-bank politics.
Though the activists who campaign against death penalty may differ, the sheer lack of political cojones to execute terrorists who have been convicted of role in plots to assassinate national/ state leaders and facilitating attack on Parliament may die of old age if the present indecisiveness continues.
If it is coalition concerns from the south that extends life for some, it’s minority vote bank that proves the saviour for another, a third is being kept alive owing to resurgence in his community’s new-found belief in his innocence.
One way or the other, regional sentiments have proven detrimental to sending out a clear message on perpetrators of terrorism. Despite national counter-terror and investigation agencies unearthing evidence of Hidutva outfits in terror attacks, the political leaders are too scared to call it ‘saffron terror’ for fear of alienating their vote bank. The lack of spine to call a spade a spade is an inherent disgusting feature of our leaders who are more concerned about attaining and sustaining power than national interests.
After the 26/11 attacks the country’s security apparatus went into an overhaul, especially the coastal security. In a recently-held security drill to test the preparedness of the system, three ‘terrorist teams’ managed to evade all the preventive mechanisms and reach their ‘targets’. This clearly shows that we have miles to go before claiming to have a foolproof system in place.
One major reason for the limited success of counter-terror measures is the time lost in the maze of procedures and clearances. When more parties are involved in intelligence sharing, the likelihood of leaks and failed operations too increase.
For example, Maoists have deeply penetrated several states’ administrative cadre and police forces. If information on planned operations is shared with the administration in advance, the result would be jeopardising the mission with the inevitable result of massive loss of life for the security forces.
Across the world, the security interests of the country are given priority over the autonomy of the federating units and it should be no different in the case of India too. The current rebellion of dissenting chief ministers is like limbs seeking a consultative process on action when someone’s about to smash the head.
(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on April 18, 2012)