Report on Kaligram Muharrum riot, October 2016

The report has been prepared using eye-witness accounts by social worker and technologist Bhaswar Goswami, who hails from Kaligram village and is currently working in Bengaluru.

Durga Puja is a time for celebration, Aradhana of ‘Naari Sakti’ and a way to worship mata for the emancipation of the individuals and the upliftment of the society in Bengal. It is a time when every household buys new cloths, gifts them to family and friends and celebrate the occasion with full merriment everywhere in rural and urban Bengal. But, the same is not true for the villagers of Kaligram, which is about 75 kilometers from the town of Malda in Bengal (location on the map).

This culturally rich and educated village has not known a peaceful Durga puja for at least three decades. Every year, Durga puja is accompanied by the horrors of Muslim oppression and aggression committed in the name of Muharrum celebration. This is especially true when both the festivals fall on the same day or close to each other. Each time, the Muslim procession used to cross this Hindu village, it wreaked havoc in the otherwise peaceful village. In 2015, the village saw gruesome Muslim violence [Read here]. This year the same has repeated again.

Even before the Puja started, as the villagers of Kaligram prepared with joy and devotion for the celebration, there was a fear among the Hindu households about the possibility of Muslim disruption and the flare up of communal tension, since Muharrum coincided with Durga Puja. Local administration had issued multiple discriminatory orders like ‘Hindus cannot play music while Muharrum is underway’, ‘immersion of Durga Idols cannot be done as per practice on certain days’, etc. These orders, though discriminatory were silently accepted by the Hindu villagers in order to maintain communal harmony. Yet, despite this compromise by the local Hindu community, Muslim mob attacked the village on the evening of October 14 and inflicted huge damage to Hindu lives and property.

Here is a chronological account of the incidence:

13th October, night around 9 PM: Hindus were busy taking their Durga Idol immersion procession through the village, as per Police guidance. Same night Muslims were celebrating what they call ‘Basi karbala’, a specific type of violent celebration for Muharrum practiced in Bengal.

13th October, night around 10 PM: While immersion procession was passing through the village as per prior schedule, Hindus got to know that local police led by IC Chanchal PS, had diverted ‘Basi karbala’ procession with thousands of Muslims brandishing swords, lathis and other sharp weapons. This was a clear deviation from the 24 years old court settlement that mandated no ‘Basi karbala’ procession to be allowed to pass through the village for ensuring safety and security of the Hindu life.

13th October, night around 11 PM: Hindus protested to the police and in return got flak from the IC Police. Moreover, Hindu women were insulted by the police administration.

14th October, early morning around 12 AM: Fearing the dire consequences of ‘Basi karbala’ procession passing through the village, Hindus decided to block the road by keeping Durga Idol and not to carry on with the immersion. This made the Muslims to change their mind and divert the ‘Basi karbala’ procession through outer roads.

14th October, early morning, around 4 AM: Malda police administration reached Kaligram with armed police and forced the villagers to take the Durga Idol for immersion. Villagers agreed.

14th October, early morning, around 5 AM: While most of the villagers were busy doing the immersion of their mata with heavy heart, police asked 8 Hindu youth leaders (Ratan Das, Siddharta Nandi, Suman Guha, Manish Sarkar, Gopesh Sarkar, Ajit Pramanik, Ramkrishna Das, and Advocate Himadri Das) to accompany them to police station Chanchal in order to have some discussion. After taking them to the police station, all were arrested, though they had committed no wrongs.

14th October, morning, around 7 AM: News about the arrest of the either people spread through the Village men and women decided to do ‘gherao’ of Chanchal police station in protest of the arrest.

14th October, evening, around 5 PM: Finally, giving in to the demands of the villagers SDPO apologized to the people and released the arrested eight Hindu youth leaders without any condition.

14th October, night, around 10 PM: Muslim mob gathered around the village with country made bombs, pistols, pipe guns, swords, lathis and other ammunitions, and started to loot and burn the houses. Rapid Action Force (RAF), which was deployed at the place came under attack as well. Two Police personnel got severely injured and the RAF men ran away leaving the villagers completely unguarded. Villagers called up Malda District administration in desperation, but the calls were unanswered.

15th October, around 5 PM: District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and other officials from the administration reached Kaligram with huge police force, but by then, the mob, which had already inflicted heavy damage to the Hindu property and human life, had run away. Around 50 houses looted and burnt to ashes. Two cars and one truck were also burnt. One jewelry shop & two grocery shops were looted. Cattles were taken away. Hindu women were molested. Three Hindu temples were vandalized beyond repair and their idols Hundreds of Hindus were left homeless and lost their life savings.

Now, that the Section 144 has been imposed by the administration and the central armed forces are patrolling the village, there is a temporary relief to the Hindu villagers. In the last five days, a bustling village has turned into a riot hit desert, with hundreds becoming homeless, including children and many infants, who are now living in other’s homes and consuming community food. No relief or compensation has been provided by the administration till now.

Villagers are running pillars to post in order to file FIRs and looking for ways to bring the issue to the attention of the entire nation, while there are attempts in the local media to suppress the incident in the name of maintaining communal harmony and the administration has chosen to remain a mute spectator.

Here are three video clips showing the damage to Hindu property in the attacks.

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

 Source: indiafacts

The Ideology of Exodus – The Fleeing of Hindus from Kairana

By Tufail Ahmad, New Age Islam

On June 9, it emerged that an exodus of Hindus has been taking place over the past two years from the predominantly Muslim town of Kairana, situated just 124 kilometres from India's national capital of New Delhi. Hukum Singh, an MP from the Kairana parliamentary constituency, has produced a list of 346 families which were forced to flee Kairana, leaving behind their homes and businesses. The immediate reasons for the exodus include extortions, murders, targeted attacks and other forms of banditry. Though these appear as acts of crime, the important point is that all of the fleeing families are Hindus.

According to a report by Zee News, which brought the issue before the nation, the town of Kairana had 30 percent Hindus and 68 percent Muslim population as per 2011 census. However, the Hindu population has declined to eight percent in 2016 while the Muslim population has risen to 92 percent from 68 percent in just about six years, as estimated by local officials. Kairana is not an isolated case. There are areas in India which are called "mini Pakistan" – not by Hindus. A Muslim locality I visited in India a few years ago, a highly educated Muslim youth told me proudly, "This area is mini Pakistan." I turned to him and asked, "Is it something good for Indian Muslims?" As realisation fell upon him, he became silent. The religious nature of the exodus from Kairana fits similar patterns of forced migrations in history.

Health of societies is defined by movement of ideas. Ideas travel across time and territories through wars, technologies and globalisation. The consequences of ideas do not register on human minds because these take place over long periods of history, often across several lifetimes. Let's explain it this way: if we lived for 200 years and more, our minds would be better equipped to grasp how the society in which we were born has changed over the course of two centuries. Since our lifespan is on an average just about 80-90 years, our mind fails to grasp the movement of ideas occurring over the course of several centuries. In the 7th century, a movement of ideas began from Mecca as a consequence of which there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today.

This movement of ideas reached Iran as a result of which today there are no Zoroastrians in Iran, originally their homeland. In the 12th century, this movement of ideas arrived in the Indian Subcontinent as a consequence of which there are no Hindus in Balochistan, there are no Hindus in Afghanistan, there are no Hindus in Pakistan, there are no Sikhs in Lahore which was a Sikh metropolis till recently. In 1947, it took a piece of ours away from us. In the 1990s, in our lifetime, Hindu Pandits were forced to flee from Kashmir. This historical template fits the exodus of Hindu families from Kairana. There are concerns that similar patterns of exclusion are happening in Malda and parts of Assam.A senior police officer who toured Malda recently tells me that cops are being treated as thugs and criminals.

As per this historical template, this movement of ideas makes it extremely difficult for non-Muslims to live in lands where the Muslim population rises to become dominant. The defining traits of this movement of ideas are: exclusion, intimidation, persecution, conversion and forced migration. For example, not a week passes when a Hindu girl is not abducted and forcibly converted in Pakistan's Sindh province. Forced conversion of Hindu girls in Sindh, sometimes carried out in order to occupy their land, is considered a pious work. The case of Bangladesh is no different where Hindus are being persecuted and systematically murdered.

But there are counterfeit liberal editors who give examples of Hindu-Muslim unity. Such examples are isolated acts of humanism, not outstanding patterns of communal behaviour that can be described as features of modern civilisation. Exclusionary religions counter pluralism. On Twitter, senior journalist R. Jagannathan tells me that religions need not change, but their adherents must change in support of pluralism. Like Islam, Christianity, being a monotheistic religion, is also exclusionary but its adherents have changed liberally, notably in America and Europe. In the United States, Christians allow their churches to be used by Muslims for Friday prayer, sometimes for a fee. However, Muslims will never allow their mosques to be used by Hindus for any ritual.

Contrast this with a common scene in the inner circle of New Delhi's Connaught Place where Hindus make way to allow Muslims to offer weekly Friday prayers on public property. The best example of exclusionary practices rooted in religion can be given from the activities of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. While we see many Hindus defending Muslim riot victims in Gujarat and many others parts of India, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind tracks riot victims and innocents lodged in prisons, and ensures first that they are believers of Islam before taking up their cases. If Hindus were to do the same before helping riots victims, they will be called bigots.

It will be against the historical template of this exclusionary practice to argue that cases like the exodus of Hindus from Kashmir and Kairana will not happen again. Currently, this exclusionary practice is enabled by the Indian state. For example, the rationale of the Indian state demands that Kamlesh Tiwari, the Hindu man held for derogatory remark against Prophet Muhammad, be arrested. Although India does not have Islam's blasphemy law, practically it enforces the blasphemy laws prevalent in other Muslim countries. For example, Kamlesh Tiwari has been languishing in prison under the National Security Act (NSA) without any court hearing. Tiwari's detention is a blot on the face of the Indian republic, as most democracies today do not allow any person, not even a terrorist, to be in imprison without charge.

Contrast this behaviour of the Indian state towards Kamlesh Tiwari with its behaviour towards a set of Islamic clerics led by Maulana Anwarul Haq Sadiq of Bijnor who went in public, on Indian television, to announce a reward of 51 lakh rupees for anyone who could behead Tiwari whether in prison or outside. All of these clerics are free because the rationale of the Indian state demands that Muslim thugs will not be arrested while any Hindu can be arrested for bad behaviour. I have also been reliably informed that Tiwari's arrest enjoys the support of the Home Minister of India Shri Rajnath Singh. At issue is not Rajnath Singh but the historical template that has become the rationale of the Indian state. This rationale demands that the president of India organise Iftar parties every year at the expense of the taxpayer while not organising religious events of other religions.

Until this rationale of the Indian state is defeated electorally, politically and constitutionally, please prepare for this historical template to reproduce more examples like Kairana. The question is also this: what can the Indian state do? It will be too much to expect from the current centre-right government in New Delhi. Much like the Congress governments practised secularism and quota politics, the current centre-right government believes in giving Muslims Sufism – not mathematics, economics and physics to Muslim girls from grade one through 12. This outstanding rationale of the Indian republic must be countered so that India becomes an authentic republic with zero tolerance for anyone who breaks law.

For India to establish itself as a Great Power, the rule of law is the only hope. Currently, the rule of law is routinely mauled by cops who rob poor thela walas for a weekly extortion of ten rupees. Therefore, cops are morally incompetent to secure the Indian republic for our future generations. Here is also something to do: India could invest $100 billion and more in upgrading the last-mile police stations and get foreigners to train cops in professionalism, due process and honesty.

Tufail Ahmad is author of "Jihadist Threat to India – The Case for Islamic Reformation by an Indian Muslim."

Source: newageislam

A campaign of terror: The Pakistanis may never have Kashmir, but their violence has transformed it

C Christine Fair

Feigning outrage at the killing of Pakistan-backed Hizbul Mujahideen commanderBurhan Wani, Pakistan’s civilian-led government decried his killing by Indian security forces as “deplorable and condemnable”. This group is considered to be a terrorist organisation by the United States, the European Union, and India alike. This conniption once again exposed Pakistan’s unstinting support for the zoo of Islamist terrorists that it uses to achieve its foreign policy objectives in India, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The timing of this charade is not coincidental: it is contemporaneous with mounting criticisms over Pakistani human rights abuses in Balochistan as it tries to crush any and all opposition to the infamous “China Pakistan Economic Corridor”.  Pakistan explicitly counters criticism over its activities in Balochistan with reference to Indian security force’s killings in Kashmir. This is yet another Pakistani false equivalence.

It must be said bluntly that in Kashmir, Pakistan has no legal equities. Neither theIndian Independence Act of 1947 nor the Radcliffe Boundary Commission accord Pakistan any right to Kashmir. As is well-known, the Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh only acceded to India after Pakistan dispatched irregular forces to seize the terrain by force.

As the work of Shuja Nawaz – the brother of a deceased army chief – makes clear, these were not non-state actors. In its effort to seize Kashmir through warfare in 1947-48, 1965 and 1999 and by supporting a menagerie of terrorists since 1947 and an intense proxy war since 1989, Pakistan has demonstrated that it actually has little regard for the Kashmiris themselves.

As the Pakistanis sought to exploit the indigenous uprising that began in 1989, it raised and dispatched Deobandi and Salafist terrorist organisations such as Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba respectively, precisely because they have no regard for Kashmiri culture and beliefs. Whereas their Kashmiri proxies were more reticent to kill civilians and attack sufi shrines, these terrorists have shown no compunction.

They also sustained a reign of terror against women who do not veil as they demand by throwing acid on their faces and other crimes. The consequences of this are visible to any long-time observer. When I first visited the Valley in 1991, I never saw a woman in a black burqa with niqab. Instead women wore a scarf tied behind their necks. Now the black burqa, niqab and even socks and gloves are ubiquitous even beyond the cities and towns. The Pakistanis may never have Kashmir, but their violence has transformed it.

Turning to the most recent events, it is well-known that the recent episode of stone pelting has Pakistani backing. The stone pelting has had the intended consequences of goading Kashmir’s poorly equipped and poorly trained police into killing civilians who are protesting. About 80 people have been killed in this recent campaign of Pakistan-sponsored uprising and state response.

To be clear, it is extremely unfortunate that these deaths have occurred. And indeed, the Indian government needs to find other ways of managing crowds than looking for the chimerical non-lethal weapons. If Kashmir’s police had proper riot gear and personal protective equipment, the urge to fire at stone pelters would likely diminish. This would benefit India as it would deprive Pakistan of the result it so craves. But this incident reveals more than anything that Pakistan is willing to orchestrate the deaths of Kashmiris for its own political aims.

The vacuity of the so-called concern about Kashmir is reinforced by the complete omission of any mention of the Kashmiri Pandits who were ethnically cleansed by Pakistan-backed terrorists in 1990. Why does the “Kashmir problem” only centre on Muslims in the Valley and not any of the other lawful residents of the state?

Finally, the Pakistani civilian and military leadership continue to renew their demands that all UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir be fulfilled. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, continues to opine that “non-implementation of UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Kashmir issue is a travesty of law”. She, like other Pakistanis making these insensate claims, are banking on the fact that most people have never read the hallowed resolutions.

I have and the language is clear. Pakistan was to first withdraw all non-Kashmiri persons from the area, including regular and irregular security forces. Then and only then, India was to demilitarise as well. However, India was allowed to retain enough forces to protect against further Pakistani incursions. Once both of these sequential steps were taken to the satisfaction of a UN appointed body, then the arrangements for a plebiscite were to take place. Pakistanis yammering about the non-implementation of this accord have only themselves to blame.

Turning to the issue of Balochistan on the one hand and the recent events in Kashmir on the other: both campaigns of violence are manifestations of Pakistani policy. The Pakistan army, along with the Frontier Corps and its various intelligence agencies are waging an all-out war against the Baloch to clear the province for Chinese economic exploitation. There are no estimates of the casualties or of the persons who havedisappeared. There is no accounting for the whereabouts of these myriad disappeared persons.

By law, the US is required to impose Leahy Amendment sanctions on any military unit engaging in human rights violations. The Pakistan military is waging this war with the subsidy of the US, which so far has shown nothing but pusillanimity in contending with Pakistan even though Pakistan is the root cause of American failures in Afghanistan.

Source: timesofindia

Uri attack: Both India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs, why is only India anxious?

Tufail Ahmad Sep 22, 2016 8:39 IST

The Indian mind, living in its opulence of spirituality and self-belief in all things good, refuses to see the harshness of the truth inherent in the order of the nation states. Every Indian is a yoga guru. Every yoga guru, including the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, believes that he can engineer the rise of India as a great power without suffering a wound. But the international society of nation-states is a hostile place. This hostility was on display again on 18 September, when eighteen Indian soldiers were killed and dozens wounded in an attack on the Indian Army camp at Uri, planned, sponsored and executed by Pakistan. This is a known enemy. Every Indian is an anti-Chanakya.

The known enemy attacks us in known ways and in known places. We are taught that Mahmud Ghazni launched 17 attacks on Indian cities during 1000–1027 CE, through known means, through known routes, seizing the Somnath temple in Gujarat in the final invasion. But we are not taught that each time we waited for him to do so, we did not go beyond our borders to prevent him, to tame him, to fight him, to eliminate him. In history, you wouldn't find instances when a known enemy torments an entire people so many times and they don't respond. Much like Mahmud Ghazni, Pakistan, the known enemy, torments us in Jammu & Kashmir. Each time, we have prior intelligence input. Each time, we wait. Each time, we do not engineer a response.

The 18 September attack at Uri is perhaps the worst Pakistani attack since the Kaluchak attack of 14 May, 2002 when three soldiers, 18 relatives of Indian soldiers and ten civilians were killed. On 2 January this year, the enemy stormed the Indian Air Force base at Pathankot, killing seven soldiers. It succeeded because Indian policemen in Punjab were hand-in-glove with the enemies to earn money via illicit drugs routes. Similar attacks have taken place in Jammu & Kashmir regularly. Even after the enemy invaded Kargil in 1999, the largest jihadist war in modern times executed by Pakistan, we chose to serve biryani to General Pervez Musharraf, our tormentor in chief. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs. It is only the Indian mind that feels threatened.

Pakistan the enemy camouflages successfully for modern times. It calls its state-backed terrorists "non-state actors", the world believes in this phrase. It calls its terrorists "good Taliban", it takes years to explain it to Europeans and Americans that "good" in this context means evil. It sends a writer to visit Sufi shrines of Delhi and write a book. Indians develop trust in the author of the book, Delhi by Heart, a title given by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the creator of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban. The book's purpose is to insert the author in Track II diplomacy. The enemy sends a saree to the mother of its enemy leader. The cost of the saree is: seven soldiers killed in Pathankot and the bruised confidence of 1.25 billion Indians. In warfare, camouflaging your way into the enemy's defences is a successful strategy. Pakistan does it well.

Lieutenant-General A A K Niazi, the commander of Pakistani troops who surrendered at the fall of Dhaka in 1971, had served during the World War II on the Burma front. In 1964, Niazi, then a brigadier, argued that a weak state like Pakistan must rely on a strategy of infiltration which "implies bypassing of enemy posts by relatively small parties which penetrate deep and unseen into the defences and converge at a pre-designated objective" or "lie down in the enemy area and remain there for extended periods if needed." "The adoption of these [infiltration] tactics by the lesser developed nations like ours is a compelling necessity," he added. Niazi's strategy and the jihadist mindset of the Pakistani army is detailed by C Christine Fair in her book, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War.

Pakistan has always used this strategy of infiltration and guerrilla warfare either during the Operation Gibraltar that led to the 1965 war, in Kargil in 1999, on 26/11 in Mumbai and later through the attacks by the Indian Mujahideen in parts of India, and consistently, persistently and aggressively through past nearly three decades in Jammu & Kashmir. The behaviour of the enemy is familiar; its strategy is known to us. Even if India were to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan, the nature of the enemy is such that it will begin targeting other regions of India. Despite knowing this enemy, India's strategy to counter it is not ready, not known, not effective, not consequential. But the enemy, like Mahmud Ghazni, will strike again and again. This tactic has Islamic lineage.

In his book, Pakistan Mein Tehzeeb Ka Irtiqa, Sibte Hassan (1912-1986), an Indian-Pakistani Marxist who graduated from the Aligarh Muslim University, narrates how Muhammad bin Qasim was not the first Islamic invader of India. The Islamic attacks against Sindh and Balochistan had begun as early as during the era of Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of Islam who ruled from 634 to 644 CE. The first attack, which Sibte Hassan says was without consent from Umar but authorised by a local governor in Bahrain, was led by Mugheera ibn Abi Al-Aas and targeted against a port at Debal, near Karachi. Usman ibn Affan, the third Islamic caliph who ruled from 644 to 656 CE, considered an attack on Sindh by land. At that time Makran, a part of Balochistan, was already ruled by a Muslim governor.

When Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (reigned 661–680 CE) – the first ruler of the Umayyad dynasty – became the caliph, he sent several military expeditions: led by Abdullah bin Sawwar Abdi, by Rashid bin Umru, by Sanan bin Salmah (all names as per phonetics). All of these military raids ended in defeat. Sibte Hassan writes that when Hajjaj bin Yousef became the Governor of Iraq in 694 CE, he finally made up his mind to conquer Sindh and selected his son-in-law Muhammad bin Qasim to lead the invasion. Qasim registered many victories during 712-715 CE. The Muslim conquerors before Muhammad bin Qasim and after him have not stopped in their glories because Islam requires Muslims to conquer all the lands. The Quranic verse 8:39 commands: "And fight them until there is no fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah…" The word fitnah is translated as mischief but in Islamic literature, it means everything that is not Islamic. Similarly, the word "fight" in this verse is actually: Qatelu-hum, whose accurate meaning is "kill them."

The Kashmir conflict today is rooted in Pakistan's religious identity. The Kalima, or the words proclaiming one's faith in Islam, reads: La Ilaha Illalah Muhammad-ur-Rasoolullah. Its actual translation is: there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger. But in Pakistan, Islamic clerics have translated it differently as reflected in the wildly popular slogan among Pakistani people: "Pakistan ka Matlab kya (What is the meaning of Pakistan), the chorus: La Ilaha Illalah Muhammad-ur-Rasoolullah."Nowhere in the Islamic world, Kalima is translated this way. Unless Pakistan's identity undergoes some radical transformation, it is unlikely that it will not view itself as the vanguard state of the Muslim Ummah. In Pakistan, the common understanding is that Pakistan has two types of borders: geographical and ideological. The ISI, which creates, nurtures and shields terrorist groups, considers itself as the ideological guardian of Pakistan, the second state to be established in the name of Islam, the first being Medina.

People of India must reconcile to the idea that the jihadist attacks in Kashmir will continue as long as Pakistan retains its identity in its current form. However, the Indian state needs to evolve a 100-year strategy against this known enemy. The strategy must be for India to behave like neighbours behave in our villages. When your neighbour hurts you, you shun eye contact and refuse to attend their wedding. When a neighbour encroaches onto your land, you push back. When your neighbour occupies your land, you break their nose. There is a slight distinction in the case of Pakistan. This enemy is not trained to sit idle, not even in its glories, not even in Ramzan. While India's strategy must be to empower Balochs, Sindhis, Kashmiris and Pashtuns, a successful strategy must be to break up Pakistan by striking at the heart of the enemy: the Punjabi elite, right in Punjab, across the shared international border.

Former BBC journalist Tufail Ahmad is a contributing editor at Firstpost, and executive director of the Open Source Institute, New Delhi. He tweets @tufailelif 

Source: firstpost

SOME POSITIVES THAT HAVE EMERGED FROM PATHANKOT TERRORIST ATTACK

Tuesday, 09 February 2016 | Dr Rajeshwar Singh

Terrorism and Drug Smuggling are Siamese twins. Although both look in different directions, they move together in one direction. They support each other, they help sustain and strengthen each other andproceed with single-minded determination to move towards their goal.

In Punjab, their target is just one: Bleed India. This truism was once again displayed beyond any doubt in the recent Fidayeen attack on the strategic air base in Pathankot. Just as the dawn was struggling to welcome the New Year in the blood-curdling cold, a sinister, well-armed, well-trained and highly motivated suicide-hugging Fidayeen gang sneaked into the Pathankot air base, which housed, besides several ‘vital assets’, 10,000 family members of air force personnel.

The ease with which the Fidayeen could move in Pathankot and commandeer the vehicle of the district superintendent of police also speaks volumes of the collusion and deep-rooted criminal nexus between drug smugglers and the Pathankot police. While this nexus is well-known and needs to be somehow broken-easier said than done-it is not confined to Pathankot only but has its tentacles all over Punjab. Drugs are doing more damage to the youth and future of Punjab (and India) than terrorist bullets.

Although ill-informed media men and so-called ‘experts’ started tearing into the Indian response to the Fidayeen strike, their self conceit blinded them to the several positives that were exhibited by the Indian air force and counter-terrorist machinery that existed on the ground at the air base. When talking about any terrorist strike and the response of the counter-terrorism machinery, the fact that the 'element of surprise' is always with the terrorists has necessarily to be kept in mind. After every terrorist strike, the post-mortem that is doe in the entire media, specially in TV debates, just does nottake into account this 'element of surprise'. Naturally, this gives rise to a lot of misinformation being disseminated.

My intention is not to run down anybody or any thesis about terrorist strikes, it is my humble endeavour to give a few valuable tips to whosoever speaks, writes and discusses on TV suicide attacks. Urban terrorism is now a fact of life ans we have tio live with it. The dynamics and mechanics of terrorism are such that terrorist strikes will continue to take place, despite best precautionary measures. They just cannot be avoided as it is the job of terrorists to keep the pot boiling. The efficacy and effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies can be gauged only from the time it takes them to"neutralize" the attackers without substantial "collateral" damage. A lot of misconceptions and myths get circulated when all and sundrystart condemning the anti-terrorism machinery without taking hard realities into account.

The same was the case with the Pathankot air base attacks in which 7 innocent lives were lost. These deaths need to be condoled but what emerged crystal clear was the ‘quick response’ by the Defence Security Corps personnel.

It showed beyond any reasonabledoubt that even at that unearthly hour when the Fidayeen struck, the reflex action of DSC Jawan was A-grade. India should be proud of suchalert and brave officers and men. It showed that India has learnt itslessons in teaching Fidayeen a lesson of their lives.

Some of the myths that got circulated after the Pathankot strike were:

(MYTH 1) The casualties were very high.

 FACT: (a) Only one Air Force Guard Commando was killed in direct combat with the terrorists; (b) In keeping with the highest traditions of the Indian armed forces, whose officers lead from the front, one NSG officer who died was actually accidental in nature. He died while defusing an explosive device;(c) the bulk of the casualties-five in all-occurred in the 'langar' (cook house) of the DSC Lines located near the outer perimeter wall of there air base. Though unfortunate, the five DSC Jawan died when they were not on sentry duty. They were actually off duty. Hence, the casualties can in no way be described as very high. In fact, they were minimal.

(MYTH 2) Why did it take so much time to terminate the operation?

FACT: The aim was to keep own casualties minimal. No casualty occurred, except that of the NSG officer who died accidently while defusing an explosive device, and the deaths in the 'langer' in the first fewminutes, there was no casualty after contact was established with theterrorists.

The operation was neutralize the Fidayeen was done in a very deliberate and meticulous manner to firstly avoid "collateral" damage in terms of own troops and  vital assets like buildings and airplanes.

The operation was deliberately slowed down so that the type of weapons and firepower used by the Fidayeen could be calibrated andeffectively countered. Further, priority was accorded to cutting off all escape routes that the Fidayeen could take as the final aim was to catch them alive.

These orders had been given by the topmost officer supervising the operation, who was none other than the National Security Adviser tothe Prime Minister.

Mr Doval, a hard-bpoiled Intelligence officer. Critics who were raising a hue and cry over why it took so long to end the operation even when the Fidayeen were not many in number probably did not know that the air base is spread over 2,000 acres.

Naturally,the search and combing operations took a long time as they aredeliberately done very slowly and meticulously, avoiding all kinds ofbooby traps.

That the actual engagement (fire-fight) with the terrorists was actually for just 11 hours speaks volumes of the clinical manner in which this operation was carried out. In fact, it denotes a welcomestep forward in the war against terror.

Hence, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the operation was either prolonged or took too long to terminate. The air base security staff need to becongratulated for securing all the valuable assets which were actually air borne within minutes of the sudden attack. This fact is not knownto many.

(MYTH 3): Why was it announced on the very first day that the operation was over?

FACT: The two terrorists were holed-up inside a building and they just could not move out or carry out any of their sinister designs as anair-tight cordon had been thrown around them. This encounter site was so tightly secured that the Fidayeen had no options but to either die or surrender.

They were finally neutralized on January 3. Hence, the operation, in a practical way of speaking, was actually over on the first day itself. Buty it was not called off as search and combing continued. It was the media which hyped it. Mopping up operationcontinued for a few days more.

(MYTH 4 ): Why were the Army's Special Forces not employed?

FACT: This was a blatant canard as the Special Forces were kept in readiness to move in any moment in case the need arose not just at the air base but at other military installations in entire Pathankot district.

(MYTH 5): Even when there was advance information about the Fidayeen attack, how could they enter the air base?

FACT: Security personnel were deployed to protect vital installations and assets in and around Pathankot, which has the distinction of being the largest cantonment in Asia and has several military installations.

Further, due to the tactical situation-- the exact location of the Fidayeen was not known nor was it certain whether they had already entered the air base-it was decided to first secure the vital assets and 10,000 civilians and dependents of air force personnel present at the air base. Due to this significant factor and criticality of time,it would have been counter-productive to first secure the 25-kilometrelong outer parameter. Hence, the main consideration was on securing the aircrafts, radars, anti-aircraft batteries. Ammunition/POL dumps, etc. This strategy greatly helped in countering and containing the Fidayeen.

(MYTH 6): There was no Centralised decision-making apparatus and also there was lack of synergy on the ground.

FACT: Nothing could be farther from truth than alleging that there was no Centralised decision-making and no synergy on the ground. Little knowledge is always dangerous and it was this lack of knowledge that prompted some critics to make this allegation and assumption.

The sudden Fidayeen attack would have taken a different shape if time was wasted in convening meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Security and the National Crisis Management Committee of the Union Cabinet.

The criticism that there was no Centralised action or synergy on the ground is  most unwarranted. An accurate reading of the situation and analysis of the intelligence inputs led to the pre-positioning of specialised forces on the ground to deal with the emerging threat andsituation.

On the ground itself, complete synergy among the forces was seen. Exemplary coordination was also on display which helped the security forces choose the firepower and type of resources to deal with theevolving tactical picture and requirements. Minute-by-minute reports were sent to the National Security Adviser, Mr. Doval, who, in turn, kept the members of the CCS duly informed.

(MYTH 7): Why was the Army not involved in the entire operation?

FACT: Nothing could be farther from the truth than this unwarranted criticism Perhaps lack of knowledge led to this allegation beingleveled. The real picture is:

NInfantry columns played a leading and vital role in the operation - maintaining a tight inner and outer cordon, providing fire support to the strike elements of the NSG, carrying out search and areasanitization operations inside the air base.

NArmy columns were mobilized on 01.01.2016 itself, well before the first contact was established with the terrorists at 03.30 hours on 02.01.2016. Since the afternoon of 01.01.2016, Army columns were assisting the local police in strengthening nakas and beefing upsecurity at the air base.

NThe first persons to be involved in formulating the strategy after news of the sudden attack reached the NSA were the Army Chief and the Air Chief who initiated the necessary actions. Both were present in the first meeting called by the NSA at 1500 hours on 01.01.2016).

N Lt. Gen. KJ Singh, GOC-in-C, Western Command was in overall commandof the operation.

N The NSG contingent present at the air base consisted of 320specially selected and trained Army soldiers from the Special Action Group (SAG) - component of the NSG and Special Forces units.

The counter terrorism and counter hijack task force of the NSG was led by Maj. Gen. Dushyant Singh, IG (Operations), NSG, himself an Infantryofficer, who only recently relinquished command of an Infantrydivision in Jammu (and hence was intricately familiar with the general modus operandi of Fidayeen terrorists).

N The Army had deployed 9 Infantry columns (70 soldiers in eachcolumn) in addition to bomb disposal squads, engineering, medical element and casspier mine / armour protection vehicles.

Since we Indians will have to live and suffer terrorist strikes by ultras of all hues, we would do well to do our homework and collectall details before jumping in front of TV cameras and air all kinds of misinformation and lies about terrorist attacks as such utterances only go to help the terrorists, who need condemnation and not theforces fighting them at great risk to their life and limb..

(Dr Rajeshwar Singh, Formerly Police Officer of Uttar Pradesh Govt, is currently Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement). 

Source: dailypioneer

HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH THE IDEOLOGY OF HATE

Sunday, 07 February 2016 | Kanchan Gupta | in Coffee Break

Theological pamphleteering, no doubt well meaning and sincere, is of no consequence to the peddlers of violence and death. The latter's taunting tone is already discernible over the babble vacuous politically correct discourse

At last week’s Counter-Terrorism Conference, organised by India Foundation and themed around the rising tide of global jihad, speaker after speaker waxed eloquent on well-known basics without addressing the core issue: The ideology of hate and how to deal with it. Theological pamphleteering, no doubt well meaning and sincere, is of no consequence to the peddlers of hate, death and destruction. I doubt if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-appointed caliph of the Islamic State, and Abubakar Shekau, who heads Boko Haram, are remotely impressed by counter-scholarship. That would be equally true of the mullahs of Taliban and the foot soldiers of jihad.

To ignore the ideology that drives Islamism and its resultant violence would be to ignore the real reason behind the continuing surge in transnational terrorism. The barbarians may not be at our gate as yet, but the unstoppable march of  zealots, whom George W Bush described as ‘Islamofascists’, as the civilised world retreats, conceding ground with each passing day, should not go unnoticed. To turn a blind eye, to be indifferent, or worse, to be politically correct and tolerate the intolerable would be to our peril. For let there be no mistake, the taunting tone of those who believe in the inevitability of a homogenous ummah replacing the diverse world we know is already discernible over the babble of ill-informed and vacuous politically correct discourse.

Soon after the ghastly London bombings when Islamists blew themselves up with deadly effect, Ed Husain’s book The Islamist was published, recording his disillusionment with radicals who use faith as a cover for their murderous deeds. A particular passage in that book remains indelibly printed on my mind: “Teacher, I want to go London next month. I want bomb, big bomb in London, again. I want make jihad!” “What?” I exclaimed. Another student raised both hands and shouted: “Me too! Me too!” Other students applauded those who had just articulated what many of them were thinking...

That’s how Ed Husain records his experience in the Saudi Arabian school where he had taken up a teaching assignment after embracing radical Islam. It was the day after the 7/7 suicide bombings in London that killed 52 commuters. Ed Husain, his faith in radical Islam by then dwindling rapidly after experiencing life in Saudi Arabia, was hoping to hear his students denounce the senseless killings. Instead, he heard a ringing endorsement of jihad and senseless slaughter in the name of Islam. Ed Husain returned to London and penned his revealing account in The Islamist Why I Joined

Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left. Debunking the Left-liberal intelligentsia’s explanation that deprivation, frustration and alienation among immigrant Muslims in Britain are responsible for the surge in jihadi fervour, Ed Husain wrote: “Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia... All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one Government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal... I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist...”

So, what does an Islamist seek? The reams of rubbish churned out by bogus activists and windbag columnists desperately seeking to rationalise crimes committed in the name of Islam, ranging from the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmir valley to the Mumbai massacre, from the attack on Parliament House in New Delhi to the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, from the horrific assault on human dignity by the Taliban in Afghanistan to the nauseating anti-Semitism of the regime in Iran, and from the unspeakable crimes of the Islamic State in the Levant to the limitless horrors of Boko Haram in Nigeria, cannot explain either the core idea of Islamism or what motivates Islamists. For that, we have to go through the teachings of Hasan al-Banna, the original Islamist and progenitor of the Muslim Brotherhood which now wields power in Egypt, the land of the birth of radical Islam.

Hasan al-Banna’s articulation of Islamism in the 1930s, distilled from complex theological interpretations of Islam, was at once simple enough for even illiterate Muslims to understand and sinister in its implications when seen in the context of what we are witnessing today: “The Quran is our Constitution. Jihad is our way. Martyrdom is our desire.” Imagined grievances and manufactured rage came decades later, as faux justification for adopting this three-sentence injunction that erases the line separating the spiritual from the temporal and giving Islam a political dimension in the modern world, thus expanding the theatre of conflict beyond the sterile sands of Arabia.

Hasan al-Banna died a nasty death when he was murdered in 1949, apparently in retaliation of the assassination of Egypt’s then Prime Minister, Mahmud Fahmi Naqrashi, but the seed he had planted in his lifetime was to grow into a giant poison tree, watered and nourished by Sayyid Qutub (whose tract, Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq, was interpreted as treasonous, fetching him the death sentence in 1966) which over the years has spread its roots and branches, first across Arabia and then to Muslim majority countries; so potent is that tree’s life force, its seeds, carried by the blistering desert wind that blows from the Mashreq, have now begun to sprout in countries as disparate as Denmark and India, Turkey and Malaysia, changing demographic profiles and unsettling societies.

The world chose to ignore subsequent events and, like those who clamour for a gentler, accommodative approach to Islamism today by pushing for compromise over conflict, ‘enlightened’ scholars and public affairs commentators rationalised Anwar Sadat’s assassination by Islamists on October 6, 1981. Even Egypt erred in setting free scores of conspirators, including a certain Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Similarly, the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran with its blood-soaked consequences was hailed as a “people’s victory” over Shah Reza Pehalvi’s dictatorial regime. For Europe, long dubbed Eurabia, it was business as usual Iran’s oil swamped out rational analyses. If any country had the foresight to sense the danger signals, it was, and ironically so, Egypt under President Hosni Mubarak who remained wary of Iran, not least because of its export of rabid Islamism. Tragically, the new rulers in Cairo are not riled by Tehran naming a street after Sadat’s assassin, Khalid Islambouli.

It was in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that Islamism acquired a new dimension and a vicious edge when it was coupled with Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia’s severely austere version of Sunni Islam. Arab nationalism, which was unencumbered by Islamism till then, became an expression of faith in radical Islamism. In what passes for Palestinian territories, the intifada was born and reborn, and while the popularity of Yasser Arafat’s largely secular PLO began to decline, Hamas, led by its paraplegic spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, began its murderous march which has culminated with Gaza Strip being declared ‘Hamastan’. Yassin was killed by the Israelis for inspiring young Palestinians to blow themselves up in buses, restaurants and markets, but that has neither shaken Hamas nor weakened its faith in what Hasan al-Banna preached. In Lebanon, the Hezbollah is now facing competition from Fatah-al Islam in Palestinian refugee camps and Syrian dissidents who equally believe ‘Islam is the solution’. In Britain, Hizb ut-Tahrir is seducing young Muslims like Ed Husain with its acid message of intolerance and bigotry. In India, we have the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Tablighi Jamaat. The Deobandis are not to be scoffed at.

To neutralise the three-sentence injunction of Hasan al-Banna, we need more than a ‘War on Terror’. We need to launch an assault on the idea that motivates radical Islamists. There is no scope for accommodation, nor is there any reason to capitulate or strike a compromise. We still have time to mount a counter-assault. But to do that, and do so successfully, we must first acknowledge and debate the Idea of Islamism.

(The writer is a current affairs analyst based in NCR)

Source: dailypioneer

To avoid another Pathankot India needs change not tears

Hindsight is a two-bogey train. The first coach is called ‘Clarity’, the second is ‘Wisdom’. The engine is driven by a fuel called ‘Realisation’. And so it is that after every hideous terrorist attack by jihadis from Pakistan, we realise our avoidable follies with great clarity; we believe we are wiser than before. 

Unfortunately, the hindsight train makes only a brief halt and neither realisation nor wisdom last more than the 24-hour TRP-driven news cycle that has come to symbolise our life-clock. 

Till the next train arrives, we, the people and our government, slip back into blissful, blessed complacence. 

+1

Schoolchildren pay tribute to the Pathankot martyrs

Every two-penny analyst has been prompt in raising questions about last weekend’s terrorist attack on the Indian Air Force base at Pathankot, pillorying the government, mocking the security establishment, doubting the capacity of those tasked with defending India from its enemies. Some gleefully, others morosely. 

Borders 

This is not to suggest that the questions and concerns are misplaced. They aren’t. For instance, common sense tells us that our border management, both in the east and the west, remains woefully poor and way behind the need of the times we live in. 

The report of the committee set up after the Kargil conflict to propose effective border management gathered dust before turning obsolete. 

Had we managed our border with Pakistan better, had defunct electronic surveillance equipment been repaired, had drug trafficking routes been blocked, the terrorists who attacked the IAF base could not have entered Punjab. 

What does it tell us of border area security arrangements that they were able to travel 20 km without hindrance? You don’t need to be a strategic affairs expert to realise that real-time intelligence, never mind how it was secured, could have been better used had there been better ground-level inter-agency coordination. Or that there was sufficient time to secure the outer periphery of the base instead of depending on the DSC as the first respondent. 

That the terrorists were not able to reach ‘strategic air assets’ is no doubt a tribute to the determined fightback by the DSC jawans. That the subsequent operations saw six terrorists being neutralised without collateral damage to civilian lives is equally a tribute to the valour and spirit of the NSG and Garud commandos. 

But behind the valour of our men lurks the cold comfort that we seek. The terrorists who attacked the base were not random jihadis, they were militarily trained, heavily armed, and highly motivated by jihad’s repulsive doctrine, prepared to kill, ready to die. In an asymmetrical war that gives them advantage. 

Cover-ups 

There is little or no percentage in belabouring issues that will no doubt (or at least should) concern the security establishment. National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is the best India has at the moment. He is not known to seek refuge in convenient cover-ups or gloss over discomfiting facts. Let’s wait and see how the post-attack response pans out. 

Asking the Opposition not to score political points and feed ill-informed popular outrage is, frankly, meaningless. 

As a nation we have failed to forge a national consensus and resolve in dealing with the scourge of terrorism, both of the home-grown and cross-border variety. Nothing demonstrates this better than the fact that India is possibly the only country which rubs shoulders with jihad-exporters in not having a legal mechanism to deal with terror. 

The Prevention of Terrorism Act should have evolved into a law over the past decade, keeping pace with the rapidly-changing terrorscape that now confronts the world. Instead we replaced it with an amended Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967 vintage. It hasn’t worked. It won’t work. 

We have failed to build a national consensus on dealing with, and exterminating, Left-wing terrorism at home. Maoists still kill with impunity. Our politicians refuse to agree on the menacing rise of Islamism across the country. Fanatics spurred by the jihad impulse run riot in West Bengal, recruit Islamic State foot soldiers in Tamil Nadu, turn ghettoes into no-go zones in western Uttar Pradesh. The power of their veto rides roughshod over the lure of votes. 

Saluting brave soldiers and policemen who die defending this land comes easy. It fetches Facebook likes, Twitter retweets, WhatsApp forwards. Such expressions of gratitude are often no more than self-gratification through selfies. We mourn, as we should, for the seven bravehearts who laid down their lives at Pathankot. But do we remember the 155 security forces personnel killed in India, 41 of them in Jammu & Kashmir, in 2015? That more jawans died fighting Maoists than jihadis last year? 

Lessons 

Let’s face it. These are mere statistics. Neither the people nor the politicians see them as human lives lost. What we, the people, see is as cynical as what they, the politicians, see: An opportunity to score points, entertain primetime TV viewers and mock each other. 

A last point that is offered as a lesson - for the majority of Indians, Israel is admirable for its determination not to concede a quarter to its foes. What is not realised and internalised is that determination comes with multiple price tags. Israel pays top dollars for arming its soldiers, buying or developing cutting-edge technology, acquiring real-time intelligence. Israeli politicians do not squabble over cents. Nor do they trade national security for personal pelf. Israelis pay high taxes and demand accountability from their government. 

For every Israeli, each Israeli life is precious and to be protected. They do not see fellow citizens as disposable commodity. Israel, as a nation, pays a stiff price for its tough security doctrine. Media does not compromise national security. Jholawallahs do not set the agenda, bleeding-heart liberals do not determine policy. Bogus debates on ‘tolerance’ do not distract them from their resolve. Yet, human rights are enshrined and protected by an active and independent judiciary. 

Now compare that with the way we are. Why complain?

The writer is a political commentator and tweets at @KanchanGupta

Source dailymail