Saturday, November 16, 2024
Home Blog Page 6881

Talk about Dalits, reach out to Modi haters, use Media – Pakistan’s new Kashmir policy

Ashutosh Muglikar
-
0
Talk about Dalits, reach out to Modi haters, use Media – Pakistan’s new Kashmir policy

In wake of Modi government’s diplomatic onslaught against Pakistan coupled with surgical strikes by the army, Pakistan is working out a new strategy to counter India. A committee consisting of members of the Pakistani senate has come out with a report that has some tactical suggestions for the government of Pakistan.

OpIndia.com has in its possession the aforementioned report i.e. the policy document adopted by the committee constituted to guide Pakistan Government on “policy guidelines in view of the latest situation developing between India and Pakistan.” A detailed analysis of this document (pdf link) throws some interesting insights.

Background of the Committee

The Senate of Pakistan is like an “Upper House” which gives equal representation to all federation units of the state and is constituted by elected Members. Members represent Pakistani people and are expected to “defend and promote national interests.” On 22nd July 2016 this legislating body had passed a unanimous resolution condemning the killing of Burhan Wani and atrocities by Indian Army.

The 13 member Committee was formed vide a resolution dated 26th September 2016 i.e. after the Uri Attack. On 29th September 2016 the Committee was briefed by none less than Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Minister for Defense along with Secretary Defense and Sartaj Aziz, Advisor Foreign Affairs. On 4th October the Committee adopted the policy document unanimously.

Recommended policy to counter India

The policy paper starts with repeating usual rhetoric about Indian excesses in Kashmir, but it appears to be conceding that Pakistan has been cornered and isolated by India in recent weeks.

The paper declares that the stand taken by the current Indian government has been the most aggressive by any government since 1971, when both the countries went to war over independence of Bangladesh. It also expresses concern over the fact that Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka decided not to attend the SAARC summit, and expectedly, blames India for it.

But most interesting aspect is the kind of steps it suggests the government of Pakistan to take to counter India’s efforts of pressurizing and isolating Pakistan.

These are some of those recommended steps:

  1. The policy calls for a Media Coordination Committee with select Journalists as members to “counter Indian propaganda” and specifically promote a media strategy.
  2. It calls for periodical briefings of foreign media and optimal use of social media.
  3. It calls for setting up a “soft power office” (Aman ki Asha?) to highlight cultural and economic outputs.
  4. The policy stresses on the need to hire International lobbyists and strategic communication firms to “change global narrative”.
  5. The Policy document calls for highlighting the “fault-lines” in the Indian society. They specifically mention Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Dalits as “alienated” sections about whom narrative should be built.
  6. The Policy also calls to target Modi and RSS ideology, and suggests reaching out to those in India who are “opposed to Modi’s extremism”. Policy specifically talks about reaching out to people in Political parties, Media, and Civil Society.

There are total of 22 points that further repeats old policies like building a Kashmir narrative where extremism is entirely blamed on India marginalizing the Kashmiri youth, and to tell USA that Pakistan won’t be able to help in US “war on terror” if India continues to engage it along its eastern borders.

However, the 5th and 6th points in this article show that what was once a covert strategy to create “fault-lines” within India is now an overt and open state policy of the Pakistan government, where they are seeking help from elements of the Indian society.

Sign of things to come

It seems Pakistan won’t need to try too hard as some sections in the Indian society are already doing what the policy would want them to do.

For example, the mainstream media ran a series of “attack on church” stories, most of which turned out to be fake or exaggerated, but it highlighted a “fault line” as desired by policy document. Similarly, the editorial policy of many Indian newspapers to mention castes of victim or perpetrator even if the crime is not caste related, is doing what the Pakistan’s policy documents suggests.

The Kashmir narrative where a youth is just frustrated by lack of jobs and government apathy is also a popular narrative being peddled by many in the Indian media. Such journalists sidestep the issue of Islamic radicalization that is being trigged by Pakistan’s agencies and other global events.

And instead of Pakistan reaching out to Modi haters, politicians like Manishankar Aiyar themselves have reached out to Pakistani and said “remove Modi and bring us”. Recently Arvind Kejriwal too got support from Pakistan over his comments on surgical strikes.

It almost appears that Pakistani senate came up with the policy after observing the conduct of Indian media and some politicians. Or maybe that was the “beta testing” of the policy before the document was made public?

Nonetheless, implementation of these strategies is now a public stated policy which will be backed by steps like hiring international lobbyists, as the policy document declares. This means that a lot of money is also on offer for those who are willing to help Pakistan in implementing this policy i.e. any more Ghulam Nabi Fais will be created.

So next time you are exposed to a narrative that sounds aligned to what Pakistan considers a part of its strategy to counter India, do make a little effort to find out if the journalist/activist/organization was chasing the “truth” or chasing the lobbying money.

This is why bodies like Muslim Personal Law Board oppose Uniform Civil Code

Rahul Roushan
-
0
This is why bodies like Muslim Personal Law Board oppose Uniform Civil Code

One of the oft-repeated arguments put forward against Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is that this is against the fundamental right to practice one’s religion. It is argued that the act of the state to legislate in matters, which ought to be governed through religious texts, is an attack on religious freedom.

Outwardly it might appear so, but in practice, UCC doesn’t take away any religious freedom. Yes, it takes away the rights of religious bodies to control a group – and that’s why those who fancy themselves as representatives or leaders of a religion are opposing it – but it doesn’t strip an individual his freedom to follow certain religious practices or rules.

Let’s first understand the issues involved in layman language to understand this important difference.

The laws of a nation can be broadly divided into two types – criminal laws and civil laws.

Criminal laws, as the name suggests, deal with issues related to crime e.g. theft, murder, violence, economic fraud, harassment, etc. while civil laws deal with issues such as marriage, inheritance, adoption, maintenance, divorce, etc. there are some issues that are covered under both e.g. defamation and domestic violence.

An act of crime is often seen not just as an offense against an individual, but as an offense against the society as a whole – as it disturbs public order – which is why the criminal law is common for everyone.

However, a civil wrong is often seen as a matter between two individuals or groups. Yes, such wrongs can also be seen as a wrong against the society e.g. a matter of divorce could be seen as a matter pertaining to the larger issue of status of women in a society, but in legal terms, civil wrongs are treated differently than criminal offenses.

Another crucial difference is – a civil wrong is legally actionable only when an aggrieved party seeks a remedy, while a criminal offense is deemed to be committed the moment such an act is carried out by someone, whether or not there is any complainant.

For example, if there is a murder in the neighborhood and nobody knows the victim, the state will still investigate it and try to deliver justice, but if a son has voluntarily given up share in his dad’s property, the state won’t intervene and ensure a ‘fair’ inheritance.

Understanding it in the context of Uniform Civil Code, let’s assume that there is a civil law (part of UCC, which by the way could be a series of amendments or legislation, instead of being one single act) which states that retired parents have the right to get minimum 5% of the monthly salary from their grown up children as maintenance for their old age.

There is a person X who feels that he has enough retirement funds and he doesn’t need such maintenance from his son or daughter. The state, or a third party, can’t force X or his children in this case to execute the provisions of the law.

Now assume that there is a religion Y that says that it’s a sin for a person to take money from his or her children. Technically, the civil law (UCC) has given X the right to commit this sin – and thus the custodians of religion Y will call the civil law “anti-Y” and an attack on their faith – but in practice, it doesn’t force the followers of Y to commit the sin.

If the person X is religious, he will not exercise his right to get money from his children even if his retirement funds deplete. He will not see himself as an aggrieved party due to his religious beliefs. Thus despite the civil law that contravenes his faith, he will have all the freedom to follow his faith.

Now for whatever reasons – whether X is a bit less religious or he is in dire need of money – if X decides to exercise his right, and commits a sin in the eyes of religious leaders of Y, he can’t be stopped or punished from committing this sin.

And this is where Uniform Civil Code takes away the rights of a religious body. When personal laws exist, X can be stopped or punished under such laws whose interpretation and implementation are often controlled by these bodies. This power of controlling lives of people is taken away from such bodies if UCC come into effect replacing personal laws.

Yes, it all depends upon how the Uniform Civil Code is drafted, but the default position in most civil cases is a third party or the state not having the locus standi to intervene on behalf of the aggrieved party. In essence, UCC doesn’t take away the individual rights to practice one’s religion, even when the code may appear to be in conflict with the religious beliefs, as is explained in the example above.

It gives the citizens some ‘secular rights’, which they may or may not exercise depending upon their religious beliefs or their religiousness. If a religious body is not comfortable with the idea of allowing varying levels of religiosity to adherents of the religion, it will feel threatened, and which is why they are the most vocal in opposing UCC, terming it a “war” on religious rights.

The problem with ‘reforms must come from within among minorities’ argument

Rahul Roushan
-
0
The problem with ‘reforms must come from within among minorities’ argument

Last week, the government took a stand in the Supreme Court against triple talaq, arguing that such practices were regressive and needed reconsideration. Around the same time, the Law Commission of India issued an appeal (pdf link) seeking public consultation on the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

This has once again opened up the debate on religious rights of minority groups, especially Muslims, versus overall reform and progression in the society. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has declared that the entire debate was “fraud” and that UCC was not good for the country, while some Muslim clerics have claimed that the government’s stand on triple talaq was “anti-Islamic”.

On the other hand, some activists and organizations like Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan have welcomed the government’s stand on triple talaq, though not all of them have explicitly supported the idea of implementing UCC.

The debate is going on and political parties too have jumped into it, but one set of people who are keeping safe is the group that is pretty active on other occasions when some activism can be taken up – the self-proclaimed liberals.

The soliciting of public view on UCC by the law commission would have been a perfect opportunity to show one’s activism, but unfortunately that zeal missing. OpIndia.com contributor Ashutosh Muglikar was among those few ones who tried to make people aware of this appeal by law commission. He created an online friendly form to help people send in their views to the commission.

When explicitly asked about their views on UCC, most of these liberal-secular people would have the following argument to offer – I support reforms, and I agree that some of these regressive religious practices should go, but we should be careful not to impose our views on the minorities. The reform should come from within.

For example, look at this response by Malini Parthasarathy, former Editor of the left-leaning newspaper The Hindu:

Now at first sight, this appears a compassionate, balanced and ‘secular’ response, but this argument – let reforms come from within – has inherent flaws and risks.

First of all, it reduces the question of reform and rights e.g. women rights to “us versus them” issue. The same set of people claim to be fighting against this reductionism on other occasions, but on the question of UCC, suddenly they are part of “us the majority”? In fact, this is a form of communalism, where you suddenly start feeling yourself as part of the majority Hindu crowd when asked to comment on UCC!

Secondly, it gives out a message as if legislation in India is decided by some majoritarian brute force. It’s true that law making is a function of being in majority, but there are enough checks and balances in our constitution and legal system to ensure that this doesn’t turn into majoritarianism. Expressing an opinion on UCC doesn’t mean that the popular opinion becomes the law tomorrow. You were just asked about your opinion, not asked to vote in a referendum! So why is this fear of expressing an opinion without adding a caveat?

And thirdly, and perhaps the most sinister risk, is that when you say that reforms must come from within a group, you are encouraging that particular group to draw strict boundaries to define who is “within”. So the moment someone asks for reforms that are unpopular within the group, he or she is declared an outsider and pushed out of the boundary. Voila! Now that voice is no longer from within.

We have seen how Muslim clerics declare someone a non-believer for not agreeing with their strict interpretations. Commentators like Taslima Nasreen or Tarek Fatah, who insist that Shariat is not good even for the Muslim society, are often branded kaafirs or even Sanghis. This insistence that ‘reforms must come from within’ will only encourage the communities to closely guard what’s within and throw out those asking for change.

It’s time to throw away this political correctness out of window and not hide behind ‘reforms must come from within’ argument.

Man who spread fake story about gau-rakshaks says he did it because he hates Hindus

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Man who spread fake story about gau-rakshaks says he did it because he hates Hindus

MUMBAI: Barun Kashyap, a creative director with a production house, had made headlines a couple of months back when he claimed that he was abused and threatened by some gau-rakshaks (cow protectors) after they mistook his bag as made of cow leather.

He wrote about his experience in a Facebook post, which was made popular on social media by self-declared liberal activists and some Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders who vouched for the 24-year-old executive being the “gentlest, most soft spoken kid”.

His version of the story was reported by the mainstream media as gospel truth, and there were usual commentary about how there was “rising intolerance” in India and how “right wing” elements were making India a “Hindu Taliban”.

However, on social media, people challenged Barun’s narrative. In his Facebook post, he had mentioned that he noted down the auto number (vehicle registration number) as well as the mobile number of the auto driver. People also asked him if he took any pictures from his mobile. They asked him to make those public so that his claims could be cross verified.

the deleted Facebook post
The original Facebook post, which was later deleted by Barun Kashyap, and which the police has now found out to be fabricated to defame Hindus.

But instead of providing those details, Barun deleted the Facebook post itself. Though by then, the media had made his story viral. Even the Chief Minister of Maharashtra was made aware of the case and he promised police action to punish the culprits i.e. the gau-rakshaks.

Earlier this month, on 2nd October, after police investigated the case, it turned out that the culprits were not some gau-rakshaks but Barun Kashyap himself, who allegedly made up this entire story to create some news and gain some popularity.

Police informed that the CCTV footage of the area and Barun’s mobile locations didn’t match the story claimed by the “creative” director. Even the vehicle registration number provided by Barun and the sketch of the auto-driver didn’t match any real auto or person after talking to about 180 auto drivers in that region. Police declared that they were treating Barun as suspect after their initial findings.

This made Barun see red and he took the help of AAP leaders. On the official Facebook page of AAP Mumbai, a fresh statement of Barun was published, where he accused the Mumbai police of pressurizing him.

A close look at Barun’s statement shared by AAP reveals that it contains information that was different from his original post – which he had deleted – perhaps to “explain” the preliminary findings of police investigations, which had made his claim dubious.

For example, in his new post, Barun claims that the auto number was not in readable state and was written in Marathi, a language he doesn’t know. Similarly he claims that the mobile number provided by the auto driver – which he didn’t share despite people asking for it – turned out to be fake.

He also claims that his mobile phone was in his bag switched off all the time while he was bullied by the gau-rakshaks. Perhaps this new information is supposed to explain why his mobile location didn’t match his original story, and why he didn’t take any pictures.

Apart from these, in his new post shared by AAP, Barun makes no mention of any temple where these gau-rakshaks, wearing red tilak, were supposed to be sitting and smoking – as claimed in his original Facebook post – before they were summoned by this auto-driver.

Despite AAP leaders like Priti Sharma Menon shielding him and providing him moral and legal support, police took Barun Kashyap in custody on 4th October for further investigations. And now it has come to light that Barun has accepted that he made up the story. And apparently he did so, because he hates Hindus.

“I lied because have hatred towards Hindus.” Barun is quoted as saying by Mumbai Mirror.

Barun Kashyap has been has been booked under section 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 182B (for use of lawful power of a public servant to injure or annoy any person) of the Indian Penal Code and is currently lodged in Arthur Road jail. Due to AAP leaders figuring in this incident again and again, Police is also investigating if there was any political conspiracy behind the whole story.

BJP worker killed in hometown of Kerala CM, who had allegedly supported such killings

OpIndia Staff
-
0
BJP worker killed in hometown of Kerala CM, who had allegedly supported such killings

Violent attacks and killings of RSS and BJP workers have increased ever since the Left front government took charge in Kerala in May 2016, and the situation doesn’t seem to be improving. Barely four days after BJP President Amit Shah shared the news of a young BJP worker named Vishnu being hacked to death, comes the news of another BJP worker named Ramith being killed in Kerala.

The latest killing has taken place in Kannur district, from where the current Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan hails. The district is notorious for left-wing terror and has been termed as India’s ‘political murder capital’ by many commentators.

The district was in news earlier this year prior to assembly elections in Kerala for similar reasons. It had seen murder of 27-year-old RSS worker Sujith, who was earlier a member of the communist party. Like most radical groups, communists too don’t tolerate someone leaving their lines, and they retaliate through violence.

During his campaigns for assembly elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi too had talked about the violence, and had highlighted the example of Sadanandan Master – a BJP candidate whose legs were hacked by communists but who dared to fight elections against them from one of the constituencies in Kannur.

In the latest case, Ramith was attacked and killed in Pinarayi town, which happens to be the hometown of the current CM. This is not the first time such tragedy has befallen on Ramith’s family. In 2002, Ramith’s father Uthaman too was killed by suspected communists.

Communists didn’t stop at murdering Ramith’s father. The following day in 2002, communists killed two more people who were returning from funeral of Uthaman. It happened to be a hartal day called to protest the killing of Uthaman.

Now in a situation that sounds eerily similar to what happened 14 years ago, BJP has called for a hartal tomorrow to protest against the killing of Ramith. One hopes that the state government will not allow a repeat of the twin killings, though it failed to stop the repeat of killing of Ramith’s father.

However, with the state ruled by a Chief Minister, who has been accused of supporting political killings, things look bleak. It should be recalled that a former colleague of Pinarayi Vijayan had claimed that the Kerala CM had asked his Kerala communists to learn the ‘art of killing’ from Bengali communists who would ‘kidnap people, bury their bodies in deep pit along with a sack of salt’.

Drunk man gives triple talaq, clerics find it legal as he remembered it after getting sober

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Drunk man gives triple talaq, clerics find it legal as he remembered it after getting sober

As the central government gears up to strip the legal sanctity of triple talaq among Indian Muslims, a case highlighting its misuse and absurdity has come to light from Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh.

40 years old Azad is reported to have divorced his wife Shabnam Bi, 5 years younger to him, in a drunken state and after beating her up. The wife’s fault was that she had got angry after police came to their house following a complaint of mobile theft against her husband.

“After they (policemen) left, I got angry at my husband for stealing the mobile. He then started physically assaulting me. When my eldest son, Mustaq, intervened, Azad assaulted him too. He abused my three other kids. He then gave me triple talaq and threw us out of the house,” Shabnam is quoted as saying by the Times of India.

Shabnam’s relatives claim that Azad had been beating her for almost twenty years, ever since they got married. But things got out of hand this time as he threw her out of house, threatened to kill her, and gave talaq to her.

Since Azad was in drunken state when he gave talaq on that fateful night, Shabnam’s family consulted local Islamic clerics to ascertain the validity of the divorce. Clerics reportedly told them that if Azad remembered giving divorce to Shabnam in the morning, presumably when he should be sober, the divorce is “legal”.

As a result, Shabnam has accepted this divorce – which is a matter of civil law codes – but she showed courage and has filed a police complaint against her former husband under criminal law code for beating her up and threatening to kill her.

Following her complaint, police arrested Azad but released him later after he undertook in writing that he will not indulge in violence against his former wife and children.

This is not for the first time when talaq given under the influence of alcohol has been deemed valid and legal by Indian clerics. Earlier seminaries like Darul Uloom and Deoband had declared such divorces valid. Recently, many of these seminaries – incidentally some based in Bareilly – termed the government’s move to abolish triple talaq as “anti-Islamic”.

Surgical strikes – understanding the strategy behind going public with information

rohitagarwal
-
0
Surgical strikes – understanding the strategy behind going public with information

Any military operation has clear aims. These differ at different levels, with the aim at the lower level contributing towards (but not necessarily fulfilling) the aim at the higher level. For example, the aim for a battalion commander could be to capture Hill ABC. For his GOC who assigned him the task, the capture would be a step towards securing his own, larger, aim – say the capture of Area XYZ which includes the Hill. So the capture of Hill ABC could, for example, prevent enemy reinforcements moving into Area XYZ, thus helping the GOC’s in achieving his overall aim. This nesting of aim within aim goes all the way right up to the level at which the operation is ordered. Achievement of aim at the lower level is not and end in itself, but means of achieving the aim at the higher level.

In this context, let’s look at the recent Surgical Strikes across the LoC to try and understand what would have been the aims at different levels. At the bottom of the ladder, the commander of each strike team would have been given a specific target. His aim would have been to destroy the allotted target – cause maximum damage, kill as many terrorists as possible.

At Army Headquarters level, the aim would have been to carry out strikes at multiple locations to destroy terrorist launch-pads and kill terrorists waiting to infiltrate into India.

At the level of the government, the aim was probably to send a clear message across to Pakistan as part of its larger strategy of dealing with state sponsored terrorism. The move to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, review the Indus Water Treaty and Most Favoured Nation status would be some other components of this strategy, which seems to have come into play after the terrorist attacks on the army camp in Uri.

The call from DGMO to his Pakistani counterpart to inform him of the successful completion of the raids, and the subsequent press conference to announce the same to the world, would be an essential part of sending this message. Translated into plain speak, the message would read something like this – “Having failed to convince you through other means to desist from providing support to terrorists, we now reserve the right to take appropriate military action in retaliation to cross border terrorism. We will do so at the time and place of our choosing, and we are not intimidated by your threat of nuclear escalation.”

A simultaneous message was sent across to the people of India. That the government they elected is capable of responding to terrorist threats, responding to violence with violence, not content with lodging diplomatic protests and handing over dossiers. And to the world at large, the message was “We have given peace a reasonable chance. We reached out to Pakistan multiple time and at the highest level. We have even allowed their investigative team to visit the site of terrorist attack in Pathankot in an unprecedented move. Yet terrorist strikes backed by Pakistan are continuing in our territory. We now reserve the right to retaliate.”

Looking at the bigger picture, shorn of the messages sent across by the government publicly owning up and talking about them, what would be achieved by the Surgical Strikes for which the brave soldiers risked their lives? Elimination of scores of terrorists and destruction of their temporary structures would be cathartic for the soldiers who participated and those who were in the know that such operations took place to avenge the lives of their comrades at Uri. But beyond that, it wouldn’t make any difference at all. To Pakistan, the people of India and the world community. The jihadi factories across the LoC can replace the loss within no time at all. The world would continue to see India as a ‘soft state’, and Pakistan would continue to laugh at our faces. And the people of India would continue to live in fear.

Instead, Pakistan is confused – swinging between denying any strikes took place and vowing to hit back. Director General of the infamous Pakistani intelligence agency ISI has been unceremoniously replaced. Its repeated rattling of the nuclear sabre has been exposed as false bravado. Countries across the world, with the exception of China, have supported the action taken by India to safeguard itself from terrorist attacks.

In this light, let’s take a look at the belated owning up of similar strikes in the past by the Congress and UPA. Without disputing that they did take place and without trying to compare their scale and scope with the present operations, I would like to know what prevented the government of that time to publicly acknowledge them? While the tactical aims would be similar to the latest strikes, what were their strategic aims, and what was achieved at that level? What was their impact on Pakistan, the people of India and the world?

In the absence of any clarity on this, it would appear that these were operations planned and executed at the local formation level by the army. They were aimed at avenging the lives of Indian soldiers, and restoring the morale of the local units. They may have been carried out either with prior approval of (as opposed to on the orders of) the government, or it is even possible that the government could have been informed of it post facto. Possibly the government wanted plausible deniability in case of things going wrong, and preferred a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.

Whatever be the case, the operation carried out on 28 Sep was certainly with a clear cut strategic aim, and public acknowledgement of the same by the government was a step towards achieving that aim.  The previous strikes would therefore appear to be lost opportunities. Had there been clearer strategic thinking around them, possibly the Pathankot and Uri attacks would never have taken place, and these strikes wouldn’t have been required.

(Author is a former army man. The article first appeared on his blog)

Understanding the Doval Doctrine of Defensive Offence

Nithesh S
-
0
Understanding the Doval Doctrine of Defensive Offence

On 21st February 2014, Ajit Doval, the then director of the Vivekananda International Foundation delivered the Nani Palkhiwala memorial lecture at the Sastra University. The lecture was a summary of of his approach and thinking on the appropriate strategic response to terrorism. The same thought process seems to have translated into action during his tenure as the NSA under the current NDA regime. Any journalist worth his salt would have written a detailed report on this lecture by now.

Instead our journalists have chosen to write articles with cherry-picked phrases and lines that sound good in the context of current affairs. At the same time, they have chosen not to report the parts of Mr Doval’s lecture that would otherwise tarnish the image of certain political figures/parties.

Doval has outlined ways in which India could make it costly for Pakistan to continue its policy of supporting terror in his address. Though some in the media might have seen the entire speech, they have been smart enough to pick parts that suit the hot topics of the day and ignore the rest purposefully.

It was also fashionable to mention this speech after Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned Balochistan in his Independence Day address. The phrase ‘defensive offense’ has become a very popular phrase in the English media after the recent surgical strikes on terror launch pads across LoC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4RaCJrT51w

For the benefit of those who  haven’t/can’t/ not interested to watch the entire video, I am putting down the key messages in my summary below. My comments are in brackets:

Interaction With the  Senior-most Political Leadership on POTA in 2004

  • Mr Doval begins by narrating an anecdote when the newly elected government was eager to repeal POTA after 2004 polls. (Mr Doval was the chief of Intelligence at that time). He comments that the political establishment had placed politics above the national interests.
  • His fervent request not to repeal the only law in India that makes terrorism as a punishable crime was eventually downplayed and ignored.
  • In the Q and A session he emphatically states that POTA was a disgrace and a toothless anti terror law when compared to anti terror laws in the West.

Doval’s Two Axioms for Developing an Anti Terror Strategy

  1.  Accept reality as it is and not as you wish it was.
  2.  You can never defeat an enemy that you cannot define. (These two axioms are relevant not only in the area of defence or anti- terror strategy, but in almost any realm of life.)

One the Nature of Terror

  • He laments that India has fought terror so far only on newspaper columns.
  • At this juncture, the current NSA throws a question to himself.

         What makes Jihadi Terror a strategic threat ?

  • Jihadi terror is sponsored by a country that harbors deep hatred and hostility towards India and is directed at destroying India. This is an asymmetric warfare whose chief characteristics are covert actions with a high degree of deniability. This could also be called war through other means. This agenda is achieved at a very nominal cost by the enemy ~ Rs 180 crore per year. The cost of maintaining a formal army battalion is about 30 crores. At the cost of about 6 to 7 battalions this war can be sustained. He also mentions that India’s ‘No first use policy’ of nuclear weapons is also an advantage to the enemy as Pakistan can use it in the event of a formal military confrontation.
  • He also mentions the need to accept the pan Islamic dimension to the problem of terror. The ideology of terror has found some takers in Islam due to propaganda and insecurities of the community in several areas of the world. However, he categorically mentions that this percentage is very small in the world and India.
  • He underscores the fact that the 17 crore Muslim population in India is largely patriotic, but the exposure to internet and the ability of some individuals to connect and sympathize with global causes and incidents puts our Muslim citizens at risk of radicalization.
  • He also points out that all wars cannot be won through the might of the armed forces. He cites example of the loss of Soviets in Afghanistan and the loss of USA in Vietnam.

Political Islam and the History of Jihadi Ideology

  • Terrorism, he says is a tactic to achieve a political and ideological objective. Terrorists do not target the dead people in an act of terror. The people who see the death of those who die are the actual targets. This is a means to bend the enemy to accept the political or ideological objective.
  • Jihadi terror does not have much to do with fundamental Islam. It is true only to some extent. Following a lifestyle as per the holy book in personal/religious life does not affect the world. Jihad has more to do with political agenda. He calls this agenda driven fundamentalism as ‘Political Islam’ which dates back to 13th Century, a time when a scholar named Ibn Taymiyyah issued the infamous Mardin Fatwa. This Fatwa glorified Jihad even against  Muslims (in this case Mongols) to achieve a political agenda during his times. Taymiyyah was rejected during his times, but his idea lived on. The same scholar has inspired dreaded terrorists like Osama bin Laden and SIMI.

 On Smothering Terror/ Terrorist Organisations

  • ‘Smothering is a firefighting term’ , he begins. He remarks that tackling Pakistan is a key part in the fight on terror. Any enemy can be engaged in the defensive mode, defensive offence or the offensive mode. He notes that nuclear threat comes only when we go for the full offensive mode. He observes that we are working only in the defensive mode.
  • In the defensive offense, we work on the vulnerabilities of the enemy. This could include diplomatic isolation, exposing the terror sponsorship  and making management of internal politics difficult for the enemy. In the defensive mode, we can either get hurt or end up in a stalemate. There is no chance of victory. In the defensive offense mode, the enemy will find it unaffordable for them to continue the asymmetric terror war.
  • He warns against doubting or losing confidence in the Indian security establishment due to the losses caused by the defensive mode of our securities. So far, we have been successful in foiling the designs of Pakistan in Kashmir.
  • On smothering terrorist organisations he calls for the denial of three things. The funds, manpower and the weapons. He calls that the terrorists are mercenaries who will side with those who are having a bigger budget. Covert operations , usage of technology and intelligence driven operations are listed as key requirements to defeat terror.
  • He calls intelligence driven war as a fourth generation war. This requires a paradigm shift in response to the terror threat. Old methods of war that involved infantry, ammunition, blitzkrieg are over and obselete. In the fourth generation war, the enemy lies within the civil society. The state has the task of identifying the enemy where as the enemy does not have this challenge. Hence, intelligence capabilities are crucial in winning the fourth generation war according to Mr Doval.

Conclusion

We need “A strong decisive leadership to give  a strong message to terrorists and its sponsors and provide security to the citizens,” Mr Doval concludes. He appends two important remarks towards the end of his lecture.

  •  Strategy without tactics is noise before defeat . Convert the plans to actionable points to achieve the objective of national security. If the strategy is not backed up with capabilities, funds and facilities.
  • Only tactics without strategy is the shortest way to suicide.

Both tactics and strategy are required to solve the problem of terror in the future.

Q & A  Session

The question and answer slot was also very interesting for me as an audience. Questions raised by the audience were on India’s response to 26/11, Ishrat Jahan case, US financial assistance to Pakistan and POTA. I recommend the reader to fast forward to the time 1:08:00 on the video shared in this article for seeing the Mr Doval’s answers. (A bit of suspense is good)

In fact, I strongly recommend the reader to watch the entire lecture. This will enhance the faith of  common citizens in the current national security establishment.

Decoding NDTV’s mysterious U-Turn: India above Politics

Gaurav
-
0
Decoding NDTV’s mysterious U-Turn: India above Politics

NDTV, once the chart-topper of English news channels, has for long slipped way below the leaders. One of the reasons for its continuous downfall is the channel’s perceived anti-India stance. Social media has only amplified the various moments when NDTV did not back India and its priorities. As a result, the audience gave it a go-by.

Who can forget the infamous episode during the horrific 26/11 terror attacks when Barkha Dutt, NDTV’s top-most anchor was seen reporting sensitive information regarding counter-terror ops on live TV, thereby compromising the security of our armed forces? Barkha was so brazen that years later, she even admitted to doing something wrong, but chose to blame the Government of the day for not “warning” her:


NDTV has also gone way beyond its brief, that of a normal media house, and has donned the role of an NGO. Just last month we reported how NDTV had filed a case in the National Green Tribunal to stall the entire Sagarmala project which was expected to give rise to large economic benefits to India. They even demanded that “civil and criminal action” be taken against authorities, governments and private companies for taking part in such a project! A nation-wide project being threatened by a media house! Eventually they withdrew the application, pleading that they need to study the matter better.

Even in relation to the recent Uri attack, this article showed how NDTV played to the gallery initially by playing the role of a “hawk” but slowly went back to a dovish stance, censuring the Government for possible moves such as tinkering with the Indus Water Treaty.

And the all of a sudden, last week,  the following graphic played out at the top of the 9 pm bulletin of NDTV 24×7 on October 6, 2016:

img_6110
India above Politics?

Further, NDTV also decided not to telecast an interview with former Home Minister P. Chidambaram – apparently because he was critical of Modi government’s political handling of the surgical strikes the Indian army had conducted across the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Lets go back a bit, NDTV, a channel which prides itself in not being “jingoistically nationalist”, which doesnt mind airing views and opinions which may hurt India’s diplomatic stance, suddenly goes all out pro-India so much that their editorial line decides to just not air any anti-India comment? Do remarks like “Khoon ki dalali” or “proof release karo”, compromise “national security”?

Some reports suggested that NDTV had been bullied into this by the Government. That seems hard to believe given the numerous anti-Government hit-jobs NDTV has been party too. Not to forget the Sagarmala petition asking for criminal prosecution of Government of India officers. Then what caused this sudden change of heart?

Before we answer that, let us take a stock of the recent political situation after the Indian army’s daring surgical strikes. Modi and most of the top level functionaries from the BJP-led Government, had steered clear of extracting political capital from the surgical strikes. The press conference announcing the strikes was devoid of any political leader, and was handled purely by the army and bureaucracy. It was only the supporters, who obviously were thrilled to see India finally give it back, who chose to beat the figurative drums over this issue. Majority of Indians were happy that India had found its spine, and naturally the credit (as would the brickbats) accrued to the ruling party.

This led to massive heartburn among the opposition. Congress leaders chose to call the attacks “fake” and asked for proof. Kejriwal too followed the Pakistani line and tried to sugar-coat his attack, similarly calling for proofs. Rahul Gandhi stumbled into yet another embarrassing situation with his “Khoon ki Dalali” remark.

The end result: The BJP got the credit for being at the helm when the army executed a near-perfect and unexpected surgical strike. The opposition lost tremendous face for making anti-India, anti-army statements. The damage worsened as media gave fire to such comments by holding debates on these statements and playing them ad nauseum.

In this situation, only one thing can save a politician who has committed a faux-pas of making an anti-India anti-army statement, while trying to attack the Government: Living in the hope that the media ignores or forgets to play up his controversial remarks. Or even better, if some channels completely skip playing out those remarks.

Get the hint?

Khoon ki dalali : Why “Special” Rahul Gandhi was the star of Taare Zameen Par

Abhishek Banerjee
-
0
Khoon ki dalali : Why “Special” Rahul Gandhi was the star of Taare Zameen Par

So, Rahul baba has done it again. He was mocked and tortured by a world that didn’t understand him. The shy, introverted little prince was deprived of his birthright by vicious street bullies. Until he could no longer bottle up his anger against the bullies and ended up calling them “khoon ke dalal”. You know, like this:

untitled

The meat-headed and ham-handed bullies have responded to his outburst by charging back at poor Rahul baba with twice the intensity. They want the system to come down on him twice as hard, to hit him like a ton of bricks. They want to scream at him, rail at him and howl at him. They don’t want to understand him, they just want to punish him because they think that punishment is the answer to everything. As if that can do any good.

untitled

Their imagination is limited by living for far too long in a straitjacketed, ruthlessly competitive world  with unforgiving rules of engagement. Now they think it is their turn to hit back at the Vice President of India’s oldest political party. This is the plane they live on: a world without compassion or consideration. What they refuse to see, or should we say, what they don’t dare to see  is the exotic world inside Rahul baba’s mind.

untitled

I can’t help shaking in anger. When will people realize that every politician develops in her/his own way and becomes her/his own person? They want to fit everyone through the same entrance and just push them into the rat race. Yes, political parties have their compulsions. There is cutthroat competition on the political scene. Every political party wants their leader to sweep elections: 73 out of 80, 67 out of 70. Anything less is considered a grave sin. If political parties are so keen on racing each other, then why do they ask their current leaders to give birth to their future leaders…if they want to race, they should just breed race horses…damn it!

Has any political party stopped to think that the fingers on one hand are not all of the same length? No, they are engaged in pulling at each finger and trying to make them all equal. The average Congress cadre may look at the statement on “khoon ki dalali” and ask: what is the gain? How will this help Congress win elections? Because that is all it comes down to: winning elections. Has anyone paused to think about Rahul baba’s bold brush strokes with his use of language, the power of his feelings and the depth of his emotions? No!

But fortunately for Rahul baba, he has finally found good mentors who understand.

Exactly! We have to understand that when it comes to “special” politicians like Rahul baba, we cannot go by what their handwriting, or their spelling or their words. We have to go by our instinctive understanding of his feelings so as to properly appreciate his intelligence.

So true! “Special” politicians tend to roll things out the wrong way all the time. Instead of questioning them, we should roll with them. That is another enlightened person right there!

Even the principal of the school agrees:

Folks, this can be the moment. This can be the turning point when we extend a hand of compassion towards our “special” politicians. It will help us become a better nation, a better democracy and a better society. We can give them the understanding they need, so that we can finally see them for the gems they are:

untitled

Kho na jayein ye taare zameen par.

1...6,8806,8816,882...6,963Page 6,881 of 6,963

Contact: [email protected]

About us

News and opinion website that brings you reports and narrative from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India.

Follow us

© OpIndia.com