This from today’s Guardian

The US has lost track of about 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces since the 2003 invasion, some of which will have ended up in the hands of insurgents, according to an official report published in Washington. Among the missing items are AK-47 rifles, pistols, body armour and helmets.

As Lady Bracknell would say — To lose one gun, Bush, may be regarded as a carelessness; to lose so many looks like ineptitude.

I am not shedding tears at the death of Saddam. Nor is this a rant on the inappropriateness of the death sentance. Instead it is a lament for justice.

‘Justice’ that is delivered without due process being followed is vigilantism - and there is no worse example for Democracy (let’s not forget that Iraq was invaded to restore Democracy) – than a seeming kangaroo court delivering a pre ordained sentance. This is not the poster campign for the ‘restoration of Democracy’.

To say that the Americans and the British have screwed this one up beyond measure is an understament beyond compare.

… what ever that is supposed to mean, is gaining popularity world wide. In amchi Mumbai, the standard response to any calamity is ‘we need to deport all those Bihari’s and Bhaiyas from here. When crime goes up – the response is the same … get rid of the Northerners‘.

When terrorism strikes – the response is automatic – those damn Muslim Terrorists, they must all be sent off to Pakistan – little forgetting that 15 years ago it was Sikh Terrorists, and Tamil Terrorists. And till date it is also Telegu terrorists (just because we call them Naxalites doesn’t mean that they are less Telegu), and Assamese terrorists and Naga terrorsists and Gujarati Terrorists (what happened in Gujarat – post Godhra – was just as much terrorism as the mumbai bomb blasts, and just because they are Hindu doesn’t make them any less terrorists) . Infact every state & ethnic group has thrown up its set of terrorists at different points of time in our short history as a Nation State.

Getting rid of them is obviously a good idea – afterall, we all want to live in a peaceful world. But, how do we get rid of them. One option is ‘shoot to kill’ but that is slightly dangerous given that you may end up shooting a Brazillian thinking that he is from the sub continent. or in our case shoot a white tourist thinking he is a fair Arab terrorist. Shoot the wrong person and you are in trouble. After all, in today’s day and age all nations are friends and how much ever you may find it irritating, as a government you have to take up the cause of one of your citizens shot dead by colour blind cops from another country, whose Pavlovian response to anyone different is to shoot them. ! Deporting them is obviously the other option. But, first you have to find them, then identify them accurately, and then deport them. You will be in deep trouble if you catch hold of a potential source of FDI and deport them by mistake.

But, who is them. And, who all do we deport, and where do we deport them to? Doesn’t nationality override ethnicity and religiousity. If it doesn’t, why do we call ourselves a Nation state?

I guess that these weren’t some of the questions considered by the UK home minister Charles Clarke- before he published his list of who can be deported. The UN has already called the expulsions illegal. So here we have one of the Defenders of Democracy acting as a rogue state – by committing illegal acts.

In an article in the Media Monitors Network, Yamin Zakaria comments on the new expulsion policy of the British Government:

“…deport the Muslims from UK, and in return Christian Anglo-Saxons should be expelled from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, Caribbean, South Africa, Zimbabwe .etc where they have not integrated, they have refused to learn the language despite living there for years, refused to accept the desirability of the indigenous peoples culture and practises, and have instead used violence and extremism, preached hate for their neighbour, totally destroyed “their way of life,” and abused their hosts’ hospitality.”

There is a lot of Yamin Zakaria’s work i don’t agree with – esepcially his position vis-a-vis women and equaility in the eyes of religion. And his seeming ability to defend terrorism. He is about as nice and enchanting as Pravin Togadia. But, if Togadia wrote something that was as witty and true as this, i would probably quote him too

I find it so hypocritical when the the Americans or the Australians talk about ‘foreigners’. With the Americans and the Australians – how can they even talk about ‘foreigners’ given that they committed genocide on indigenous people and took over their lands. Who isn’t a foreigner in those lands except for the indegenous people.

With the British, it is a different situation. Forget for a moment about colonisation – because to bring that up would take this post into another dimension. Just look at their approach regarding terrorism. Many moons ago, when i was living in London – someone came up to me in college and asked me to contribute money to kill an Indian soldier in jaffna. I was offended and complained. I was told that it is freedom of speech. If freedom of speech incites murder in someone else’s land it is ok. But, if the same freedom of speech incites murder in your own land it is obviously terrorism. I remember as a school student reading about the kidnapping and murder of Indian Diplomat Ravindra Mahtre in Birmingham by the JKLF. The British Government made noises about terrorism. But, JKLF practised its ideology in London without any issues. I remember Khalistani’s calling for war on India being allowed to spread their hate and send monies to India to unleash terror.

Today, when the groups that have been practising terror outside Great Britain are turning their attention inwards – it hurts. They talk about deportation. And where will they deport them – After nurturing their hate and allowing it to grow for so long, they will deport those who murder, and those who incite to murder back to us. And then impose sanctions on us – if our countries don’t allow them to practise hate.

It is a funny old world!

Last week i had posted my reaction at Dick Cheney being offended by the use of the word Gulag. I observed that it would have been so much more humane if he had been offended by torture perse.
Bernardo, Yazad and I have been having an interesting exchange of ideas on Semantics. Essentially the use of the word Gulag. The contention is that as the Soviet run Gulags were far worse than Guatanamo Bay, to compare the place to a Gulag was probably denigrating those who suffered in the Gulags. Other arguments were that the US, although it has had multiple foreign policy blunders is responsible for Democracy in some states.

My response to it ended up being so long, that i have decided to put it up as a separate post. To see the full set of views you can go here.

Let’s for a moment assume that it is one of us getting tortured. Does it really matter whether it is a “benevolent” state that is carrying out the action, a theological state or a police/military state. It really doesn’t matter whether you are being tortured in the name of God, Demorcracy or Communism. The fact is that you are being tortured.
Now, the question is – is it all right to torture terrorists, anti-national forces, and other bodies that generally cause social mayhem and a leave citizens with a general sense of insecurity? I really don’t know the answer to that – because it is so very difficult to draw the line on “whom is it ok to torture?”. I will give you an example:

Let’s now take forward the argument that Madarassas are breeding houses for terrorists. Where young men come to learn hate – and graduate to commit acts of terror. Now as far as torture is concerned where will you draw the line? At the terrorist who has been caught in the act of terror. At a person who has graduated from the ’school of terror’ whom you suspect may be a terrorist, the teacher who trained the students, the students’ families who probably knew what they were upto, – but kept quiet – where? Where do you draw the line.

I understand the general fear and anger towards terrorists. they have caused a lot of death and destruction in my country too. I am wary about giving the state absolute power. Very often in times of national crisis or war or internal strife – states end up assuming absoulte power in certain areas. Therefore, when states take on such powers and run roughshod over human rights – we all need to sit up and take notice, and bring the state back to its “normal” level. The state – if it could have sealed all leaks – would have made sure that this news never got out. You have to be grateful for the moral courage of ordinary American citizens who work within the system, and who have been repulsed by what their Government has become, for coming out with the truth.

The primary objection seems to be the use of the word Gulag. I see it as an effective communication tool:
Amnesty Internation, CRY , Coca Cola – Ford, any organisation – worth its salt – will put out their message in a manner that cuts through the clutter and catches popular imagination. For Amnesty Gulag did the trick. Do you really think that the world would sit up and notice, if they put out a bland “human rights violations of prisoners in Guatanamo” press release. After last years little outing at Abu Ghraib – do you reckon anyone would even notice “human rights violation”. The Gulag statement did its job. That along with the koran descecration – recanted by Newsweek, and then confirmed by the FBI – has put human rights back in the front line. This kind of sound byte communication is the RealPolitik of organisations today. Remember Bush senior and “read my lips, no new taxes” or Clinton “the Economy stupid”, or Cokes’ “paanch matlab coca cola” these are all lines and words meant to stick in popular perception. And, in that sense, Amnesty’s Gulag tag will also stick. Unless the US government does something quite unexpected, and comes completely clean on the issues. Until such time it blusters and bullies – the Newsweek fiasco amongst others- and evades the issue it is going to be lumped with states that systemise torture. I am not quite sure which organisation is feeling more stupid today – Newsweek for recanting so soon, or the US government for going blue in the face protesting that no such thing had happened, and then having one of its own departments saying yes, it did.

Next, on the use of the word Gulag. The contention being we shouldn’t use the word Gulag because violations by state A is not as bad as violations by state B, is a dangerous one. Again a set of examples:

In India, a couple of years ago, we had a Hindu pogrom against Muslims in the state of Gujarat. 2000+ people died. Pregnant women were gang raped and their bellies cut out. Children were burnt alive. Many of us called it a holocaust. Now, extending the logic – on American Human rights violations – not being as bad as the Soviet one – what happened in Gujarat was not a holoucast. What happened in Yugoslavia was not a Holocaust. Are we saying that if 6 million people don’t die, an event cannot be termed a Holocaust.

In an Indian riot 2000+ people die without any questions asked. A decade ago there were race riots in the US. 2000 people didn’t die. Less than a hundred died! was it a bad riot or a not so bad riot? It’s like saying, he owns slaves but he is a good master. Or he is a somewhat ok rapist because he doesn’t maim or kill the victim. Is a Tsunami that kills tens of thousands of people a worse disaster than an earthquake that kills only thousands of people. This sort of a view says that the individual does not matter, only numbers do. It’s a view that is very difficult for me to defend. It doesn’t matter if the offending state is mine or yours.

Now on the Democracy aspect. I believe that the American people have managed to question their government at every stage, and made the government accountible to the people. I have a great deal of respect for the way the people of the US have managed their freedom. I admire the fact that an uneducated woman can take the government to court, and win. I admire the fact that the poorest citizen in their country can hope to aspire for a better tomorrow. I aplaud the fact that when human rights violations happen in the US, the people of the country protest. As far as the state is concerened, it is like any state – secretive, power hungry, and interested in maintaining the status quo. Respect of the American people preserving the Democratic nature of their society does not have anything to do with the conduct of their government outside their shores.

Finally guys, in an ideal world you won’t need the police, the army, the tax collector, the state, or bureaucracy let alone amnesty international. But, we don’t live in an ideal world

Last week poor Newsweek got jhapoed by the Pentagon for publishing a report on the desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay . The Pentagon put on its most angelic face and swore that nothing of that sort had happened.
Newsweek was blamed for the riots that ensued in Afghanistan leading to loss of life. I guess the pressure brought on to bear on Newsweek must have been tremendous, leading them to recant.
So did the desecration happen?
The FBI says yes.
This week the Pentagon is saying that yes the Koran was desecrated. It may not have been flushed down a loo, but it was desecrated all the same. Wikipedia has a chronology of Koran flushing incidents here

The management team at Newsweek must feel like a bunch of spineless jellies for having folded under Governement pressure so fast.