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.
Sphere: Related Content
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.
Sphere: Related Content
… 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!
Sphere: Related Content
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.
Sphere: Related ContentLet’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?â€. 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 violationâ€. 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
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.
Sphere: Related Content
Today, Amnesty International has called for the shut down of
Amnesty, in probably one of its most contreversial reports in recent times, says:
The US administration’s attempts to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak such as “environmental manipulation”, “stress positions” and “sensory manipulation”, was one of the most damaging assaults on global values.
Irene Khan, the Secretary General of AI in the foreward to the report says:
the US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to “re-define†torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding “ghost detainees†(people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the “rendering” or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practise torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.
The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and “counter-terrorismâ€.
The kind of mass hypnosis that is created by Government in general, and the US government in particular, in the name of National Security is positively scary. Somehow, the sceptre of terrorism has built up to such an extent that citizens of the world chose to ignore all human right violations in the name of defeating their enemies. After all, if it has been dinned into you every waking moment that “they are out to get you” – whoever “they” maybe, and if you start demonizing “them”, then torture really won’t be seen as being evil. Nor would a few “accidental” deaths here and there.
Maybe we all need to start taking our Governments and what they say with a pinch (a few kilos of salt)
The Pentagon has reached a new low. It has accused Newsweek of being “irresponsible” for suggesting that interrogators desecrated the Holy Koran. The Guardian reports a spokesman for the Pentagon saying:
” ….our reaction is that Newsweek reported something that was factually inaccurate on several points. It’s demonstrably wrong, and Newsweek has acknowledged that. But they have not retracted it, and have tried instead to water it down.“They printed a story based on an erroneous source or sources that was demonstrably false and that resulted in riots in which people were killed. I don’t know how else to parse it.”
Ahem. the Pentagon also thinks that Newsweek has damaged American image abroad.
ROTFL.
Well, Mr.Pentagon, if the USA has a half decent reputation outside its borders it is because of your Press, your movies, your Academia, your people – not because of the Pentagon or American politicians. The last two have caused too much death and destruction in too many parts of the world to be thought of well. Newsweek merely printed something that most people expected will happen. Its like a bunch of Redneck Soviets burning the Torah in the bad old days of Communism or a bunch of Nazis doing the same. It is an expected form of behaviour.
Now, let’s get back to the alleged Desecration of the Koran.
For an Army of Occupation that thinks nothing of chaining people up and dragging them along, in the nude, like animals – desecrating the Koran or anyother holy book is no great shakes. After all, the manner of torture was to humiliate the prisoner -as it voilated their cultural norms. As Edward Kennedy put it, last year:
In the Middle East and too often today, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty; it’s the prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape and a dark hood on his head, wires attached to his body, afraid that he’s going to be electrocuted
Do you think that the same bunch of people in charge – of the torutre – would hesitate in flushing down a Bible (or whichever sacred book) if they thought it would break the prisoner.
Furthermore, do you honestly think that the kind of people we all saw in videos last year terrorizing prisoners would know the difference between the Koran and a telephone directory.
Incidentally, Newsweek has apogized. Its retraction is slightly wishy washy. but it has apologised. Whereas all is quiet on the Pentagon Front.
btw this is the same Pentagon that went war against Iraq based on unverified reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction. There hasn’t been any apology either from the Pentagon or its bosses.
Yasser Arafat died today. I hope that he finds the peace that so eluded him in life.
He, more than anyone else, ensured that the Palestinians were not forgotten. They didn’t become another statistic in a desire by the West to assuage their collective guilt over the Holoucast .
However, I wish that he had the moral courage to embark on a non violent struggle for a Independent Palestinian Homeland. I wish he had the guts to stand up to the Arab nations – and demand the right of his people for a nation. I wish that he had not been so wishy washy on terrorism.
I hope and pray that after his death the various factions come together and live in peace with each other and Israel. Is that too much to ask for on Diwali Day?
If a soldier refuses to obey orders, is it Mutiny or an act of conscience? One of the boards’ I am on is currently polarised on the topic. The topic, of course, is a report that states that an American Platoon in Iraq refused to follow orders. Half the board wants to see the platoon hung for mutiny, the other half wants to reward them for being heroes. So which is it – mutiny or an act of conscience.
Actually, it is both. When you follow your conscience you need to be able to accept the consequences. In any organisational set up, the basic premise is Unity of Command. If you don’t want to be part of the system – then you get out. Asking serving officers and soldiers to disobey orders that they disagree with is a dangerous trend. Acts of Conscience, I have complete respect and regard for. But, when you follow your conscience, it is the fact that you stand up for what you believe in, and are willing to take the punishment, that makes your act worthy of notice. If organisations did not penalise people for breaking their “bond” then the act itself will have no value.
Sphere: Related Content
Saudi Arabia is finally having municipal level elections early next year, ushering in the first whiff of Democracy. In this too there is a caveat. Women cannot vote. The excuses offered are ridiculous. Lack of female staff and photo identity can both be overcome if the Government has the desire to do so.
We are in 2004. How much longer before no eyebrows are raised about civil and professional acceptance of women at all levels?
Sphere: Related Content
| © 2010 POV | Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha |
follow:
Clap
You Said