Pretoria-based CiPS carries my brief commentary on Peace camp in Israel: Strong ideas but weak stomach. For the full text please click here.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Terrorism: All are entitled to live
All are entitled to live
New Indian Express,
24 Oct 2008 12:36:00 AM IST
The ongoing debate over the police encounter in Batla in New Delhi on September 19 highlights the partisan nature of the Indian polity.
Not just political parties, even mainstream intelligentsia abandoned their responsibilities and took refuge under political correctness. It has become fashionable to treat terrorism as yet another form of violence and belittle its devastating consequences.
Lives are important, rights are important but only that of those accused of terrorism. Victims of terrorism die in vain for they have no such rights. At least that is how mainstream India behaves.
We need to take a second look at this kneejerk trade union mentality. Camaraderie is vital for a society but there are times thismy- member-right-or-wrong attitude needs to change. Rallying around the flag should not be taken to absurd limits.
People holding public offices need to recognise that their responsibility is much wider than their immediate jobs. Social responsibility is larger than their responsibility to a particular institution.
The ongoing debate over terrorism exposes the narrow mindset of the political parties in the country. Moving the goalpost is their mantra. They would demand the banning of Hindutva outfits like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal but take a different stand when it comes to SIMI or vice versa. The Bharatiya Janata Party demands the dismissal of the government of Assam for its failure to curb communal violence but sings a different tune over Karnataka and Orissa.
Thus the demand of the BJP for the resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia, Professor Mushirul Hasan, over his stand on the police encounter was accompanied by a deafening silence of its stalwarts over the spat of anti-minority violence that were taking place under their very noses.
But partisanship is not the prerogative of only the politicians. Same is true for a large number of the intelligentsia. Professor Mushirul Hasan, for example, explicitly condemned the New Delhi blasts only after, and not before, the BJP demanded his resignation. Similarly, those who vociferously argued against the ‘demonisation’ of Jamia would refer only to ‘events of 19th September’ and not of 13th September that rocked the streets of New Delhi. This leads to the next question: guilt by association.
No institution, organisation or group should be held responsible for the activities of all its members. Even members of the same family are not accountable for the activities of other members of the family.
By no cannons of law, logic or moral standards, can one hold Jamia responsible for the alleged crimes of three of its members.
Guilt by association will take us back to the Stone Age.
At the same time one cannot ignore a similar situation faced by Saudi Arabia following the September 11 terror attacks on the US. Riyadh could not escape the harsh reality: fifteen out of 19 hijackers who carried the terrorist acts were Saudi nationals.
Many used the terror attack to launch a diatribe against the Gulf state, vilified Saudi society and even sought to demonise Islam.
The Saudi state could not be held responsible for the actions of its citizens yet it could not escape from the negative consequences of their actions.
Despite its initial defences, eventually the House of Saud saw the episode as an opportunity for a serious introspection. It did not settle for ostrich-like self-denial. Much of the ongoing internal debate in Saudi Arabia over Islam, reforms in the education system and even dialogue with other religions initiated by King Abdullah have to be traced directly to the negative repercussion of the September 11 attacks. Likewise, if the Jamia were to escape from the consequences of the alleged actions of his students, it needs serious introspection.This leads to the next question: human rights.Yes, all citizens have equal rights. Those charged with terrorism have rights to a fair trial and to be treated as innocent unless proven otherwise. They have to be provided adequate legal defence and an opportunity to clear their name.Without this the idea of India would disintegrate.
But in their eagerness to defend the rights of those accused of terrorism, mainstream political parties and intelligentsia alike, ignore some larger issues.
While everyone is innocent unless otherwise proven, those who are charged with terrorist violence could not be placed on par with ordinary citizens. They face serious charges of involvement in the slaughter of innocent civilians. Let us not forget that serial blasts in New Delhi, for example, killed 24 ordinary civilians who were going about their daily routine.
Those charged with terrorism have legal defence, political support and even media limelight. But what happened to those whose lives were taken without any rhyme or reason.
Didn’t they have any rights? Let us not vacillate or look for an escape clause. Terrorism is not an impulsive road rage. Nor is it unintended manslaughter.
Terrorism is a cold-blooded, pre-mediated murder of innocent civilians. Just like the rights of the accused, one should also recognise the rights of the victims.We also need to go beyond parochial calculations in speaking out for everyone’s right to live: rights of victims, even if they happened to members of other caste, colour, race, religion and even nationality. One can be a critic of the Congress party and its dynastic politics. But one can still recognise late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s right to life.
His life was cut short by a well-planned, well-organised and well-executed political murder carried out by the LTTE. His children were orphaned for no fault of theirs.
Sadly, unlike the slain Indian leader, Nalini Sriharan enjoyed legal defence and was tried and convicted under due process of law. On ‘humanitarian considerations’ her original death sentence was commuted tolife imprisonment.Now even this is not sufficient, and she and her supporters demand early release. Nalini’s conviction was neither an act of vengeance nor retribution but merely her harvest for her role in the coldblooded murder. Did anyone give a second chance to Rajiv Gandhi? Rather than worrying about rights of terrorists and the need to protect them against draconian laws, responsible people have to recognise a higher value.Victims of terrorism also have rights. They had no opportunity to hear the charges against them. They enjoyed no legal defence. They are not agents of the state and nor are they linked to the supposed ‘injustice’ meted out to those indulging in terrorism.
This is not politically correct. The Indian society should first and foremost recognise the rights of the victims of terrorism.
They also have the right to live, something that the terrorists do not recognise. Yes, even as an ordinary individual, Rajiv Gandhi also had the right to live!
About the author:
Professor P R Kumaraswamy teaches at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and his co-edited book South Asia: The Spectre of Terrorism is being published by Routledge
New Indian Express,
24 Oct 2008 12:36:00 AM IST
The ongoing debate over the police encounter in Batla in New Delhi on September 19 highlights the partisan nature of the Indian polity.
Not just political parties, even mainstream intelligentsia abandoned their responsibilities and took refuge under political correctness. It has become fashionable to treat terrorism as yet another form of violence and belittle its devastating consequences.
Lives are important, rights are important but only that of those accused of terrorism. Victims of terrorism die in vain for they have no such rights. At least that is how mainstream India behaves.
We need to take a second look at this kneejerk trade union mentality. Camaraderie is vital for a society but there are times thismy- member-right-or-wrong attitude needs to change. Rallying around the flag should not be taken to absurd limits.
People holding public offices need to recognise that their responsibility is much wider than their immediate jobs. Social responsibility is larger than their responsibility to a particular institution.
The ongoing debate over terrorism exposes the narrow mindset of the political parties in the country. Moving the goalpost is their mantra. They would demand the banning of Hindutva outfits like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal but take a different stand when it comes to SIMI or vice versa. The Bharatiya Janata Party demands the dismissal of the government of Assam for its failure to curb communal violence but sings a different tune over Karnataka and Orissa.
Thus the demand of the BJP for the resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia, Professor Mushirul Hasan, over his stand on the police encounter was accompanied by a deafening silence of its stalwarts over the spat of anti-minority violence that were taking place under their very noses.
But partisanship is not the prerogative of only the politicians. Same is true for a large number of the intelligentsia. Professor Mushirul Hasan, for example, explicitly condemned the New Delhi blasts only after, and not before, the BJP demanded his resignation. Similarly, those who vociferously argued against the ‘demonisation’ of Jamia would refer only to ‘events of 19th September’ and not of 13th September that rocked the streets of New Delhi. This leads to the next question: guilt by association.
No institution, organisation or group should be held responsible for the activities of all its members. Even members of the same family are not accountable for the activities of other members of the family.
By no cannons of law, logic or moral standards, can one hold Jamia responsible for the alleged crimes of three of its members.
Guilt by association will take us back to the Stone Age.
At the same time one cannot ignore a similar situation faced by Saudi Arabia following the September 11 terror attacks on the US. Riyadh could not escape the harsh reality: fifteen out of 19 hijackers who carried the terrorist acts were Saudi nationals.
Many used the terror attack to launch a diatribe against the Gulf state, vilified Saudi society and even sought to demonise Islam.
The Saudi state could not be held responsible for the actions of its citizens yet it could not escape from the negative consequences of their actions.
Despite its initial defences, eventually the House of Saud saw the episode as an opportunity for a serious introspection. It did not settle for ostrich-like self-denial. Much of the ongoing internal debate in Saudi Arabia over Islam, reforms in the education system and even dialogue with other religions initiated by King Abdullah have to be traced directly to the negative repercussion of the September 11 attacks. Likewise, if the Jamia were to escape from the consequences of the alleged actions of his students, it needs serious introspection.This leads to the next question: human rights.Yes, all citizens have equal rights. Those charged with terrorism have rights to a fair trial and to be treated as innocent unless proven otherwise. They have to be provided adequate legal defence and an opportunity to clear their name.Without this the idea of India would disintegrate.
But in their eagerness to defend the rights of those accused of terrorism, mainstream political parties and intelligentsia alike, ignore some larger issues.
While everyone is innocent unless otherwise proven, those who are charged with terrorist violence could not be placed on par with ordinary citizens. They face serious charges of involvement in the slaughter of innocent civilians. Let us not forget that serial blasts in New Delhi, for example, killed 24 ordinary civilians who were going about their daily routine.
Those charged with terrorism have legal defence, political support and even media limelight. But what happened to those whose lives were taken without any rhyme or reason.
Didn’t they have any rights? Let us not vacillate or look for an escape clause. Terrorism is not an impulsive road rage. Nor is it unintended manslaughter.
Terrorism is a cold-blooded, pre-mediated murder of innocent civilians. Just like the rights of the accused, one should also recognise the rights of the victims.We also need to go beyond parochial calculations in speaking out for everyone’s right to live: rights of victims, even if they happened to members of other caste, colour, race, religion and even nationality. One can be a critic of the Congress party and its dynastic politics. But one can still recognise late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s right to life.
His life was cut short by a well-planned, well-organised and well-executed political murder carried out by the LTTE. His children were orphaned for no fault of theirs.
Sadly, unlike the slain Indian leader, Nalini Sriharan enjoyed legal defence and was tried and convicted under due process of law. On ‘humanitarian considerations’ her original death sentence was commuted tolife imprisonment.Now even this is not sufficient, and she and her supporters demand early release. Nalini’s conviction was neither an act of vengeance nor retribution but merely her harvest for her role in the coldblooded murder. Did anyone give a second chance to Rajiv Gandhi? Rather than worrying about rights of terrorists and the need to protect them against draconian laws, responsible people have to recognise a higher value.Victims of terrorism also have rights. They had no opportunity to hear the charges against them. They enjoyed no legal defence. They are not agents of the state and nor are they linked to the supposed ‘injustice’ meted out to those indulging in terrorism.
This is not politically correct. The Indian society should first and foremost recognise the rights of the victims of terrorism.
They also have the right to live, something that the terrorists do not recognise. Yes, even as an ordinary individual, Rajiv Gandhi also had the right to live!
About the author:
Professor P R Kumaraswamy teaches at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and his co-edited book South Asia: The Spectre of Terrorism is being published by Routledge
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Terrorism, political incorrectness
South Asia Monitor carries my brief commentary where I argue that victims of terrorism also have rights, something the ongoing debate within the country ignore. For full text please click here.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Islam and the Dhimmi
Pretoria-based CiPS carries my brief commentary on Islam and Dhimmi. For the full text click here.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Caught in Crossfire: Civilians in Conflicts in the Middle East
Ithaca has just published my edited volume on Caught in Crossfire: Civilians in Conflicts in the Middle East. It has contributions from Avraham Sela, Meron Medzini, Dalia Gavriely, Samir Khalaf, Stuti Bhatnagar, N. Janardhan, Amira Hass, Girijesh Pant and William Haddad.
For details click here
Monday, September 22, 2008
Iran undermines Israel's regional interests
Electonic Briefing Paper published by Pretoria-based Centre for International Political Studies carries my brief commentary on how Iran has been challenging Israel's regional interest. For the full text please click here.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Islam and Indian foreign policy
Islam and foreign policy
New Indian Express (Chennai), 19 September 2008
Is there an Islamic dimension in India’s foreign policy, especially towards the Middle East region? The obvious answer would be elusive. For many, such a question is preposterous and an affront on India’s secular fabric. To suggest that religion played a role in shaping India’s policy towards the citadel of Islam is not merely unacceptable but is nothing short of a rightwing conspiracy.
The foreign policy could be indifferent to Islamic influences if India fulfils three basic conditions; one, Muslims living outside the Middle East are not stirred by political developments in the Islamic heartland; two, India does not have a sizeable Muslim population and that India is not wedded to democracy and pluralism.
None of these conditions are true. For a Muslim, whether religious or secular, the Middle East is not like any other piece of territory. The city of Jerusalem is not Berlin which could be divided along ideological lines and unified due to political expediency.
Even non-practising Muslims do not deny, let alone reject, the religious sanctity of Al- Aqsa situated in the old city of Jerusalem.
Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, Indian Muslims have strong emotional bonds with the region and its holy places. These feelings transform into political voices especially during violent upheavals in the region. Actions by non-regional or non-Islamic powers generate far wider interest and anger than Islamic players.
For long rightwing parties such as the erstwhile Jana Sangh and later the Bharatiya Janata Party, have been critical of the Congress policy towards the Middle East.
The pro-Arab bias did not go down well with a section of the population. Critics of the Nehruvian policy at times depicted India as the ‘chaprasi’ of the Arabs or the ‘14th Arab state.’ They felt that the Congress government was pro-Muslim domestically and pro-Arab externally.
At the same time, it is impossible to overlook the anti-minority attitudes of the Hindu right. Driven by their anti-Muslim mindset they looked to Israel as an ally. The pro- Israel bias of the Hindu right is often attributed to its anti-Muslim agenda. Many scholars and political pundits have argued that the rightwing parties are pro-Israel because they are anti-Muslim.
To suggest the converse, however, is not politically correct. Not many would accept that the Congress party was pro-Arab because it was pro-Muslim. Suggestions that the Congress party viewed the Middle East through an Islamic prism are vilified as conspiracy, blasphemous and of late, part of the neo-con agenda.
That India’s policy is devoid of any religious inputs have many takers. Driven by the need to ‘secularise’ the foreign policy some even ‘secularise’ the foreign policy of the BJP. They argue that while in power even the Hindutva forces did not ‘communalise’ foreign policy. Their desire for closer ties with Israel, the argument goes, was accompanied by a significant improvement in relations with principal Islamic countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. For them, not just Nehru but even the BJP is secular when it comes to foreign policy!
Such revisionist portrayal may be self-satisfying but a closer examination of India’s stand on a host of issues pertaining to the Middle East would reveal an indelible mark of Islam. During the nationalist phase this was marked by the political rivalry and competition between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. It is often forgotten that the Congress party needed the substantial support of Indian Muslims. This was natural and inevitable. Otherwise, the Congress party could not call itself ‘Indian’ and ‘national,’ Hence since the days of the Khilafat struggle when Indian Muslims rallied around the Caliph then the Ottoman emperor, Indian foreign policy has had an Islamic flavour.
The opposition of the Indian nationalists towards the demand for a Jewish national home in Palestine was also partly, not wholly, influenced by the Islamic factor.
Though couched in nationalist terms and humanitarian considerations, religion did play a role in Indian leaders adopting a not so sympathetic view of Jewish political aspirations. On the eve of Partition, some like historian and future diplomat K M Panikkar felt that after Independence India would be less burdened by the Islamic factor and would be ‘free’ to adopt an explicitly pro-Israeli position.
This never materialised principally because the erstwhile Congress-Muslim League rivalry transformed into an Indo- Pakistani competition for the support of Arab and Islamic countries.With the Kashmir issue dominating its diplomatic battle, India feared that establishing normal ties with the Jewish state would be counterproductive.
The manner in which influential sections of the intelligentsia respond to admissions of Islamic inputs exposes their duality.In the summer of 2000 Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh told an audience in Jerusalem that the prolonged absence of diplomatic relations was due to domestic compulsions involving Muslims.
In September 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the media in New York that India’s Iran policy would also be guided by the Shia factor. This was parroted when National Security Adviser M K Narayanan justified the stopover visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in April this year. Of late even the communist leaders have joined the chorus. During the Lok Sabha vote in July over the nuclear deal, communist M K Pandhe warned Mulayam Singh Yadav that the Muslims would abandon the Samajvadi Party if he voted with the government.
However, the manner in which Indian intellectuals read and respond to these observations vastly differ. Both Jaswant Singh and Manmohan Singh discussed an explicitly domestic issue on foreign soil and unabashedly admitted Islamic inputs in key foreign policy issues.
The Indian intelligentsia vilified Jaswant Singh for communalising India’s Israel policy. Their response to a similar move by the Prime Minister was a deafening silence. If Jaswant Singh ‘communalised’ foreign policy, so did Manmohan Singh. If the Prime Minister merely highlighted an objective reality, so did the BJP leader.
This duality goes a step further. Having vehemently denied any Islamic influence in India’s foreign policy, the same section does not hesitate to recognise and condemn the ‘Jewish lobby’ upon the American policy.
They have openly and warmly embraced the arguments that the Jewish lobby has dominated American policy towards the Middle East and in the process undermined American interests. Similar suggestions of Islamic influence let alone domination upon India’s Middle East still remain taboo.
That three per cent Jews influence American foreign policy towards the Middle East, but 15 per cent Muslims of India do not. Therein lies their ‘progressive’ world view!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
