How India Avoided a Crisis

From the NYT: here.

Shourie's Speech in the Rajya Sabha

I found Shourie's Rajya Sabha speech worth reading. I disagree about his argument that the best lawyers should not represent the terrorist suspects. But apart from that, he generally makes sense. Here is the report on school curricula in Pakistan prepared by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute that Shourie talks about in his speech. And he is right - children are being taught to hate Hindus and India and aspire for jehad and shahadat (martyrdom) from as early as Class VI (you can find that on pages 20-23).

Hafiz Mohamed Saeed's 'House Arrest'

Here.

The CJI's Remarks on Terrorism

Read the CJI's remarks today.

Expressing concern at such coverage, the CJI said, “one of the ill-effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses. While it is fair for the media to prompt public criticism of inadequacies in the security and law-enforcement apparatus, there is also a possibility of such resentment turning into an irrational desire for retribution. Furthermore, the trauma resulting from the terrorist attacks may be used as a justification for undue curtailment of individual rights and liberties.”

What exactly is an 'irrational desire for retribution'? Of course the whole idea of press coverage is to provoke the masses into responding with calls for change. Why is this so bad? Many will probably point out the preposterous ideas and suggestions that were made on TV. Conceded. But that still does not imply that anger itself is bad. After all, just because bad ideas have an outlet does not imply that they are necessarily going to get accepted, in Holmes' words, in the marketplace of ideas. So why fear? Is not popular anger the qui vive for change in a democracy?

He said, “instead of offering a considered response to the growth of terrorism, a country may resort to questionable methods such as permitting indefinite detention of terror suspects, the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial. Outside the criminal justice system, the fear generated by terrorist attacks may also be linked to increasing governmental surveillance over citizens and unfair restrictions on immigration.”

Again, what is this 'considered response to the growth of terrorism' supposed to be? Is that not what everyone is asking about? Can the honorable CJI kindly elaborate the specifics rather than simply talk in generalities? Has he even followed the debate on the question of detaining terror suspects and the use of coercive interrogation techniques? Has he read any of the authors who have pointed out the benefits of such techniques? Does he even understand the problem with jihadis? Does he understand how this is a political movement, not ordinary criminal activity which is why we are having this debate about whether ordinary rules of criminal procedure can even be successfully applied to these individuals? Does he remember what Maulana Masood Azhar did upon release from jail? If he is talking of increased governmental surveillance, does he have a better answer to prevent attacks on markets and other places frequented by the public?

I am not suggesting that these concerns are invalid, only that there are valid reasons for concern about the efficacy of ordinary criminal methods in dealing with the jihadi phenomenon. For him to take such a categorical position on controversial questions without outlining the reasoning raises questions about what he knows about these things.

Why Mumbai Attacks May Not Have Had Establishment's Blessing

As anyone who has followed recent news can tell, LeT and Pakistan's non-al-Qaeda outfits have been getting a fair amount of press in the US lately. That is a good thing which suggests that the heat is on though for how long is not clear. 

Reuel Marc Gercht's column is the latest. We have heard why LeT's Mumbai operation must have been endorsed and aided by the ISI. This author makes the counterargument based on the same evidence:

If the Lashkar still had real friends in the Pakistani military and in the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency--the most Islamist-friendly Muslim intelligence service in the world--its attacks in Mumbai would have been more murderous. So these holy warriors, widely feared in Kashmir and Pakistan for their savagery and their disciplined organization, are not yet the missing link for the jihadists who aspire to kill "the enemies of God" in huge numbers.

Money Trail Gone Cold

Jamaat-ud-Dawa's money is gone. Read the whole item. Clearly, it is going to be a difficult challenge to shut down the organization...assuming the powers that be want to do so.

Sainath's View of the War on Terror

There have been a lot of articles lately telling us to avoid a 9/11 kind of response. Not surprisingly, many of the same people also insist that the Mumbai attacks are not India's 9/11. I buy the part about the Mumbai attacks not being a new and entirely unexpected event but that still does not change the fact that the failed strategies of the past ought not to be repeated again to the same result. Which is what I seem to be seeing everywhere.

The latest in this series is P.Sainath recounting the horrors of the War on Terror (Many commentators seem to have concluded already that the US-led war on terror is lost. I am at a loss to understand the basis for this). His numbers on the Iraq Body Count are taken from the now discredited 2006 study published in Lancet (I might write a short post at some point on this). But the point is why Iraq is being invoked all the time especially when Pakistan is not Iraq. There are many differences between the two - Pakistan does not have the history of oppression that Iraq has nor does it have the fractured demography of that country. Finally, the state institutions are still very much functional in Pakistan which was not case when Paul Bremer's CPA demolished them soon after the invasion. The comparison may have some validity only if one assumes that objectives of an Indian attack will also involve an Iraq-style occupation and breaking and rebuilding of its institutions from scratch. That is a major and probably fallacious assumption - India has not done that anytime in the past and none of the military scenarios being currently deliberated even contemplate it which only suggest that Sainath's implied comparison is spurious.

As for Afghanistan, would Sainath have been happier living with a Taliban-ruled country with jihadis provided all the space and assistance to fulfil their global agenda? Would fewer people have died if horrendous attacks had been allowed to be planned and executed incessantly from that country? Sainath of course proposes no solutions to any problem. Only that he wants a vigorous response to the attacks. That is simply not good enough.

Dawn Blames Musharraf

After days of denial, Dawn blames Musharraf for the ongoing terrorist saga. That sounds quite convenient given that Musharraf is now gone and blaming him will not affect the fortunes of any of those presently running the show.