Reflecting on Obama's visit to India

I have a new post at the FPA about Obama's recent visit to India.

"The announcement was at best a shrewd high impact low risk diplomatic gesture, an opportunity to surpass Bush’s Nuclear Deal moment and ensure reciprocal support from India on issues such as human rights in Myanmar or tougher sanctions on Iran. Obama’s support was followed by a call to India to take up more responsibility and reprimand for not speaking out against and condemning human right abuses."

Read more here.

About aid to Pakistan

My new post at the FPA India blog where I argue for putting up a fight against unhindered aid to Pakistan from the US.

"But neither the U.S, nor Pakistan can be really blamed for looking out for their own interests. Playing the victim and savior, and asking for money for being both at the same time, is what Pakistan does best. I think its leadership; its political and military institutions should be commended for efficiently training consecutive generations to fool the world with the same spiel! Other countries could learn a thing or two from Pakistan about consistent foreign policy."

Read more here.

Bullet proof? Not really

Why does this not surprise me anymore?

A letter to Mr Thackeray

Mr. Bal Thackeray,

Really, are you out of your mind completely? You want him to be hanged publicly at the Gateway of India? Though Kasab deserves to die for what he did, the Gateway of India does not deserve to go down in history as the spot where he was hanged. You want it to be a big spectacle with people cheering and the 24 hr news channels telecasting it live for the world to see? You really think that would deter other terrorists from attacking India? Or do you wish to immortalize Kasab's death so that it can be used as fodder for other terrorists-in-training? You known it favors politicians' electoral interests when the country is under attack from external forces? Are you sure you speak only out of a desire for justice?

Just so you know, we are not barbarians. We are a country of decent people who would be outraged by such displays. We are not terrorists. We do not go about killing people because we are told that they have wronged us. We allow the judiciary to determine guilt and provide justice. A fair trial, as is currently underway, is what you need to send a message to the millions of Indians that the state machinery can protect them. The judicial system is capable of bringing terrorists to trial and punishing them without outraging publicly decency. We do not attack lawyers for serving their country. We stand by them. Maybe you could too.

Kasab is a terrorist. He does not need to die a martyr.

Zardari admits to supporting terrorists!

If this story is to be believed, then Zardari might just become India's most loved Pakistani President. However, it seems rather odd that he would admit that "Pakistan nurtured terrorism." So far Pakistan has vehemently rejected supporting terrorists. India shouted itself hoarse, but no one seemed to believe that the Pakistani State had anything to do with terrorism in India. That Pakistan pursued it as a standard foreign policy decision.

While I am skeptical about the story, it does raise various questions. The first being, what is Zardari playing at? Following in Musharraf's footsteps? Or does he have a bigger game up his sleeve, one where admission of sponsoring terrorism is a small price to pay? Does this admission mean that Pakistan will be termed a State sponsor of terrorism? Or is it not an "official" enough admission? Will it mean fewer dollars to help Pakistan "fight the war on terror?" Will Western countries finally see Pakistan for what it is - a sponsor of terrorism? I seriously doubt anything of the sort will happen. At best Zardari will claim ignorance or out of context reporting. And things will go back to being as they were.

While the story was reported by the Indian media, I have been unable to find any traces of it anywhere else other than the Telegraph. Maybe they will pick it up tomorrow. Or maybe they will choose to ignore.

Creating false equivalencies

Charles Krauthammer in this Washington Post piece criticizes Obama for "hovering above mere mortals" and "distorting history for political effect." While I agree that maybe Obama could have indulged in little less self-flagellation, considering the intended purpose of the speech it is not impossible to imagine why those words were chosen.

The problem I have is with Krauthammer's comments upon Obama juxtaposing U.S. sponsored government overthrow in Iran, and Iran's role in violence against the U.S.

"A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." "

For one, I doubt if Obama was trying to call it even. Secondly the "thug regime" that came into being in Iran and perpetuated the violence was in ways enabled by the U.S. coup against the democratically elected leadership of Mosaddegh. Just as the Taliban problem in Afghanistan had to do with U.S. supporting the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. It can reasonably be argued that had Mosaddegh been allowed to rule, Iran would have been a favorably different country. So it definitely does not balance things out.

*Disclaimer: I do not condone or support terrorist activities, whether sponsored by Iran or any other country.

Musharraf's Spiegel interview

Did he really say that!?! Pervez Musharraf disclosed in an interview that the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and the terrorists who bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008 are connected. That is a huge admission for someone who was at the helm of affairs in Pakistan for a long time. In the Spiegel interview he bashes India and the United States for Pakistan's problems all through history.

Though not surprising, it is definitely telling that Musharraf thinks "nothing can happen to Pakistan as long as the armed forces are intact and strong. Anyone who wants to weaken and destabilize Pakistan just has to weaken the army and our intelligence service, ISI..."No one would deny that the defense mechanism is a crucial aspect in the well-being of any country, but over and above that are strong functional political institutions. (China is a strong and stable country not simply because of its military but because of a strong functioning political system.) Pakistan has been in a perpetual state of crisis since its creation due to the military dominated governments. They had no interest in laying down strong foundations for democracy or other form of civil government. Pakistan's geopolitical importance particularly during the Cold War meant that foreign governments did everything they could to ensure a well-trained and -equipped army, rather than a stable government.

And so ultimately Pakistan mastered the art of exhorting billions in aid money, without any results to show for it. The country is still destabilized and its economy in shambles. It is no surprise that when asked about how they spent the money received over the last eight years, Musharraf replied, "But why do you care about that? Why, for heaven's sake, should I tell you how we spent the money? ... I also told the Americans that it has nothing to do with them. We are not obligated to give out any details. Maybe I should have said at the time: Ok, you want us to support you, give us $20 billion a year and don't ask what we are doing with it." One could think of it as a business transaction, payment for services provided. But in that cases the vendor is expected to deliver. I see a daylight bribery.

Musharraf does tell us that some of the money was a reimbursement for past services. And how it is not possible to segregate the spendings as those on "war on terror" only, because material bought with that money travels with the moving army divisions to the Easter (Indian) border too. In effect the money is being spent to secure its Eastern border and fight India. Of course it is no surprise that he considers that India should not be left out if one is serious about combating terrorism. Read together Musharraf is saying that Pakistan spent all the aid money fighting the "war on terror" against Afghanistan and India. No surprises there.

There is a method to the madness

A very new and interesting analysis of modern war data. The results are surprising and could perhaps even provide clues to ending conflicts like Iraq. As Sean Gourley presents his 'number of attacks - people killed' graphs, they seem to defy logic. How can the number of people killed increase as the frequency of attacks goes down? The remainder of the talk provides a good explanation, and the pattern displayed begins to seem almost obvious.

Children as potential terrorists

This is a very scary move not only in terms of individual privacy and freedoms, but the impact on those young minds. The police have compared it to their drug intervention program which identifies children using or susceptible to drug use. No matter how bad drugs might be, that label cannot be compared to the "potential terrorist" label.

How can the police be sure that it won't be used by extremist organizations as evidence of Muslims being targeted? How can they ensure confidentiality of identities of those "identified" as "potential terrorists?" If identities are disclosed what will stop radical organizations from trying to brainwash them completely? Those people are known for extremely secretive operations anyways. How do you ensure that the kids won't become social outcasts due to the potential danger they pose? The psychological impact this would have on them (already vulnerable in their teens) and the long term repercussions? What about the innocent children who happen to know them. How will the police look at them? Will they be guilty by association? Evidently the information would be on the kids "files" forever. So how would they have a normal life?

While I understand the importance of preventing terrorism and terrorists, the operative word in this British operation is "children." How radical can children as young as 13 be? Teenagers are rebellious. So do you keep identifying them as potential this and that, or do you let them live out their childhood? No state intervenes because a child is into extremely violent video games, or excessive porn, and what have you. I do not mean that we should let kids grow up and become terrorists, but identifying and labeling them as "potential terrorists" in their most vulnerable years is definitely not the way to go.

Really!?!

What's the motivation here?

"Safaat had been in Malaysian custody since December 2001, when he was arrested because of his alleged involvement with Jemaah Islamiah, a radical South Asian terror group closely linked with Al Qaeda. But two weeks ago, Malaysia's interior minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, announced that Sufaat and five other detained Islamic militants were being freed because "they are no longer a threat and will no longer pose a threat to public order." Albar added that Sufaat "has been rehabilitated and can return to society."" (emphasis mine)

Apparently the Malaysian government's legal authority to hold him has expired. Is the Malaysian government (with all due respect) so law abiding, or can it not charge him with something else or find a loophole in the system that would allow them to hold him back? Can you rehabilitate terrorists? I would love for that to happen, what is it possible?

The pirates and us

We sure can act fast on the high seas! Maybe we should move all our commandos and emergency response personnel there so that they can reach places on time.

Pyaar ke side effects

Dear Sitaram Yechury,

You deserve a prize!

But just so that you know, terrorists came to Indian shores long before the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was conceived. Long before India was considered by the U.S. to be a "strategic ally."

Another thing, Mr. Yechury. Avoid contradictory thoughts in the same speech. "He opposed any move to "curb the rights" of the states by enacting a federal investigative agency....There is a need to create a new security architecture in the country...Yechury said." You further point out that "It is not the inadequacy of any law that caused the Mumbai terror attacks. If needed we can correct the loopholes in the present laws."

Well. Inadequacy of counter-terrorism laws, inadequacy of border protection laws, inadequacy of anti-corruption laws (to name a few) caused the Mumbai attacks. And the many more before it too. Also I don't understand how the rights of states will be curbed through a new agency. It will be a new law. You can write it such that any possibility of "curbing rights" will be eliminated. In fact you can plug the loopholes in the system as a whole. It is a fresh new opportunity, you see.

Sacrilegious as the thought may be for you, we could in fact use some help from countries like U.S. and Israel. As disastrous as their "war on terror" has been, it is true that the U.S. has been able to avoid any terrorist attacks on its soil after 9/11 through strict laws. And Israel has one of the best intelligence agencies in the world.

Of course you deserve credit for recognizing that India has been exposed to "new dangers" due to the nuclear deal. What kind, is a matter for another letter. I don't want to confuse you.

Regards
Manasi Kakatkar

(Additional reading: India announces security overhaul.)

Playing the victim again

It was a pleasure reading Asif Ali Zardari's piece in the NYT. He sympathizes with India. Says he understands the terror on a very personal level. He then calls upon the U.S. and India to join hands with Pakistan and help it, and (of course) give it money to cope with the situation. Nothing new about it really.

But I did think Zardari was being 'courageous' at certain times...

"These militants did not arise from whole cloth. Pakistan was an ally of the West throughout the cold war. The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.

Pakistan continues to pay the price: the legacy of dictatorship, the fatigue of fanaticism, the dismemberment of civil society and the destruction of our democratic infrastructure. The resulting poverty continues to fuel the extremists and has created a culture of grievance and victimhood."

He conveniently shrugs off Pakistan's responsibility and shifts the blame completely to the U.S. While I agree that the U.S.' Cold War politics is to blame for the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iran and Pakistan, it is not singularly at fault. Pakistan is equally, if not more to blame for its current condition. Zardari seems to be conveniently forgetting how Pakistan started its terrorist activities in Kashmir in the 1970's. It was Pakistan's independent India policy at the time, not some Cold War consequence.

Zardari further pleads, "Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world...The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to fight the terrorists effectively."

In short, 'look at us, we are so innocent, poor, victimized, wrongly targeted....' For God's sake! How long is Pakistan going to play the same cards? And how long is the world going to play along? Pakistan's civil government, as far as understand, is impotent when its comes to handling the army and militant activities in the country. It is highly symbolic, a mere facade for the Western world to be forced and even blackmailed into pumping money into a failing state. Afghanistan and Iraq were disastrous, and looking back at the last eight years I would not advocate raiding Pakistan. But stricter action is necessary. Maybe terming it a state-sponsor of terrorism would be a good start.

A state-sponsor of terrorism tag from the U.S. would bring strict sanctions including ban on arms-related exports, controls on exports of dual-use items, prohibitions on economic assistance and ban on Defense Department contracts of more than $100,000 among other things. In short a complete end to all U.S.-Pakistan cooperation since their relations are based precisely on such military and "economic" assistance.

It would have repercussions. The military would have greater reason to rule, claiming that the "democratically" elected government is incapable of governing the people. The militants/terrorists organizations would have a stronger argument for recruitment. Possibly greater backlash in Kashmir and Afghanistan. But at the same time it would cut off at least some supply lines. (I assume that the Pakistani army receiving arms is as good as militants receiving them.) The economy would most definitely collapse. And it would be a failed state in the true sense.

But Pakistan's transgressions are too big to be overlooked any more. There needs to be a punishment. There needs to be some accountability. If someone can come up with an efficient plan to punish the army and government without harming the common people, I would support them whole-heartedly. But till then we cannot afford to, and we should neither forgive nor forget.

Update: All terror roads lead to Pakistan, says US report.

Indian terrorism by the numbers.

A non-profit news media industry?

Since the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai I, like many others, have been flooded with emails of petitions, protests, need to take action and the like. The bottom-line being enough is enough. While it is good to see such outrage and demand for action from people within and outside India, I am not very hopeful about what will actually come out of it.

A lot of anger has been directed at the Indian media, and its insensitivity in handling the attacks. One email that particularly struck me said that the Indian media should be turned into a non-profit industry. In the words of the author of the email, "...that at least news media should be compulsorily made non-profit and if they do report any profits, all of these should be donated to some orphanage or old age home or something of that sort." The rationale being that the current sensationalizing and TRP greed is due to the inherent profit-making nature of the industry, and if they are turned into a non-profit industry it would bring in accountability.

I have heard only few a more ridiculous argument before. For one, just because an organization is non-profit does mean it is responsible, accountable or sensitive. In fact, I would argue that taking away profit would take away any incentive the media has to improve its standards. Not to mention that after years of being one of the most financially deprived workforce, we are finally seeing journalists making some money. With the amount of work that goes in, they deserve to.

Secondly, were it not for the (outrageous) reporting, I doubt how many of those "coming together and joining hands" would have been motivated to do it. India has been under constant terrorist attacks from Pakistan for decades now. No one got so worked up about them before. A few murmurs here and there, and things were back to routine. I believe the constant images of destruction and terror, the 24 hour updates of deaths and fear impacted us differently. It made a difference in how we looked at it, how we felt about it, what we thought we should do about it.

While the Indian media needs to get its act together and set some standards, it is irresponsible to demands things like turning it into a non-profit, and asking the Information Ministry to dictate terms to it. India is a democracy, a free country with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and the government is not supposed to be dictating terms. They can ask them to display better sensitivity, criticise, issue temporary ordinances for security reasons, but not dictate. The right of expression was curtailed during the Emergency, and I don't believe anyone wants a repeat of those years. They weren't exactly the best years for Indian democracy.

The said email also made another request. "Also do forward this to people you think would agree and do something. Please do not forward to those you do not expect to react, like we need people to." The less said about this, the better.

It's raining pirates!

"Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker."

"Hong Kong grain ship hijacked by pirates."

"Danish oil ship briefly seized off Nigeria."

Terrorism analysis and forecasting software

With terrorism always on our minds it might be of interest that UMD researchers have come up with a new "artificial intelligence software that uses data about past behavior of terror groups in order to learn rules about the probability of an organization, community, or person taking certain actions in different situations." Details and audio here.