Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:46 PM
Lasantha Killed
by Norman Palihawadena, Dilanthi Jayamanne, Harischandra Gunaratna and Dasun Edirisinghe
Editor of The Sunday Leader newspaper and veteran journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge (51), who was shot by an unidentified gunman yesterday around 10.45 a.m. at Attidiya Road, Ratmalana, succumbed to his injuries
Chronology of attacks on Lasantha & Leader
1995 Feb. 7: Lasantha beat en inside his vehicle
1998 June 17: House attacked with a grenade
2000 May 22: The Sunday Leader press sealed
2005 Oct. 16: Failed arson attack on the Leader Publications printing press
2006 Dec. 28: Alleged move to arrest Lasantha by the CID
2007 Nov. 21: The Leader Publications printing press burnt
2009 Jan. 8: Lasantha killed
In the death of the Sunday Leader editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge , Sri Lanka lost a very courageous and visionary journalist who strived to expose corruption, human rights abuses and supported the rights of minorities in the face of great personal danger.
He had obviously anticipated his own demise and the manner of it as is evident from his last editorial published in today's Sunday Leader.
Sunday Leader Editorial
And Then They Came For Me
No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka , journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.
I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.
The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.
The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.
Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see
The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view
Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expose¢s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.
Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.
What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.
It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.
The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.
Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.
You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.
In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.
Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.
As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.
As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.
That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.
People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem"ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter.
As for me, God knows I tried.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Lasantha Wickrematunge: And Then They Came For Me
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Win, Win, Win, Win, Win ... Thomas L. Friedman
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html?em
Win, Win, Win, Win, Win ...
How many times do we have to see this play before we admit that it always ends the same way?
Which play? The one where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. I've already seen this play three times in my life. Trust me: It always ends the same way — badly.
So I could only cringe when reading this article from CNNMoney.com on Dec. 22: "After nearly a year of flagging sales, low gas prices and fat incentives are reigniting America's taste for big vehicles. Trucks and S.U.V.'s will outsell cars in December ... something that hasn't happened since February. Meanwhile, the forecast finds that sales of hybrid vehicles are expected to be way down."
Have a nice day. It's morning again — in Saudi Arabia.
Of course, it's a blessing that people who have been hammered by the economy are getting a break at the pump. But for our long-term health, getting re-addicted to oil and gas guzzlers is one of the dumbest things we could do.
That is why I believe the second biggest decision Barack Obama has to make — the first is deciding the size of the stimulus — is whether to increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax. Best I can tell, the Obama team has no intention of doing either at this time. I understand why. Raising taxes in a recession is a no-no. But I've wracked my brain trying to think of ways to retool America around clean-power technologies without a price signal — i.e., a tax — and there are no effective ones. (Toughening energy-effiency regulations alone won't do it.) Without a higher gas tax or carbon tax, Obama will lack the leverage to drive critical pieces of his foreign and domestic agendas.
How so? According to AAA, U.S. gasoline prices now average about $1.67 a gallon. Funny, that's almost exactly what gas cost on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of 9/11, President Bush had the political space to impose a gasoline tax, a "Patriot Tax," to weaken the very people who had funded 9/11 and to stimulate a U.S. renewable-energy industry. But Bush wimped out and would not impose a tax when prices were low or a floor price when they got high.
Today's financial crisis is Obama's 9/11. The public is ready to be mobilized. Obama is coming in with enormous popularity. This is his best window of opportunity to impose a gas tax. And he could make it painless: offset the gas tax by lowering payroll taxes, or phase it in over two years at 10 cents a month. But if Obama, like Bush, wills the ends and not the means — wills a green economy without the price signals needed to change consumer behavior and drive innovation — he will fail.
The two most important rules about energy innovation are: 1) Price matters — when prices go up people change their habits. 2) You need a systemic approach. It makes no sense for Congress to pump $13.4 billion into bailing out Detroit — and demand that the auto companies use this cash to make more fuel-efficient cars — and then do nothing to shape consumer behavior with a gas tax so more Americans will want to buy those cars. As long as gas is cheap, people will go out and buy used S.U.V.'s and Hummers.
There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes, which would attract more investment in battery technology to make electric cars, which would hugely help the expansion of the wind and solar industries — where the biggest drawback is the lack of batteries to store electrons when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. A higher gas tax would drive all these systemic benefits.
The same is true in geopolitics. A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia at a time when Obama will be looking for greater leverage against petro-dictatorships. It reduces our current account deficit, which strengthens the dollar. It reduces U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change, which means more global respect for America. And it increases the incentives for U.S. innovation on clean cars and clean-tech.
Which one of these things wouldn't we want? A gasoline tax "is not just win-win; it's win, win, win, win, win," says the Johns Hopkins author and foreign policy specialist Michael Mandelbaum. "A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose."
I know it's hard, but we have got to stop "taking off the table" the tool that would add leverage to everything we want to do at home and abroad. We've done that for three decades, and we know with absolute certainty how the play ends — with an America that is less innovative, less wealthy, less respected and less powerful.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
9 Is Not 11 : outlookindia.com - Arundhati Roy
Magazine| Dec 22, 2008
essay: terror in mumbai
9 Is Not 11
(And November isn't September)
ARUNDHATI ROY
| We've forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching "India's 9/11". And like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we're expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it's all been said and done before. Thanks largely to the part it was forced to play as America's ally, first in its war in support of the Afghan Islamists and then in its war against them, Pakistan, whose territory is reeling under these contradictions, is careening towards civil war. As recruiting agents for America's jehad against the Soviet Union, it was the job of the Pakistan army and the ISI to nurture and channel funds to Islamic fundamentalist organisations. Having wired up these Frankenstein's monsters and released them into the world, the US expected it could rein them in like pet mastiffs whenever it wanted to. Certainly it did not expect them to come calling in the heart of the Homeland on September 11. So once again, Afghanistan had to be violently re-made. Now the debris of a re-ravaged Afghanistan has washed up on Pakistan's borders. Nobody, least of all the Pakistan government, denies that it is presiding over a country that is threatening to implode. The terrorist training camps, the fire-breathing mullahs and the maniacs who believe that Islam will, or should, rule the world is mostly the detritus of two Afghan wars. Their ire rains down on the Pakistan government and Pakistani civilians as much, if not more, than it does on India. If at this point India decides to go to war, perhaps the descent of the whole region into chaos will be complete. The debris of a bankrupt, destroyed Pakistan will wash up on India's shores, endangering us as never before. If Pakistan collapses, we can look forward to having millions of 'non-state actors' with an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal as neighbours. It's hard to understand why those who steer India's ship are so keen to replicate Pakistan's mistakes and call damnation upon this country by inviting the United States to further meddle clumsily and dangerously in our extremely complicated affairs. A superpower never has allies. It only has agents. One TV channel (India TV) broadcast a phone conversation with one of the attackers, who called himself 'Imran Babar'. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the conversation, but the things he talked about were the things contained in the 'terror e-mails' that were sent out before several other bomb attacks in India. Things we don't want to talk about any more: the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the genocidal slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, the brutal repression in Kashmir. "You're surrounded," the anchor told him. "You are definitely going to die. Why don't you surrender?" "We die every day," he replied in a strange, mechanical way. "It's better to live one day as a lion and then die this way." He didn't seem to want to change the world. He just seemed to want to take it down with him. Through the endless hours of analysis and the endless op-ed essays, in India at least there has been very little mention of the elephants in the room: Kashmir, Gujarat and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Instead, we had retired diplomats and strategic experts debate the pros and cons of a war against Pakistan. We had the rich threatening not to pay their taxes unless their security was guaranteed (is it alright for the poor to remain unprotected?). We had people suggest that the government step down and each state in India be handed over to a separate corporation. We had the death of former prime minister V.P. Singh, the hero of Dalits and lower castes and villain of upper-caste Hindus, pass without a mention. We had Suketu Mehta, author of Maximum City and co-writer of the Bollywood film Mission Kashmir, give us his version of George Bush's famous 'Why They Hate Us' speech. His analysis of why "religious bigots, both Hindu and Muslim", hate Mumbai: "Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness." His prescription: "The best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever." Didn't George Bush ask Americans to go out and shop after 9/11? Ah yes. 9/11, the day we can't seem to get away from. |
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
MAHATMA GANDHI AND MUMBAI TERROR ATTACK by Md. Yussouff, Retired Prof. IIT Kanpur
Mohammed Yussouff, Retired Professor from IIT, Kanpur
The Indian Nation has been traumatized by the recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
It is clear by now that these attacks using mercenaries have been organized by people who want war between India and Pakistan. One option for India is to go down that path, attack Pakistan and may be totally destroy it once for all. But what does India gain from it. Revenge? Sure! Peace of mind? Hardly! Will Islam disappear from the face of the earth? No, because Pakistan is not Islam. Will everyone in the world convert to Hindu religion? Perhaps not! After Mahabharata, did Hindus live in peace? No, the Hindu kings were fighting each other. A similar situation exists for Muslims. They are as fragmented as Hindus. Whatever happens to Kashmir, the Muslims will never be united!
A clear analysis of the situation is necessary before taking action. Look at the past, the present and the future. Before looking at the past, let us ask a few simple questions. Can one billion people be defeated by ten terrorists with heinous designs? Let us remember one physically frail man who stood against the mighty British Empire with no weapons in his hand? Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian nation, won by the power of his ideas and ideals. But he was defeated by the rise of communalism. At the time of independence and soon afterwards, the Indian nation ignored him and ultimately killed him. The virulent communalism brought his demise. The payback has been coming in various stages and the Mumbai attack of 2008 can also be viewed as just another one of them.
Gandhiji was against communalism and partition of the country. He was against hatred and violence. His ways influenced many great leaders of the world. But Indian politicians soon started to deviate from the path shown by him. He opposed the creation of the monstrous entity called Pakistan which was based on religion. Only a few other countries including Israel are similarly formed and face many contradictions and difficulties due to their inherently absurd foundations. For example, Israel is trying to define who is Jewish?
Pakistan does not know who is a real Muslim? Muslims are fighting and killing Muslims inside Pakistan. Yet the struggle for Kashmir continues and they want Kashmiri Muslims in the mix.
Had Indians accepted Gandiji’s ideas of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence, a whole lot of problems in the Indian sub-continent could have been avoided. This is not to say that other problems like corruption, poverty, exploitation etc. would have gone away. But two nuclear armed neighbors coming to near war situations is by far the greatest threat to the subcontinent.
If religion is not at the root of this problem, then the only other reason is military occupation and suppression. With Chandrayaan in orbit and all the scientific advances and globalization, India has reached a stage where Gandhian ideas of tolerance and peaceful co-existence can be implemented from a position of strength. If you follow that path, the present situation offers a wonderful opportunity to defeat terrorism and correct the grave mistake of the past.
Let India, Pakistan and perhaps Bangladesh recombine into a single entity with distributed power base like the European Union. In that case, only the Union government will have defense and finance and rest of the states will have a lot of autonomy. The nuclear arms will be controlled by the union government and the Western nations do not have to worry about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Gandhiji’s dream was a multi religious, multiethnic, free and prosperous united India. The present situation gives the possibility of uniting the Indian subcontinent of Gandhiji’s dream.
A lot of work must be done to achieve this dream. First step has to be the mass mobilization for unity. The religious fanatics must be neutralized by proper media blitz and education. Open debates and proper mobilization of the public opinion are essential as starting points of such a “revolution” in the subcontinent. Many people will say that it is impossible. Similar reservations were present during Gandhiji’s time. But in the fast developing world, regimes are changing under public pressure. Once people have a will, it is possible to bring about change. So, why not try it out?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Game Changer - World - The Sydney Morning Herald -smh.com.au
The Game Changer
Whoever planned the Mumbai massacre - and it was planned, funded and executed by some group in Pakistan - the murders of at least 188 people and paralysis of India's largest city were intended to change geopolitics.
Topping the shortlist of suspects are al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Pakistan Government and intelligence and security services, or rogue elements within those services working with Islamist extremists. But what would anyone in Pakistan stand to gain from a terrorist plot so easily traced to that country? And why has Pakistani culpability met with such a muted response from India and the West?
Pakistan is one of those countries - Israel another - for which a benign foreign policy environment is seen as essential to national survival. The stunted offspring of the Partition of the British Raj, Pakistan is doomed to live in India's shadow.
During the Cold War - in which Pakistan sided unreservedly with the United States, while India played footsie with the Soviets - Islamabad's existential fear of its neighbour was balanced by the confidence that only a friendly White House can give. But since the red menace evaporated and the West became a target of South Asia-based terrorists, Pakistan is less secure. The West's embrace of India as an economic and strategic balance to China has exacerbated Pakistan's insecurity.
The American alliance provided Pakistan with some immunity against India. Islamabad's politically-dominant army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) used or worked closely with a variety of extremists bent on fuelling secessionist violence in parts of India, including Punjab and Kashmir. America even turned a blind eye to Pakistan's covert nuclear program from the 1970s until the early 1990s, when America's victory in Afghanistan led powerful figures in Washington to believe they did not need Pakistan any more, and economic and military aid was cut off.
Fast forward to September 2001 when al-Qaeda and the Taliban attacked the US. Having backed the Taliban in Afghanistan and worked hand in glove with armed Islamists in the 1999 Kargil invasion of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Pakistan was caught hand in cookie jar. Only when General Pervez Musharraf agreed to join the so-called War On Terror did America forgive its sins.
But controllers of Pakistan's security services always regarded that as a mere tactical retreat. Since the time of an earlier military ruler, the late General Zia ul-Haq, the country's ruling elite retained a barely concealed contempt for an American superpower that spent hundreds of billions of dollars buying their friendship. They were confident the West would eventually see the wisdom of subcontracting to Pakistan the messy business of South Asia security. The lavish and misplaced lauding of Musharraf as a hero in the War on Terror illustrated the tendency. But this year, Pakistan's confidence in its ability to set the terms of engagement was badly shaken. American strikes went ahead on al-Qaeda and Taliban forces based in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas despite Islamabad's vociferous protests. Meanwhile, India revived its diplomatic influence in an Afghanistan long regarded by Islamabad as an unofficial province of Pakistan. Adding to hardline alarm has been the vocal adventurism of Pakistan's new president - Asif Ali Zadari, widower of former leader Benazir Bhutto.
He recently pledged to shake up the ISI and uttered the ultimate apostasy by declaring Pakistan had nothing to fear from India and should have warm relations with New Delhi.
The Mumbai attack was designed to wreck rapprochement with India and replace it with military crisis. The same strategy underpinned the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament - an attempt to murder the entire Indian government.
The key suspects for Mumbai all want the US to halt military strikes on Pakistani soil. They want to undermine Western resolve to stay in Afghanistan, thereby facilitating Pakistani suzerainty there. The strike on Mumbai was meticulously planned and expensive, with the foot soldiers getting the sort of specialist training usually restricted to commandos. Above all, it was exquisitely timed to tame two new presidents.
Pakistan's Zardari will find it difficult to pursue his peace and domestic reform agenda in the face of rising tensions with India. And Barack Obama finds his country plunged into another looming crisis in South Asia, one tailor-made to circumscribe his options so that his policy ultimately serves a Pakistan wedded to a chaotic and bloody status quo.
No sooner had India blamed Pakistan than Pakistan threatened to shift to the Indian border military forces fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda - a threat guaranteed to send shivers down the Washington spine.
Panic, of course, is the wrong reaction, as is naivety. Nothing moves in Pakistan without ISI knowledge. The Mumbai massacre could not have been set in train in Pakistan without assistance of the security and intelligence establishment, past or present.
It has taken Pakistan decades to become the sovereign equivalent of a suicide bomber: "Do what we say or we'll blow ourselves up - and take everyone else with us!" Who would call the bluff? Nobody wants to see self-immolation of a country of 170 million people with nuclear weapons.
As always, India will be expected to swallow pain and turn a blind eye to the escape of the back room perpetrators. The more strident New Delhi's reaction, the more it suits the planners of this outrage. But the bitter pill of restraint will be made more palatable for India if it results in closer diplomatic, military and intelligence co-operation aimed at containing the Pakistan problem.
Events like Mumbai are rarely the work of wounded idealists. They are cynical acts of mass murder designed to achieve specific political outcomes. There is method in this madness, but also desperation.
Pakistani extremists - in and out of uniform - want to scare us out of the region and hold hostage to Pakistan indulgence our improving relations with India.
By staying the course, by building a stronger, better targeted international military presence in Afghanistan, by deepening our economic and security ties with India, and by working patiently and methodically to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism in South Asia, we deny the massacre architects their most heartfelt desire, and best serve the security of millions of decent people everywhere, including our own.
Christopher Kremmer, author of four books on modern Asia, is a scholar with the Writing and Society Research Group at the University of Western Sydney.
Devadasis - What are they?
In a village in southern India a child has just been born. A group of women gather round the cradle, wishing the baby a life full of riches, rubies and pearls.
 Goddess Yellama's cult is thousands of years old |
 Campaigners say there are 25,000 devadasis in Karnataka state alone |
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Jharkhand/message/4792 A note by K. Santhaa Reddy
Member, National Commission for Women, NEW DELHI, in response.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Hope Amidst Ruins : outlookindia.com Smruti Koppikar
| Hope Amidst Ruins | ||||
| In the rubble of the hundreds of lives lost and maimed, of the iconic buildings burnt, of the incompetence of the processes and institutions we trusted, however cynically, there's hope. And that's the cliché of Nov 2008. | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
From my diary.
Nov 29, 2008:
I did not lose any family or friends in the horrific attacks, yet I have lost.
I feel violated, hurt and very angry.
But I am not alone.
Who amongst us does not feel violated and hurt and angry?
Who amongst us has been able to douse our rage of the last few days?
Who amongst us can forget the 60-hour-long attack, the flames, the bodies, the grief of relatives and friends?
Who amongst us has not come out of our de-sensitised shell, transfixed by the sheer enormity of the tragedy and the utter incompetence of people we trusted our lives with?
Who amongst us has not shed a tear?
Who amongst us today believes that we will return home in one piece every night after work or after dinner?
Who amongst us is not praying, or at least hoping, that there will be a difference?
And, who amongst us is not willing to go out and do something, anything, that will make that difference possible?
There is so much outrage, so much anger, so much disgust amongst people like you and me, I am surprised there haven't been reactive incidents.
On Friday night, 48 hours to the attack and still counting, I was prepared to hear that someone like us had lobbed a home-made grenade at the chief minister's bungalow, or that of some politician who took an oath of office, on the Constitution of India, to protect her people.
Or that someone who professes to be a Hindu, under the garb of being an ultra-nationalist Indian, had gone hunting for his Muslim neighbour whom he equated with Pakistan
Or that there was a growing clamour for an all-out war with Pakistan.
Or that outrage took demonic forms and pitted Indian against Indian.
That none of this has transpired, so far, means that this time we behaved with incredible maturity at a time of great distress.
It means that we see the possibility of directing their anger and passion into something constructive.
There is now no doubt that the glorious and celebrated spirit of Mumbai, an inexplicable mix of commerce and attitude, was not in its soporific dance on Day 1 after an attack, as it has been on every single occasion in the past.
March 1993, Dec 2002, Jan 2003, August 2003, July 2005, July 2006.
And several instances of violence, or the threats of violence, in between.
The spirit of Mumbai was always a cliché that those outside Mumbai chose to describe the no-nonsense attitude and the demands of a commercial system.
Mumbaikars simply put their heads down, subjugated their fears to their roles as cogs in the commerce wheel, and resumed the rhythm of life.
Not because we wanted to, but because we had to, because that was the only way we knew.
No one asked us if we wanted to retreat and nurse our wounds. No one asked how we could be so resilient, or even if we wanted to be resilient.
The resilience, that spirit, dissipated sometime in those 60 hours.
Mumbaikars chose to retreat.
It's a welcome change because people elsewhere will take note, and cease to pretend that nothing major happened.
As an Indian, as a shaken Mumbaikar, as a trying-to-be-dispassionate journalist, I am hoping that constructive change, or changes, will gradually begin to take shape over the next few weeks and months.
It's important that we do not stop being angry or hurt. You or me or anyone else.
And, it's important that we do not dissipate these emotions by fulminating in our drawing rooms and online chat rooms.
Sign all the petitions for peace, light all the candles possible, march in all the demonstrations that will be, hold up placards and banners, but safe-keep the emotions.
These are our strengths now, these are the driving forces, these are the tools to effect the changes we wish to see.
In the rubble of the hundreds of lives lost and maimed, of the iconic buildings burnt, of the incompetence of the processes and institutions we trusted, however cynically, there's hope.
And that's the cliché of Nov 2008. Hope amidst ruins
My hope is that the anger and the hurt will be channelised as they ought to be.
To bring individual losses on a collective platform and demand fundamental changes in the way we are governed.
My confidence, despite everything loaded against it, is that the Idea of India -- the idea of Mumbai -- has taken a physical blow but will not disintegrate or change to suit the designs that our friends or enemies may have.
I remember many lines from many pages but one sticks in the head.
"When you're running down my country, man, you're walking on the fighting side of me"
Friends say fightback is a negative term, but it need not be.
This is indeed a fightback, but it has to be a peaceful, passionate, consistent and constructive one.
Because Mumbai matters.
Because India matters.
About Me
- Sandip K. Dasverma
- Arise Awake Stop not till the goal is reached. - Swami Vivekananda Swami ji is my inspiration, not as a monk but as a social reformer and for his universal-ism.