Will India Accept Modi?

In the mid-1980s when Indian television was bland, but less insulting to the intellect than it is now, and viewers were not spoilt for choice since the only channel broadcast was the state-run Doordarshan, many Indians came across this saying: “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.” It was like a statutory warning in a mini-series called Tamas (Darkness), created by one of the most accomplished art-house filmmakers of that time, Govind Nihalani.

It is an improvised version of the original, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it,” an aphorism coined by George Santayana, a Spanish-American philosopher and writer who died in 1952. Every episode of Tamas would start with this universalised expression, reminding us not to prolong the burden of history with more mistakes.

Tamas is the story of a poor lower-caste couple caught in the vortex of the partition of the Indian subcontinent and the dark days of 1947 – when the two new nations were badly singed by Muslim-Hindu-Sikh communal riots. Tamas is based on a book by Brisham Sahni, who also went through the throes of Partition, was uprooted from West Punjab and came to live in India as a refugee.

The story of Partition has been heard in every Indian and Pakistani home after 1947. My parents would tell us about the travails of my grandparents, who were uprooted from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The poignant stories of Saadat Hasan Manto that I read provided a similar historical flashback and were a touching reflection of that time. So when Tamas was telecast by Doordarshan in India, it provided food for thought to our generation, left a deep impact, moved us emotionally and warned us against the dangers of stirring the communal cauldron.

But, time and again, we in secular India failed to take those warnings seriously. In 1984, we saw the anti-Sikh riots that followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination and, soon after that, we were shocked by the Babri Masjid massacre in 1992 where ensuing riots across India and Pakistan killed over 2,000 people. And, in 2002, we wrote another shameful chapter in the annals of communal hatred – this time in the state of Gujarat, in the wake of the Godhra train burning. After 59 Hindu religious volunteers (known as Kar Sevaks) were burnt alive, riots ensued in Gujarat.

Unfortunately, Muslims bore the brunt of these horrific riots that were said to be patronised by some of the leaders of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological cousins. At the time, the BJP government in the western state was then, and also now with additional strength, led by chief minister Narendra Modi, who is said to have turned a blind eye to these riots that took a heavy toll on the Muslims of Gujarat.

Nine years later, Narendra Modi has become one of the most successful chief ministers of India. He has turned Gujarat into a showpiece of India’s development and progress, attracting investments like never before and curtailing discrimination against Muslims by pursuing a policy to allow them to develop and prosper – a fact that they acknowledge at every public forum.

Despite all this, he may still continue to pay the price for 2002, especially now, when an apparent Supreme Court reprieve to Modi in the riot cases has emboldened him to eye a prominent national role.

Modi is a strong contender as a prime ministerial candidate in the BJP ranks for the next general elections in 2014. Importantly, the buzz around his projection as the future prime minister of India receives strong endorsement from the USA, which had so far continued to deny him a visa, following the 2002 riots.

But now, a Congressional think-tank in the USA hails Modi as a role model for development in India. A report on India published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which works exclusively for the US Congress to provide policy and legal analysis to committees and members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate regardless of party affiliation, predicts that Modi’s bid to run for election may pitch him as a strong prime ministerial candidate in India’s 2014 election. The report also forecasts that BJP’s Narendra Modi may be pitted against Rahul Gandhi of the Indian National Congress in the next elections. Incidentally, the report is not as charitable to Gandhi as it is to Modi.

To redeem his political image Narendra Modi took a leaf out of the modus operandi of Gandhian social activist Anna Hazare and decided to sit for a token three-day fast to spread the message of communal harmony. On September 17, the day he turned 61, Modi began his fast at the Gujarat University exhibition hall, termed the ‘Sadbhavna Mission’ (Communal Harmony Mission), to appease religious communities in India. He broke his fast by drinking juice given to him by the clerics of three major religious faiths – Hindu, Muslim and Christian.

Party leaders like the BJP patriarch, L.K. Advani, as well as Arun Jaitley, showered praises on Modi. He also garnered support from those outside his own party, the chief ministers of India’s two key states: Tamil Nadu’s J Jayalalithaa, who spearheads the southern outfit the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and Punjab’s Parkash Singh Badal, who belongs to the Shiromani Akali Dal party. BJP’s bid for power is also dependent on the support of its coalition partners in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which includes parties largely supported by Indian Muslims.

But protest over Modi’s posturing came first from the Janata Dal (United) leader, Nitish Kumar, also a game-changer in current Indian politics having turned around Bihar, the country’s most lawless state. The party’s spokesperson Shivanand Tiwari berated his eligibility to lead a country of 1.21 billion people when he failed to perform his rajdharma (duty as a leader) in Gujarat.

Modi also faces strong resistance from several civil society groups in Gujarat. Actor-dancer and known anti-Modi social activist, Mallika Sarabhai, naming specific people and law firms, revealed that the chief minister tried to bribe her lawyer to gather information on the activists’ legal strategies in the riot cases that are filed against him in the Supreme Court.

With the odds stacked against him, the big question is: if the BJP returns to power, will Modi, a new brand in Indian politics, ever become the prime minister of India?

Suhel Seth, a social and political commentator, believes that after the Gujarat blemish, people have moved on, and so will Modi, elaborating that he is not the only politician in India accused of communalism – after all the Indian National Congress was the main architect of the anti-Sikh riots in 1984.

While a debate rages on about Modi’s acceptance as a national leader, the political reality of 2014 will have the last word. And that is still many, many, months away.
By By Sujoy Dhar. http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2011/10/will-india-accept-modi/

Advani, Modi and communalism

The man responsible for the Godhra tragedy was Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujrat, who exploited burning of the S-6 to retain his power which otherwise he was sure to lose. And the man mostly responsible for the ...

Discrimination against Muslims: A question that India ...

There was a short debate on the Gujarat government's action against two senior police officers who have redeemed the honour of the force to some extent by exposing Modi's complicity. One of them, Sanjiv Bhatt was first ...

Verdict on Godhra गोधरा पर फैसला

This is exactly the position maintained all along by Mr Modi and the BJP — and opposed by the Congress, the Left parties and many 'secular' and liberal-minded sections of society…. The BJP is naturally jubilant at ...

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

The Victors and the Vanquished

Warriors and conquerors who emerge as heroes have always fascinated historians and appear in their narratives as the main players of history. Why are they eulogised, admired and worshipped as heroes while scholars, scientists, and reformers are marginalised? Hero-worship is perhaps based on power play. Society projects those who have material resources, wield political power and authority and are projected as great and magnificent.

Historians write about the rulers’ achievements, poets compose panegyric poetry, scientists and artisans invent either weapons for them or produce tools and instruments to further add to their comfort and luxury. In exchange of material benefit they surrender their talents and energy to the absolute ruler. It is ironical how people who invaded and occupied other countries, imprisoned women and children, massacred populations, burnt down towns and cities, pillaged and plundered are called great and are admired for their bravery, war tactics and strategy and earn the status of national heroes.

Presently, even though the concept of power has changed and history no longer remains under control of absolute authority, historians continue to use the title of ‘great’ for conquerors and invaders. In the past, when conquerors would return after conquests laden with slaves and looted wealth, they would be lauded by their subjects and welcomed back as heroes. The Romans would line up, watch and applaud the procession of their victorious generals as they passed by. Nobody ever spared a thought for the fate of the vanquished or defeated. History remains partial to victors, not the vanquished.

These conquerors were in fact ambitious murderers and criminals who invaded foreign territories for the acquisition of more resources, authority and power. History of Alexander or Cyrus does not show any greatness of character except brutality, cruelty, arrogance, moral depravity and bankruptcy. But to Greeks and the western nations, Alexander is great because he defeated the eastern country of Persia and established the domination of the Hellenistic civilisation. Films have been produced and novels published to project his glorious image. He is regarded as a forerunner of the hegemony of the western civilisation and an icon for European historiography.

Similarly, the Persians resurrected Cyrus as their hero and Muhammad Reza Pahlevi organised a celebration in his memory to legitimise his rule. In Iraq, after the revival of the Mesopotamian civilisation, Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar became ideals for the Iraqi ruling classes. For Mongolians, Genghis Khan is a national hero. To the Turks, Muhammad Fatah, the conqueror of Constantinople and Suleiman the magnificent are among honoured rulers. The European nations glorify Charles Martel, Char Léman who founded the great Carolingian empire and Richard the Lionheart, who fought against Salahuddin Ayubi.

For the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghaznavi and Muhammed Ghauri became heroes for defeating Hindu rulers. Scholars and thinkers who contributed to knowledge and learning, like Al-Beruni and others, were sidelined despite the fact that the empire of Mahmud Ghaznavi disappeared in the oblivion of history but Al-Beruni’s work has survived and become a classic.

Solon, a poet, politician and lawmaker was considered to be one of the Seven Wise Men. He found democracy in Athens.

Socrates was declared the wisest man by the oracle of Delphi. Greece recognises its philosophers and reformers and ignores politicians except Pericles. Our concept of power is related to politics and not knowledge. Thinkers, philosophers and their work and inventions that changed the world are ignored.

To this day, politicians get more media coverage than scholars. It is time we changed our mindset and condemned conquerors of the past or present as criminals while scientists, thinkers and reformers who are changing the world in a positive way should be celebrated.

By by Mubarak Ali : http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/02/past-present-the-victors-and-the-vanquished.html

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

India makes inroads in to Gulf

While Pakistan is caught in the vortex of political anarchy and economic instability, India is making rapid strides in the Gulf as the most influential regional power. India’s emphasis is on economic relations with the countries of the region where two-thirds of its oil imports originate.

There has been a phenomenal increase in India’s relations with Saudi Arabia, in particular, which meets 36 percent of India’s energy needs. Its trade with Saudi trade has risen threefold over the last five years and its investment there doubled in the same period. India is Saudi Arabia’s fifth-largest trading partner, and the fifth-largest market for Saudi exports. There are huge opportunities of Indian-Saudi cooperation in the oil, power and IT sectors.

Before Dr Manmohan Singh became prime minister in May 2004, India’s relations with the region had largely suffered from neglect. Dr Singh designed a vigorous strategy to make up for this. In January 2005, less than a year after he came into power, Dr Singh articulated India’s policy approach towards the Gulf. “Besides energy imports, there is also ample potential for India to evolve broader long-term economic relations with the region. This could include expanding our contacts with the Gulf Cooperation Council and other regional bodies into an enduring institutional relationship.

We could also examine a more proactive strategy of seeking investments from West Asia (India’s preferred official term for the Middle East), given India’s emergence as an exciting and safe destination for foreign direct investment.” He visited Qatar and Oman in 2008.

Another initiative was his invitations to heads of states from the Gulf countries as chief guests on India’s Jan 26 Republic Day ceremonies. These included then-president Hashemi-Rafsanjani of Iran and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi king’s visit in 2006 visit was far from ceremonial, however. King Abdullah was accompanied by a 300-strong delegation, including 12 princes of the House of Saud. The emphasis was on closer economic partnership through investments and trade agreements. Energy was at the top of the agenda.

Dr Singh’s three-day return visit to Riyadh last year, from Feb 27 to March 1, was a landmark in bilateral relations, in terms of both protocol and substance. (The previous visit to Saudi Arabia by an Indian prime minister had been Indira Gandhi’s trip in 1982 to Jeddah, where the Saudi government was then based.) The Indian prime minister was welcomed at the airport by the entire Saudi cabinet led by Crown Prince Sultan. During the visit, as many as ten agreements and MOUs were signed. Saudi Arabia agreed to double the supply of crude oil to meet India’s growing requirements.

The process of expanding bilateral relations and intensifying cooperation between New Delhi and Riyadh is also manifested in terms of defence ties. Last week a delegation from the National Defence College visited Saudi Arabia.

The NDC is one of the Indian military institutions where Saudi officers have participated in training programmes. India has enhanced its military ties with other Gulf states as well. This includes exchange of visits by service chiefs and naval ships.

Another important instrument of India’s diplomacy in the region is the presence of Indian expatriates, including an estimated 1.8 million in Saudi Arabia. Their total number in Gulf states is estimated as six million. Their annual remittances to India are a major source of Indian foreign reserves, exceeding $50 billion.

For Pakistan Saudi Arabia is its closest friend and “natural ally.” But while fraternal feelings do reinforce mutual friendship on the political level too, mere sentiments cannot be a strong-enough basis for sustainable bilateral relations.

India’s aggressive diplomacy in the Gulf region can have serious affects on our national interests.


India and the Gulf, by Tayyab Siddiqui; The writer is a former ambassador. Email: m.tayyab.siddiqui@gmail. com , http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=72296&Cat=9

 Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

Discrimination against Muslims: A question that India needs to answer

I owe it to Barkha Dutt who brought out in a recent programme of hers how 21 Muslim youth from Hyderabad were wrongly implicated in the Mecca Masjid blast. That was not all. They were subjected to third degree torture, which was done to force them to admit to a crime which they had not committed. The government failed to find any evidence against them and said sheepishly that they were arrested on wrong grounds.

This only confirms how the police in India picks up young Muslims whenever there is a blast. Most in the majority community are so biased that they accept the official version readily. The truth is out only when the authorities failed to prove the charges. In this case, they remained in jail for five years. In fact, the credit goes to the court which acquitted them.

The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has recommended a compensation of Rs 300,000 each. The victims have justifiably expressed cynicism over the NCM’s decision. How can money erase the stigma which they will carry for the rest of their lives? The Muslim youth have gone on record to say: every time there is a festival or trouble in the city, the police come looking for us. We are falsely implicated in the first place and even after acquittal we carry the stone of anti-national around our necks. Dr Junaid, who runs a clinic at Hafizbanagar in the old city of Hyderabad regrets that the “payment of a few lakhs cannot make up for the sufferings we underwent because of our religion.”

Naturally, Muslims wonder whether secularism means anything when it comes to punishing Hindus. What happens to equality guaranteed by the constitution of India?

This is the question which India has to answer. Take the case of Gujarat. Even 10 years after the killings, there is no real punishment. How does the Muslim community put faith in the polity? Thetamasha that chief minister Narendra Modi puts up every now and then does not impress anyone about the sudden rekindling of faith in communal harmony. He is not even sorry.

When this incident came to light, parliament was in session. No member mentioned it either in the Lok Sabha or in the Rajya Sabha. There was a short debate on the Gujarat government’s action against two senior police officers who have redeemed the honour of the force to some extent by exposing Modi’s complicity. One of them, Sanjiv Bhatt was first suspended and now prosecuted for having filed public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court against Modi’s involvement in the state riots. Bhatt’s conscience stirred him after some years and he submitted an affidavit to say what he had seen. The other officer, Rahul Sharma, DIG, was given notice for passing on telephone call records of certain BJP leaders to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court.

Strange, the SIT has been dissolved without the Indian public knowing the contents of its report. The Supreme Court has also sent the case back to the trial court for hearing. The judgment is faulty but the worst part is that the court has not commented on what the two officers disclosed. At least their submissions should have been noted because they dared the state government.

No doubt, small mercies, but Home Minister P Chidambaram has at least said that the centre had the option of protecting the officers who belonged to the all India Police Service under the supervision of the central government. As expected, the BJP jumped at Chidambaram’s throat. How can a step to protect the officers be taken as interference in the state affairs? Understandably, the BJP is trying to save Modi. But the party should realise that he would be punished, however late.

By Kuldip Nayar, Published in The Express Tribune:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/267404/a-question-that-india-needs-to-answer/

More: 

An image makeover for Narendra Modi, The Muslim Killer: 

Advani, Modi and communalism

The Police in Modi government arbitrarily picked up people and put them under POTA. I cannot forget the cries of a woman in public hearing in Hyderabad whose three sons were arrested in the so-called Godhra conspiracy case and who were ...

Verdict on Godhra

This is exactly the position maintained all along by Mr Modi and the BJP — and opposed by the Congress, the Left parties and many 'secular' and liberal-minded sections of society…. The BJP is naturally jubilant at Tuesday's verdict… ...

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

Karazi, New Strategy

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has said his government will end peace talks with the Taliban, adding that efforts should focus instead on neighbouring Pakistan.

Karzai's comments came on the same day that Afghanistan's intelligence service claimed to have evidence that the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former Afghan president and the government's peace negotiator, was planned by the Taliban council in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta.
Where do the two neighbours stand now? Is this a conceptual change to the whole exercise of peace talks, or an admission that Pakistan has the upper hand? And where does this put the battle for peace in Afghanistan?
Inside Story is joined by Ali Sarwar Naqvi, a former Pakistani diplomat; Omar Samad, the former spokesman of the Afghan foreign ministry and a former Afghan ambassador; and Jalal Rabbani, a consultant on Afghan affairs.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/10/2011103111153616572.html

Also watch - Jirga: http://www.zemtv.com/2011/09/15/jirga-afghanistan-special-15th-september-2011/

Pakistan squeezed by Afghan-India pact

Analysts say Kabul-Delhi partnership may force Pakistan into reappraising its approach to militancy. PHOTO: AFP/FILE ISLAMABAD: The new Afghan-Indian security pact could inflame Pakistan's proxy war against India and threatens Islamabad's ...

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

America’s Lost Decade!

While Pakistan does not seek an all out confrontation with the United States, it is also not starved of the options to continue enduring a transactional relationship. Beside commonly stated reasons for American frustration, one major cause is Pakistan's recent effort to look for alternative alignments within Asia.
Recent diatribe by the American leadership was indeed a close call, hopefully the worst is behind us; however next American relapse, with spiralling effect, may not be far away. Incriminations hurled on Pakistan are rather serious. Waging of a proxy war is too sombre a blame to die down. America has indeed mouse trapped itself; these accusations would keep coming back to haunt it with snowballing effect. America will neither be able to swallow nor spit it. Descent on escalatory ladder would be much tougher than the climb.
Process of strategic divergence that started with the Raymond Davis episode has reached its peak. Public hostility towards the United States has reached new heights, exposing inherent strategic incompatibility of Pak-US relations. A decade after 9/11, Pakistan is being asked the same question “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. Going by this fixation, America has indeed lost a decade in fruitless pursuits.
This time around American calculus is grossly out.  Much has changed since 9/11. Thanks to American Machiavellian approach towards Pakistan, gap between the public perception about America and leadership's policy evaluation about America is at its minimum. Expectations of buckling like a decade ago are misplaced. Given the spike of public antagonism, no political leader could afford to digress from collective national sentiment, at least publicly. Statements by the political leaders indicated that a national level consensus had evolved much before the convening of APC.
 Amid the prevailing confusion of jumping the fray by other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, India, visit by the Centcom chief was a mysterious one. In all probability he came with an ultimatum which triggered an extraordinary meeting of corps commanders which voted down any military operation in North Waziristan; thus limiting the turf for the APC.
 APC has formalised the national consensus; and sent across a strong message. Now, at national level, there is a need for the political leadership to fully assume the charge of Pakistan’s America policy and demonstrate that it could walk the APC talk. First 'to do' is to lower the tempers at political level and convert this crisis into opportunity.
Pakistan needs to evaluate its options, which are numerous; and review the courses of action available to America, that are numbered. Nevertheless, none of the sides can afford a direct confrontation without enormous risks. There are compatible capabilities on both sides, Americans are aware that in any military confrontation, Pakistan has no option but to retaliate irrespective of the losses. Americans are well aware of the limitations of employment of raw military power and crude economic sanctions.
America may not conduct conventional operations on Pakistani soil. It may encourage the cross border incursions by Afghanistan based militants to overstretch Pakistani forces. It is likely to conduct periodic special operations akin to Abbotabad attack to embarrass Pakistan’s military leadership, create an aura of insecurity amongst the general public and induce a feeling of helplessness amongst the political leadership.
In addition, the US would focus on non-operational military punishment, by severing military aid and supplies. However, this will go back in circles to haunt America as it will curtail the combat prowess of Pakistani military to carry out operations in tribal areas. That is why Admiral Mullen told the US lawmakers that a “flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement”.
America understands that the relationship with Pakistan cannot be broken because of the constraints entrapping the US. A damage control effort has already been initiated by relevant American functionaries. It will be interesting to see, how America balances its compulsions and limitations.
Pakistan cannot afford escalation, likewise the US also cannot up the ante unrestricted without the risk of reaching a point of diminishing returns. By scuttling the semblance of a strategic partnership, the US has already lost most of the leverage it had over Pakistan. Though Pakistan wont opt for escalation, it is prone to respond, in kind, to the US actions.
The US could stop bilateral aid to Pakistan. But that is unlikely to hurt Pakistan too much. US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support. If $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country. The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount. As regards significance of the aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of its Gross National Income. Per capita aid from all sources in 2009 was $14 only! Severing of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 percent impact on Pakistan’s GDP growth. These facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld.
But the real concern for Pakistan’s solvency would be loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding, they may deny the requests until a nod by the White House.
A candid estimate puts losses to Pakistan’s economy due to its participation in war on terror around US$ 70 billion. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 percent of the American treasure spent on war on terror over the same period. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is “Coalition Support Funds.” However, a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund, rejecting 44 percent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 percent in 2005.
Beyond that lie export quotas, both bilateral and others: if the US declares Pakistan a state sponsoring ‘terrorism’ that would unleash a sanctions regime which will severely impact Pakistan. However, in view of the strong support by China, America will not be able to accomplish this. In case of an eventuality, Pakistan could respond by imposing corresponding transit charges of logistics flowing through land routes and slam a ban on transit of its military aircraft through Pakistani air space. This would literally choke the foreign troops operating in Afghanistan.
Pakistan understands that it is not in its interest to allow terrorists safe havens or allow such elements to launch attacks on other countries from inside Pakistan. A number of meaningful administrative and military related suggestions have been made by Pakistan to control the trans-border movements; to which American have shown a cold shoulder.
Pakistan needs to project itself as an agent of peace in Afghanistan. It is uniquely placed to facilitate a process of cohabitation amongst various factions of Afghan resistance.  America needs to understand that it cannot continue to slaughter the resistance forces while paying lip service to the need to reconciliation.
It is now amply clear that America wants to run away from Afghanistan at a faster pace than its advent. It does not serve long term American interests to leave behind a stable Afghanistan, so it is doing all gimmicks to spoil the pudding. Pakistan needs to take appropriate measures to minimise the impact.

America’s Lost Decade!  by Khalid Iqbal in World News

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/10/americas-lost-decade/#

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

Palestine’s Moment of Truth

فلسطين لحظة الحقيقة

An year ago, President Barack Obama used the opening session of the UN General Assembly to express his hope that “when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the UN — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine”. He returned to the same podium on September 21 to do the opposite i.e. to voice uncompromising opposition to Mahmoud Abbas’s decision, succinctly set out in an article published by the New York Times on May 16, 2011 that he would come to UN to “request international recognition of the state of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.” Palestinians, Obama now said, must make peace with Israel before gaining statehood themselves; the international community should continue to push Israelis and Palestinians toward talks on the four intractable ‘final status’ issues that have vexed peace negotiations since 1979: the borders of a Palestinian state, security for Israel, the status of Palestinian refugees who left or were forced to leave their homes in Israel, and the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides claim for their capital. In short, Abbas should first seek negotiations from the same position of utter helplessness as before.
Behind this polarisation of postures lie two remarkable transformations. Once elected, American presidents accommodate to the realities of power which are heavily linked to the mighty Jewish electoral and financial machine. Obama has been no different. In fact, he has deployed worldwide diplomacy to stop Abbas from pursuing the request for statehood, including a categorical threat to veto it in the Security Council. In bowing to this machine, he is willing to take the risk of losing Arab goodwill when the United States badly needs it to be on the right side of the Arab Spring.
The other transformation is that of Mahmoud Abbas. No other Palestinian leader has kept his faith in a peaceful negotiated settlement in the face of impossible odds. Most objective observers of the slowly dying 20-year-old Oslo process concluded years ago that Israel would never allow a viable Palestinian state even in what Abbas describes, with a touch of pathos, as “the remaining 22 per cent of our historic homeland”. The Oslo process only facilitated Jewish colonisation of occupied lands to a point where a Palestinian state became a geographical absurdity. Obama began by opposing more settlements but had by 2009 muted this idealism.
Abbas has come to the UN, evidently because he has run out of options. He does not even have a Palestinian consensus behind him. Hamas has not obstructed the UN initiative but without any optimism. More Palestinians than ever before despair of a two-state solution and are ready to wage a protracted, if romantic, struggle for a single state where Arab demographic advantage would eventually tame Zionist militarism. Abbas has already faced considerable internal criticism that his request for statehood is tantamount to reneging on the refugees’ right of return.
He knows that full membership is impossible even if nine members of the Security Council defy intense pressure and vote for it; Washington would simply veto it. Obama can limit the damage of an instant veto for US by delaying the vote through procedural stratagems that Abbas may not or cannot circumvent. Defeated in the Security Council, Abbas could still win a majority in the General Assembly to achieve the scaled-down objective of a ‘non-member observer state’ that would upgrade Palestine from being an observer “entity”; it would open more doors including the one that Israel and the United States fear most, namely, the International Court of Justice. Given the western pressure, the UN General Assembly cannot confer full membership on Palestine by invoking the procedure “uniting for peace”.
The consensus of independent opinion in the West is that the US should follow up the UN episode with a vigorous initiative to bring about a final status settlement in a year or so. Without it, Abbas’s barely patched-up tent would be buffeted by contrary winds and Obama would face a fierce wave of anti-Americanism in the Arab-Islamic world. It is a moment of truth for all the parties.

President Mahmoud Abbas’s address to the UN General Assembly was by global consensus, his finest hour. A leader who never possessed the charisma and verve of Yasser Arafat and had often been derided as an eternal appeaser withstood almost intolerable American pressure and made a bold attempt to break the stranglehold of the moribund Oslo process. He would seek negotiations in future as the head of a state, not a vague entity, and that only when the international community shows willingness to stop the colonisation of Palestine. Regrettably, President Barack Obama’s speech at the same forum had portrayed Israel as the aggrieved party. Abbas retaliated, by breaking a major western taboo: he reminded the world that Israel was racist and practised apartheid.

Israel has perpetuated occupation of Arab lands for 45 years, to construct ever expanding Jewish settlements in it. In April 2004, President Bush wrote his infamous letter to Sharon, supporting Israeli retention of these “settlement blocs” and opposing the Palestinian right of return. Henceforth, any bilateral negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel were foredoomed to failure. Obama’s retreat from a position diametrically different from that of Bush, forced even Mahmud Abbas to build freezing of settlement construction into a precondition for talks and also renew the quest for statehood. His current defiance of the West is the last effort to prevent the final burial of a two-state solution by Israel through appropriations that shrink the Arab land by the week.
Abbas faces formidable obstacles: he cannot force the pace at the UN Security Council because he lacks the nine votes required by his request, even though its adoption would trigger an American veto. It is not clear when he would go to the General Assembly where a resolution granting non-member statehood will receive strong support. Armed with it, Mahmoud Abbas can forestall, for some time, another intifada that may ignite a regional conflagration. What has changed for him is that he cannot return to a soft posture on colonisation, including that of East Jerusalem. The stakes are so heavy high, that Abbas may eventually conclude that the momentum of colonisation can be broken only by taking the risks of a mass uprising.
In pure military terms, the balance of power is in Israel’s favour. But this advantage is being offset by far- reaching changes in the strategic landscape. The new Egyptian regime will reflect a new modus vivendi between the army and resurgent political groups ranging from nationalists to Muslim brotherhood. It will not provide space to Israel that Hosni Mubarak did for three decades. Turkey’s disenchantment with Israel goes beyond the murderous Israeli assault on the peace flotilla; it is also becoming a requisite of its new political and economic role. As Prince Turki al-Faisal warned in a forthright article in the New York Times, President Obama’s abandonment of his earlier position on the Arab-Israel issue might force Saudi Arabia to review ties with Maliki’s government in Iraq, a development that would probably drive Maliki closer to Iran. Hezbollah acquitted itself better than Arab armies during Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon. The crisis in Syria may affect its capability but would not neutralise it. Iran’s progress in missile development is another factor to reckon with. America is finding it increasingly difficult to find a satisfactory exit strategy in Afghanistan. The current strains between Washington and Islamabad weaken pro-western forces in the region. India is an ally of the United States but its domestic dynamics and external ambitions require it to maintain the semblance of independence. It was not for nothing that at the same UN forum, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, visibly distanced India from US-led military interventions.
Israel is getting progressively isolated. Washington’s blind support for it diminishes American influence in this indispensible region. There are hawks in Israel and the United States who believe that these two allies can hit their way out of this unfavourable situation with their preponderant military power. Regional realities, however, militate against Washington joining a military adventure by Tel Aviv. Israel’s security is not enhanced by its opposition to Palestinian statehood. The resumed journey to a Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders can be delayed but not denied.

By Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Published in The Express Tribune, October 3rd, 2011.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/265298/palestines-moment-of-truth--ii/

Read more >>> Implications of the Palestinian U.N. drive

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

Modern Barbarism

But what sets the modern barbarians apart is their simple minded intention to essentially dismantle government with nothing but a vague and vengeful minimalism in mind as a replacement. [An Analysis by Lawrence Davidson]. Has anyone noticed that the political air is wafting rancid lately? That is the smell of modern barbarism. Modern barbarism is a malodorous umbrella concept. Underneath the umbrella are lots of fetid phobias, isms and behaviors: Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, semi-fascism, scapegoating, stereotyping, bullying, libeling and a growing, aggressive intolerance of everything and everyone who is not to the liking of the modern barbarian. Here are some recent instances of this phenomenon. Read full article >>> Modern Barbarism :http://wp.me/p1dL2Q-eO

http://aftabkhan.blog.com

The 'changing' face of al-Qaeda

Ayman al-Zawahiri is described as 'more lethal' than Osama bin Laden and has applied his discipline and notable intellect to the cause of jihad since the age of 16 [Reuters]
According to terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, Ayman al-Zawahiri is even more lethal than Osama bin Laden. 'Goal-orientated, systematic, secretive and forward thinking', Zawahiri's accession as al-Qaeda's leader marks the return of al-Qaeda with a vengeance.

Certainly, Zawahiri has applied his discipline and notable intellect to the cause of jihad since he was 16 years old. A prolific propagandist, he has penned some of the most influential extremist tracts, including important theological justifications for suicide bombing.

His charisma, however, is more open to doubt - as are his battlefield credentials. The veteran jihadi Abdullah Anas argues that Zawahiri has no credibility. During the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Zawahiri 'was just sitting in Peshawar, criticising'.

As experts speculate about the future of al-Qaeda under Zawahiri's stewardship, it is worth considering the nature of the beast bin Laden has bequeathed to his deputy. Indeed, Zawahiri takes the reins of al-Qaeda at precisely the juncture during which al-Qaeda may be evolving into a post-leadership phase.

In February 1998, the World Islamic Front against Jews and Crusaders issued al-Qaeda's seminal fatwa. It declared that 'the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim'. In so doing, the architects of global jihad have re-invented one of the most important Islamic legal ideas regarding authority.

Historically, the idea behind jihad as an individual duty was for Muslim rulers in neighbouring provinces to come to the aid of their co-religionists in other parts of the empire. The assumption was always that all jihads, including defensive ones, would be led by established Muslim leaders within clearly defined communities.  In a move that subverted established patterns of authority, the World Islamic Front reached out to Muslims as individuals rather than as members of politically organised communities.

In 1998, what this amounted to was a call by bin Laden for Muslim individuals to come aboard and, quite literally, join them in the caravan of jihad. Going over the heads of the region's rulers and clerics, who had 'sold out the umma for a handful of coins', bin Laden democratised Islamic authority. A layman with no religious training, he formally declared a jihad of self-defence, and called upon his fellow Muslims to individually come forward for training and combat.

More than a decade later - including cycles of counterproductive bloodshed - that call has altered subtly, but significantly. The democratisation of authority has entered a second stage. A new ideological and strategic current is championing lone-wolf attacks by Muslim individuals living in the west, without prior contact with al-Qaeda networks or consultation with any of its radical jurists.

Lately, al-Qaeda's strategists view the Muslim population in the west as their ace in the hole. According to al-Qaeda military strategist Abu Musab al-Suri, the group seeks to increasingly exploit the potential of self-radicalised Muslims who are 'able to be present in the west in a natural way'. These individuals provide al-Qaeda with a broader base from which to project power from. As Adam Gadahn argued in his most recent video appearance, Muslims in the west are perfectly placed to play an important and decisive role, particularly as America is awash with firearms which can be easily obtainable at gun shows without identification.

Furthermore, individual operations are much harder to detect and intercept because, as al-Qaeda's 'Inspire' Magazine points out, nobody else in the world needs to know what these lone operatives are thinking and planning. The global jihad becomes at once universal and highly particularised.

Most importantly, from a strategic perspective, such operations shift al-Qaeda's violence out of the Islamic world and back into the western heartland. In short, their targets are necessarily western. This second wave of democratisation is designed, in many ways, to counter the problems created by the first wave: bin Laden's brand was gravely damaged by the horrific massacres of Muslim civilians perpetrated by loosely affiliated groups. From Afghanistan to Algeria, the bloodbaths which took place under al-Qaeda's banner targeted the very Muslims al-Qaeda was supposed to be protecting.    

The aim is to get back to basics and start hitting western targets again. A few successful examples are routinely put forward as models for jihad al-fard (individual jihad): Taimour al-Abdeli, who detonated a car bomb and his own suicide bomb in Stockholm; Major Nidal Hassan, the US military psychiatrist who went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood army base in Texas; and Roshonara Choudhry who, seconds after smiling at her local MP, British politician Stephen Timms, plunged a knife into his stomach in May 2010. The latter is most significant because it is believed Choudhry had no contact with any radical recruiters or cells, and plotted her attack entirely alone.

The emergence of the strain of thought privileging terrorism by individuals coincides with the rise of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), whose ideologists are vigorously re-imagining the landscapes of jihad.

Inspire magazine is AQAP's publication, and its glossy pages increasingly advocate 'individual terrorism'. In the latest edition's letters section, an anonymous Muslim living in the west asks about the best way to reach the jihad frontiers. Stay where you are, he is advised, and focus on planning an operation in the west instead, like attacking an army recruitment centre or a nightclub.

A few pages later, AQAP's military commander, Abu Hureirah, calls for an 'operation in their midst' in response to every drone attack in Waziristan or act of aggression against the Palestinians. It is Abu Hureirah's hope that the magazine will soon offer a military section dedicated to explaining what the Muslim should do on the western front. This would presumably complement the recurring 'Open Source Jihad' section, which advises on how to make a bomb in your mum's kitchen (Issue I) and how to outfit a pickup truck with blades so that it can be used to mow down Allah's enemies (Issue II).

Also associated with AQAP is the charismatic preacher Anwar al-Awlaki,whose fluent English, soft intonation and sharp wit are directed conscientiously at Muslims living in the west [killed recently]. A trained cleric, his religious addresses are suffused cleverly with a very articulate brand of anti-imperial politics. Awlaki was in email contact with Nidal Hassan and his sermons were found on Roshonara Choudhry's computer.  

Awlaki's father defends him against terrorism charges by observing that, unlike Osama bin Laden, his son is not a fighter but merely a preacher. However, therein lays Awlaki's potency as al-Qaeda's non-conventional combat doctrine enters a new phase. In the era of individual terrorism, the power to inspire is the most significant force multiplier.

According to a US counterterrorism official quoted by the ProPublica website, Nasser al-Wuhayshi sent a message to Osama bin Laden before his death proposing that Awlaki replace him as leader of AQAP. Volunteering to step aside, Wuhayshi argued that because of Awlaki's popularity in the west, his appointment would be a PR coup and an important spur to recruitment. Bin Laden rejected the proposal, stating that he preferred to leave things the way they were.

It comes as no surprise, then, that Awlaki didn't make the cut as bin Laden's replacement. Still, Awlaki may prove more influential than Zawahiri if the strategy of individual terrorism takes root - perhaps even posing a challenge to al-Qaeda's own established authority structures. With a rise in lone wolf attacks, it will be Awlaki's face which appears in al-Qaeda's new moon.

Dr Alia Brahimi is a Research Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She is also a Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford.

Her work examines the moral justifications given for warfare, as well as jihadi ideology and strategy. Her latest book is Jihad and Just War in the War on Terror.

You can follow her on Twitter: @aliabrahimi

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117316726986909.html

http://aftabkhan.blog.com

War and Shopping - An Extremism that never Speaks its Name

Looking for a bookshop that was no longer there, I walked instead into a labyrinth designed as a trap. Leaving became an allusion, rather like Alice once she had stepped through the Looking Glass. Walls of glass curved into concentric circles as one "store" merged into another: Armani Exchange with Dinki Di Pies. Exits led to gauntlets of more "offers" and "exciting options". Seeking a guide, I bought a lousy pair of sunglasses: anything to get out. It was a vision of hell. It was a Westfield mega mall.

This happened in Sydney - where the Westfield empire began - in a "mall" not half as mega as the one that opened in Stratford, east London on 13 September. "Everything" is here, reported the architectural critic Jonathan Glancey: from Apple to Primark, McDonalds's to KFC and Krispy Kreme. There is a cinema with 17 screens and "luxurious VIP seats", and a mega "luxury" bowling alley. Tracey Emin and Mary Portas lead the Westfield "cultural team". The biggest casino in the land will overlook a "24-hour lifestyle street" called The Arcade. This will be the only way into the 2012 Olympic Games for 10m people attending the athletics. The simple, grotesque message of "buy me, buy me" will be London's welcome to the world.

"If you've seen the Disney film Wall-E," wrote Glancey in 2008, "you'll certainly recognise Westfield and malls like it. In the film, humans who long ago abandoned the Earth they messed up through greed, live a supremely sedentary life shopping and eating. They are very tubby and have lost the use of their legs. Is this how we'll end up? Or will we plunge into the depths of some mammoth recession... with nothing and nowhere to spend?" In the less apocalyptic short term, Westfield is "a step towards our collective desire to undermine the life and culture of the traditional city, along with its architecture, and to shop and shop some more."

The original development plan for Stratford City evoked Barcelona: a grid of defined streets of shops and places to live.  Modern, civilised. Then the Olympics loomed and so did Westfield, a major corporate sponsor. The mega mall, the biggest in Europe, is built in the midst of grey tower blocks not far from where the recent riots occurred, its "designer" products, made mostly with cheap, regimented labour, beckon the indebted. That it stands on a site where London workers made trains - thousands of locomotives, carriages and goods wagons -in what was once called manufacturing is of melancholy interest. The mega mall's jobs produce nothing and are mostly low-paid. It is an emblem of extreme times.

The co-founder of Westfield is Frank Lowy, an Australian-Israeli billionaire who is to shopping what Rupert Murdoch is to media. Westfield owns or has an interest in more than 120 malls worldwide. The Sydney Tower, the city's most visible structure, is emblazoned "Westfield". Lowy, a former Israeli commando, gives millions to Israel, and in 2003 set up the "independent" Lowy Institute for International Affairs which promotes Israel and US foreign policy.

On the day after the Stratford mega mall opened, Unicef researchers reported that British children were caught in a "materialistic trap" in which they were bought off with "branded goods". Low-income parents felt "tremendous pressure from society" to buy "branded clothes, trainers, technology" for their children. TV advertising and other seductions of the "consumer culture", together with low pay and long working hours, were responsible. Children told the researchers they preferred to spend time with their families and to have "plenty to do outdoors", but this was often no longer possible. As "welfare" has become a dirty word, basic facilities for the young such as youth clubs are being eliminated by local authorities.

Four years ago, Unicef published a league table of children's wellbeing across 21 industrialised nations. The UK was bottom. A fifth of British children live in poverty: a figure forecast to rise in the Olympic year. The priority of Britain's political class, regardless of party, is the repayment by ordinary people of "the deficit", a specious and cynical term for the epic handouts to crooked banks, and the simultaneous waging of squalid colonial wars for the theft of other countries' resources. This is extremism that never speaks its name.

It is an extremism that has emasculated the social democracies that were Europe's redemption following the second world war. The forced impoverishment of Greece with exorbitant returns demanded by German and French central bankers is likely to produce another fascist military coup. The forced impoverishment of millions of Britons by the ancien regime of David Cameron, with its growing police state and compliant bourgeoisie, especially in the media, will produce more riots: nothing is surer. One can count upon the extremism of apartheid in any form to trigger such a result, no matter its consumerist gloss hermetically sealed in a mega mall. The prospect is democracy for the rich and totalitarianism not only for the poor; and "liberal intervention", as the Guardian calls it approvingly, for those useful foreign parts too weak to resist our "precision" Brimstone missiles.

I went to Parliament Square the other day. The graphic display of state crimes mounted by peace and justice campaigner Brian Haw had been finally removed by the Metropolitan Police, knowing that Brian could no longer stand up to them, bodily and in the courts, as he did for a decade. Brian died in June. Visiting him one freezing Christmas, I was moved by the way he persuaded so many passers-by and the power of his courage. We now need millions like him. Urgently.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/war-and-shopping-an-extremism-that-never-speaks-its-name

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

President Obama: Judge, Jury and Executioner for Anwar al-Awlaki

The title may offend some, but here at Loonwatch we do not believe in any sacred cows. By now we have all heard reports about the killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The fact that he was on a “hit list” that included other US citizens was reported back in January:

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.

After several unsuccessful attempts by the US government Anwar al-Awlaki is finally dead. The indefatigable Glenn Greenwald spells out the tendentious nature of the hunt for Awlaki and all the resultant shadiness:

No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him).  Despite substantial doubtamong Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

Awlaki once was a marginal figure, on the run in the mountains of Yemen, his operational role in AlQaeda was nill, now he has been transformed into a martyr with a little help from our brutal friend, the President of Yemen:

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off frommurdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

The implications for our civil liberties and checks and balances on the power of the Executive are clear:

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.  Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture.  It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process).  It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

Greenwald’s evaluation is dark because of the uncomfortable truth he relates: we are cheering the destruction of the very liberties that safeguard us from the abuses of power.

This is all being done under the guise of defending our “freedom” and “security.” In reality, as terror expert Professor Charles Kurzman points out, very few Muslims were interested in Awlaki’s message:

Given that Awlaki’s messages is sitting on the internet, easily accessible to millions of English speaking Muslims, it’s very interesting how few have taken him up on his demand that Muslims join the revolutionary movement.

It is time that US citizens stand up for their rights and say we will not allow the government to take the life of our citizens without due process. We are not going to buy the line that our civil liberties and freedoms must be bargained in the interest of “security,” especially from a threat that is overblown in the first place.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/09/30/president-obama-judge-jury-and-executioner-for-anwar-al-awlaki/

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law. 

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

[BY Ron Paul] More: http://goo.gl/vptUR

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com