NSA spied on BJP to spy on Congress?

What exactly does the NSA spying on the BJP amount to? Is the target the office of the political party, or its senior leaders, or media cells, or its workers on the ground? Or, was it using the enemy of the 'enemy'?

The latest disclosure by Edward Snowden has got the Indian government in a tizzy:

That the omnibus spying programme by the US National Security Agency enveloped 193 countries (including India) comes as no surprise, but what is striking is that the Obama administration in 2010 sought authorization from the shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to conduct surveillance on BJP among six political outfits worldwide. Others listed in Edward Snowden's disclosure of the NSA operation are Amal of Lebanon, an outfit with alleged links to Hezbollah; the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator of Venezuela, with purported links to FARC; Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; Egyptian National Salvation Front; and Pakistan People's Party.

The PPP and BJP seem like misfits in this group. The former, in fact, had a fairly charmed equation with the US authorities, and although Narendra Modi was denied a visa, there would be no reason for the Obama government to snoop on the party. Some have suggested that it was based on Rahul Gandhi’s 2009 conversation with the then US ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu terror was “the bigger threat (to India) may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community”. This is apparently in comparison with the LeT.

Why would the US toe his line? America has a lot to gain with its ‘war on terror’ that is exclusively jihad-driven because those regions ensure profiteering. Paranoia over Hindu terror would be a waste of time, for India does not offer any tangible benefits (the Americans have been busy patenting tulsi, and yoga and spiritualism are now a part of their culture).

The NSA acted in 2010. The BJP was not in power, nor was there a major riot immediately prior to it. Even if there was, it is not the business of any other country. If anything, the BJP could have been “of valid interest for US intelligence” to get information about the ruling Congress Party, the whispers, rumours, and details about scams that the government would probably want to hide, and the opposition parties keep notes of. As reported, the Congress had raised objections about the spying last year. This is not a matter of which party is targeted, but of the country. The BJP ought to have raised the issue then along with the Congress, just as the Congress should join forces now.

Surprisingly, the former foreign minister Salman Khurshid had taken a benign view:

“Some of the information they (the US) got out of their scrutiny, they were able to use it to prevent serious terrorist attacks in several countries.”

Did the US administration share such information with the Indian government? When has the US ever tried to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere? It only lands up later, adding to the mayhem.

The revelations state:

Only four countries were off-limits from the snooping: loyal allies Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If terrorism is the main reason, then these countries are home to immigrants. Would the hosts not be at risk, if one goes by western stereotyping?

The US also got authorisation to spy on international non-government agencies – the United Nations, European Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank – that it anyway twists to suit its political agenda. With key tactical information, it can cause a good deal of covert harm.

The Indian response has been tepid. There is greater concern about how this will pan out, as Modi and Obama are to meet at the end of September. It sounds wicked to say so, but perhaps they would like to share notes. After all, the Indian PM is known to spy on his partymen, and Snoopgate did not appear out of thin air. And while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, the timing of the leak is just right. It will give them time to indulge in some real diplomacy after the earlier embargo on Modi. This is an unusual ice-breaker, but given that Angela Merkel could condone the spying Modi will just grin and bear it.

Meanwhile, the official channels are bureaucratic with their “summon a top diplomat” and the sophomoric “India also sought an assurance from the US that it will not happen again”.

There is a lot that happens that might not be in the realm of WikiLeaks knowledge, and it is unlikely to stop. The only way to get on top of this is to have our own intel agencies so smart that they can snoop on the snoopers.

© Farzana Versey

Wagers of Labour: The Devyani Khobragade case

Is America humiliating India by riding on the case of a maid? Sounds illogical, but if true then it is bizarre.

The incident in short: Devyani Khobragade, Indian deputy consul general in New York, was arrested for falsifying details on the visa of her domestic help Sangeeta Richard. She was strip-searched, handcuffed, had her DNA swab taken and was put in a lock-up with drug addicts.

The Indian media and politicians have gone into hyperbolic mode that, in fact, is derogatory towards the country’s honour they are seeking to uphold. For example, one headline spoke about “Strip search shows India’s spine.” A minister said, “India can’t be treated like a banana republic.”

Every major political party has spoken out, with one vital difference: they are promoting their own agendas. It has little or nothing to do with electoral gains, for Indians really do not care about the nitty-gritty of who represents them abroad or at home. However, it most certainly helps to push ideologies, whether it is making a reference to the diplomat’s Dalit background, or asking for gay American diplomats to be sent back home by a rightwing member, or the ruling party standing up as one of the largest democracies against the might of the other largest democracy. Add to this a mish-mish of others who want to give a befitting reply to America’s arrogance to prove their feeble patriotism.

Posters too convey a feudal attitude of a bigger role as big brother that ought to protect our sisters.

It is shameful to read about a tit-for-tat policy when we are discussing diplomacy. An unconditional apology is perhaps in order, but the US refuses because it reasons it is about their laws.

After a week, secretary of state John Kerry called up India's national security adviser Shivshankar Menon. Spokeswoman Marie Harf issued a written statement:

"In his conversation with Menon, he expressed his regret, as well as his concern that we not allow this unfortunate public issue to hurt our close and vital relationship with India...The secretary understands very deeply the importance of enforcing our laws and protecting victims, and, like all officials in positions of responsibility inside the US. government, expects that laws will be followed by everyone here in our country.”

This is too vague and obvious that the response is not to the treatment but a reaction to public protests in India.

Foreign minister Salman Khurshid said:

"We have put in motion what we believe would be an effective way of addressing the issue but also (put) in motion such steps that need to be taken to protect her dignity.”

While granting her immunity makes sense, how does not meeting American delegates help serve her dignity? The western media and authorities are not terribly concerned with this issue.

With regard to withdrawing identity cards of US officials that allowed them special privileges over those they were entitled to, it should have been done long ago. Now it appears as though bruised egos are doing the talking. The US consulate and other staff have had many privileges and are afforded protection way above the norm. This reveals a lot about us, and a little about them. For a nation that does not have a history such as ours, where the pecking order is more glaring, its staff overseas seems to quite relish being treated like big saabs, not unlike the colonisers of the British Raj.

India has held its own at least at the level of détente, which is where it matters most. There is no need to behave in a churlish fashion now. Instead of these ‘withdrawal’ measures, would we have the courage to nix the nuclear deal with the US, have an embargo on trade relations, put strictures over fly zone and refueling, a cap over foreign investments, and mandatory surveillance of American companies and consulate offices by Indian agencies? This would be real talking.

Having said this, I do not think any of this is necessary only as a response to Ms. Khobragade. This case should be dealt with between two offices and not two countries. The international agency and labour commission has to look into it.

We have lost all sense of proportion, and failed to notice that the US picked on a mid-level diplomat, and not a high-ranking official. It is also curious why the US arranged for the maid’s family to visit just two days before the arrest of the diplomat. There is a suggestion that this was part of some plan. Why would the American government want to do so? There are strict procedures for immigrations, and if Sangeeta Richard is being given special treatment only because she did not get the salary as per minimum wages, then it might be prudent to ask just how many in the US do.

The helper escaped; her employer got a call asking for money; she complained about the disappearance and extortion; India alerted the counterparts in the US. Nothing happened. Instead, the employer got arrested.

The major issue is the indignity she underwent. It is indeed shocking and rather unusual. What were the authorities going to find after a strip search, a cavity search and a DNA swab? It makes no sense.

If the concern about malpractice, then what about the malpractice of the help seeking employment, which one understands is common practice?

Following the detention of Ms. Khobragade, a report stated:

“Many officials, who have faced such situations, say maids who allege human trafficking, sexual abuse by employers etc have an easier route to obtaining the coveted green cards for them and their families. For this, they are assisted by a veritable army of NGOs and lawyers. Officials said on condition of anonymity that sometimes maids etc are lured by attractive offers from resident NRIs.”

It brings us back to the question: what exactly is the US thinking? At a pinch, it looks like America wants to appear egalitarian towards what is the working class. Although this has not got much publicity, it will convey a message in-house. There has been discussion about minimum wages as opposed to what the domestic staff would earn in India. The expenses are higher in the US, even if board and lodge are taken care of.

It is important to note here that diplomatic staff, and even those of multinational companies, working in India are provided a ‘hardship allowance’, apparently to tide over the hardships they might face in a less developed country, quite forgetting that the dollar goes a long way here. As for the terrible state, they occupy the best real estate and are the toast of big business and the glamour world. They are on the socialite’s wish list all year round, and as they live in the metros there is hardly any reason to complain. If anything, they get far more attention than they would at home. The policy of “reciprocity” will not affect many socially, if we understand the Indian mindset.

The issue has to go beyond removing protective barricades. For those gloating that India is taking a firm stand, let us not fool ourselves.

Playing on anti-American sentiment will cut no ice, because the US has survived it and thrives on it. Count the nations that are against American policies and you will get the picture. Yet, it is American forces that land up to save beleaguered countries, and let us not get into the pragmatic position or even the ethical one here. Or, shall we use the word of currency now – malpractice?

© Farzana Versey

Let us meet? Another Indo-Pak moment...

Milne do. Let us meet. This is how the peace narrative of India-Pakistan relations go. Some of us have expressed reservations, emphasising how diplomacy is imperative and cricket, films, culture should not intrude or override political considerations.

Peaceniks are nice people. I am not sure about movements at any time, for they too become political if not commercial enterprises for certain media groups to use people-to-people contact for just making music, quite literally. One does not need to assert peace if the intention is purely cultural.

However, I do know that families are separated, and it is not only due to the Partition, although that is the most heart wrenching memory because it divided the country and, to an extent, the people. I do know how getting visas for people who can spot the sliver of a river or peek at trees across the border are torn because of such divisions and acrimony. These are not the ones who will go via Wagah.

While I wait for that, I cannot deny that this short by Google is indeed a warm recognition of the soul of what were once 'one people':

Google Search - Reunion from Google Pakistan on Vimeo.

---

This is far more important than the hype over our Home Minister P. Chidambaram being in the same room as a Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef at a non-government function.

Where is Dawood Ibrahim?

It is the sort of truth-or-dare query that is good for a game. I have been watching promos and there are special 'Shoaib' moments to market the film. What is interesting about it is that the character is based, not so loosely, on Dawood Ibrahim. This is not the first such film, but it has one of the mainstream actors essaying the role. So, does 'Once Upon A Time In Mumbai — Dobaara' have anything to do with the recent spurt of reports on the underworld don?

Perhaps. You switch on the television and on surfing channels you realise how reality and fiction meet. It begs the question: Is it okay to glorify a character, ride on his notorious fame, and find that the news stories are just adding to the hype rather conveniently?

We are all lapping up the stories — news and fiction. The lines are blurred.

Looking for Dawood has an absurdist quality. This time, it started with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's "special envoy for improving relations with India" (a bizarre portfolio, to begin with) Shahryar Khan. He said:

"Dawood (Ibrahim) was in Pakistan, but I believe he was chased out of Pakistan. If he is in Pakistan, he should be hounded and arrested. We cannot allow such gangsters to operate from the country."

Mr. Khan, for whatever it is worth besides obviously covering up, seems to be concerned about his country. He is not interested in anything beyond that, and most certainly not to help India.

On what did he base his statement? As I've said and what has been reported quite often, Dawood Ibrahim's Karachi residence was revealed in the Pakistani media. The Indian media has all too shamelessly carried interviews with him for years from his "unknown" locations. A scoop seems more important than any other consideration.

The same applies to some politicians and cops. The fact that D-Company, as well as a few other underworld groups, operate with such impunity should be a clear indicator that the intent to get hold of Dawood is just not strong enough, despite all talk. It does not speak too well of our Intel agencies, given that India has fairly good relations with the UAE, where he was a public figure appearing on Indian TV channels.

The argument is that he was not dangerous enough then. Now the situation is different.

How different it is is borne out by the reaction of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Its spokesperson, Syed Akbaruddin, told the media:

“Like you, I too have seen these reports which have been attributed to a senior official of the Pakistan Government. As you are aware, the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts dossier has never been closed by us. Therefore, now that we have received more information about it, we will not rest till those responsible for the 1993 attacks against our citizens in Mumbai are brought to justice, wherever they are. We will continue to pursue this quest.”

What is wrong about this statement?

• The Indian Ministry depends on the Pakistani envoy's offhand comment calls it "more information".

• Is the March 1993 attacks dossier not closed, although several people were arrested and sentenced, only to get Dawood? This does not quite sound plausible, for Dawood's family resides in Mumbai and he continues to operate his businesses that we get to know about from intelligence sources.

• This is not under the purview of the MEA, but I'd like to emphasise here that those who were targeted and killed in the riots of 1992-93 are also citizens of India. Is there even a dossier on that?

• The MEA is supposed to act in concert with our sources and not what Pakistan chooses to dish out.

It is not surprising that the Pakistani diplomat did not stand by his initial words. As a report said:

However, he later did a complete U-turn on his statement by telling an Indian television channel that he had never known where Dawood lived and his earlier statement was just reflecting what the Pakistani media has been reporting in the past.

The BJP did not want to be left out, so Shahnawaz Hussain declared:

“Thus, the Government of India should pressurize Pakistan. The whole world should put pressure on Pakistan that Hafiz Saeed and Dawood Ibrahim should be handed over to India. Only after that there is any point of any dialogue. Till they don’t get a strong message from India, Pakistan’s morale will not be down. The time has come now that Pakistan’s politician has admitted that Dawood Ibrahim is in Pakistan, why isn’t the Government of India putting pressure?”

Whenever a Pakistani official says anything, please wait. He has denied it, so our responses look foolish. For all we know, the statement could have been a red-herring that exposes how we respond. Across party lines, it appears that we are completely dependent on the Pakistani version.

Why would they hand over Dawood to India? Even Portugal has made it clear that India has to follow the terms of extradition with regard to Abu Salem, another gangster. Dawood would not leave any trace of his involvement. 'Masterminds' don't. So, except for his illegal activities, not much action can be taken.

The BJP should think before talking. It has been 20 years since those bomb blasts. They were in power. What did they do to pressurise Pakistan? Was it not Atal Behari Vajpayee as prime minister who initiated bus services and other measures to mend ways with Pakistan despite 1993?

These hot-air responses have no basis in pragmatism. It is only to add noise to the standard 'war-like situation', each time there is a border incursion or killing of soldiers. Instead of discussing the whole process of covert actions at the border, and how the huge deployment of forces does not seem to inhibit infiltration, we just end up with ridiculous dramatics. (The Chinese manage to cross the border, but it does not get us as agitated.)

The worst was probably a TV channel asking viewers to vote via SMS on whether they thought there should be a war against Pakistan. This keeps the media running and is an advertisement for itself rather than consideration for dead soldiers, the country, or the citizens. There is money involved. Just as there is money involved in keeping the search for Dawood Ibrahim in the news.

While it helps in marketing, it also sanitises the obvious commercial interests and political wishy-washiness.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also:

Waiting for Dawood
Mumbai blasts and selective justice

Is Miandad a threat to Indian Nationalism?

Why should a former Pakistani cricketer not get a visa to visit India? The obvious reason is that his son is married to underworld don Dawood Ibrahim's daughter.

I am not a proponent of Aman ki Asha, and his trip is not a part of it. To suggest that the Indian government is doing so as some kind of détente is ridiculous. We have celebrities visit us, and work here too, including cricketers.

Isn't his connection with Dawood Ibrahim sufficient?

Doesn't anyone realise how strange this sounds? If, as is the practice meted out to most criminals, he is on top of the 'wanted' list, should the GoI not have asked the Pakistani government to question Miandad years ago when the marriage and wedding plans were flaunted openly and our media and senior officers went to Dubai and returned with nothing, except wedding pictures?

We won't even get into the subject of the Sharjah matches where celebrities were spotted on the stands with him. Some later claimed they were under pressure to do so. This is just too convenient. The underworld financed Bollywood for a long time, and they were happy to be his guests.

There is a lot of hair-splitting over nomenclature. From don to terrorist. The March 1993 bomb blasts ring out clearly in people's minds.

Has the Indian government managed to arrest him? Why can we not take responsibility? Dawood Ibrahim is an Indian. His family lives in India. In Mumbai. His brother was to contest an election. Everybody seems to know where he is, but there's no hurry to arrest him.

It is fairly common knowledge that everyone,from the cops to politicians, maintain a rapport with the underworld. It's been this way from the days of Haji Mastan, Varadarajan Mudaliar, Chhota Rajan (his Ganesh pandal in Chembur was a great draw and his brother produced films, including 'Vaastav' loosely based on his life), Dawood and the later entrants.

All of the big ones escaped the legal rap. The great encounter specialists depend on informants from rival gangs. It is a relationship beyond convenience, though.

Since there is so much discussion about 'shame', why are we as Indians not ashamed that such blasts took place? Where are our Intelligence agencies? We should be ashamed that even Portugal wants its extradition of Abu Salem reverted because they don't think he is getting justice! We should be ashamed that our cops don't have proper ammunition and facilities. On a tangential note, on New Year's Eve, due to special bandobast, policemen got two packets of biscuit each for a 12-hour shift.

I will not under any circumstances let the popular idea of terrorism overtake other crimes. By trying to make Dawood into a Pakistani stooge - something we already know was exposed by their magazine and not our security agencies - we completely ignore the killings of others, during the riots that preceded the bomb blasts (no luxury of 'action-reaction' terminology permitted here), during police shootouts, and by the gangs that operate under a different guise these days.

If we have problems with Javed Miandad visiting India because of familial links with Dawood, then we'd like to consider stopping all diplomatic ties and peace efforts. These tantalising attempts in cricket, music and trade reek of political hypocrisy.

Also, it is time we cleared our own dirt. The 1993 blasts culprits were arrested, compensation given in quick time. The victims of the riots preceding are still waiting for justice.

Does the Indian government want Dawood Ibrahim for that, too? In fact, it just might be an idea, considering his influence.

The reason the Opposition has dragged in this visa issue up is simply because we need a 'war-like' situation with Pakistan at all times. They seem to be doing rather well on the field in the current ODI series, so we can't display painted faces patriotism. The next best alternative is throw a loose cannon. It won't hit the target as it is not meant to, but will bring out the nationalist in every 'sporting' Indian.

PS: Imagine if Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik turns around and says, "Send us a dossier. We don't even know whether Javed Miandad lives here"!

© Farzana Versey --- Picture: Javed Miandad with Mr. Clean Sachin Tendulkar.

Musical Snares: Sur-Kshetra

Himesh-Atif: No war this?

May I ask Asha Bhosle ji why are only some Pakistanis allowed to be our guests and others are not? While Raj Thackeray is busy acting out his job profile of politics, I do wonder about the politics of commerce.

The promos of the music reality show Sur-Kshetra have been on air for weeks. Raj chose the press conference to hit out. That too with this statement:

“Would Veer Savarkar have endorsed Bhosale’s decision to collaborate with Pakistani singers?” alluding to the family’s “loyalty to the freedom fighter”.

Veer Savarkar is of little relevance here. It is Ms. Bhosle’s comment that is:

“Maharashtrians believe in the mantra of Atithi Devo Bhava (the guest is god)…Nationality is of no importance, we are here to praise talent. As a human being, I believe in being nice to everyone.”

I have been watching Ashatai judging the just-concluded Indian Idol and loved her beyond her singing. There were contestants from several parts of India. She never felt the need to dispute Raj Thackeray’s barbs about Biharis, UPites and others. And why is she asserting her Maharashtrian identity?

So, when Raj rebuffs her with, “Is this ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ or ‘Paisa Devo Bhava’?” there is some truth in it.

Let us call this Indo-Pak trade instead of soft-focusing it as music has no boundaries. And, yes, there is hierarchy where even some Pakistanis are allowed. I have mentioned this earlier that while Sheema Kermani, actor-dancer-activist (and she says so without obfuscation) invited an Indian dancer to Pakistan, she was not granted visa. A fairly well-known Pakistani in the entertainment industry surprised me by saying, “Some are favoured.” He gave up on a co-project with some Indians because of the problems. All is not as good as the marketing fellas will have us believe to raise their TRPs.

Abida & Asha; Mota maal/baal. Pic TOI

And Asha Bhosle is now a big part of it:

“I don't like politics...I don't understand it. I love Maharashtra and I am a Maharashtrian. I am a singer....I understand the language of music.”

Music, and sports, have entered the political space. I just saw a promo of the same show where one contestant was praised for her singing and keeping the Indian laaj. Sur-kshetra is promoted as a battle between two clearly demarcated sides – contestants and judges. Why is Asha tai playing naïve not to understand that this is Indo-Pak politics? Has she been invited to perform there? Should it not be mutual for a level-playing field? 

Do we not have singers and actors of the 'calibre' of Veena Malik? Or that expressionless wonder Ali Zafar? Our music directors meet their singers in Dubai. How many of them have reciprocated? For those in denial or with poor memories, read Jagjit Singh and Abhijeet's views on this. 

I love Iranian cinema, Japanese poetry, Spanish dance, and literature, music, art from several places. These are personal choices. So, if I love Pakistani musicians, it is again in my individual capacity. It is intriguing, though, that we want to highlight differences in an area where they ought to be solved – diplomacy – but come together where we do not need to. Pakistani music has not reinvented sur and taal. It follows the Hindustani gharanas, the raagas. Even Sufi music goes back to Amir Khusrau, and was he Pakistani? He wrote in Farsi and Hindvi.

If music is beyond politics, then why do artistes project themselves as ambassadors of their countries and act like activists? Talking of peace on a public platform is also activism.

This televised musical peaceful co-existence is just banking on emotional love-hate that Indo-Pak ties thrive on.

So, it is true. Money has no language, no country. And no culture.


PS: The battle on the show pits Indian Himesh Reshammiya against Pakistan's Atif Aslam. The super jury is Asha Bhosle, Abida Parveen and Runa Laila, the 'illegal immigrant' Bangladeshi or a buffer?

(c) Farzana Versey

Million Dollar Men: Asif Ali Zardari and Hafiz Saeed

The Ajmer Sharif Dargah in north India has become for politics what the Wagah border is for peace activists.  It is just so much melting wax and withering flowers.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is to pay a visit to the shrine on what has been touted as a “personal” trip. Given his position, it is quite natural that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would ask him to join him for lunch. Now, when these two countries meet for any meal, there is a slow fire burning and a pot boiling in the background. You can see what is cooking, but the people at the table do not seem to have a clue.

We are still at the stage where the sophomoric question is: who should make the first move? Many moves have been made, in wars, by insurgents, through signed pieces of paper, with hugs, blasts, dialogues. These seem to have fallen on the head without anyone making the first move. Instead, the friendly country far from the neighbourhood has decided to do something about it.

The United States of America has put Hafiz Saeed, the leader of Jama'at-ud-Da'wah that was declared a terrorist organisation by the United Nations in December 2008, up there as the big dish. A little problem here. You don’t get him. He is just an item on the menu. You have to hand him over to the great master chef, Barack Obama, and in return take away the $10 million bounty offered by the U.S. for any information on him. No one quite knows what Mr. Zardari plans to pray for at the dargah, but it certainly isn’t a huge amount of money this time. As for Dr. Singh, he is a clean man with clean thoughts and, anyway, he does not have Hafiz Saeed. He can demand that he be handed over, is the chorus. Pages and pages have been exchanged over the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.

We need to look at this a bit carefully. India and Pakistan do not perceive Saeed in the same manner, and the simple reason is that they cannot. They are two countries with different compulsions. Saeed has been the mastermind behind those blasts. Ajmal Kasab, the hit man and the last guy standing, became the fall guy. In terms of a criminal act with the evidence he would be culpable. How does one gauge the extent of input by a mastermind? Osama bin Laden did not go out and attack anyone, yet he was the hunted. If we go by this logic, then the U.S. President must take responsibility for the killings of all the civilians in unprovoked wars.

The reason for bringing this up is the crucial element of American convenience. It would be facile to believe for a moment that the US is concerned about India, even though Obama said it has not forgotten the Mumbai attacks. It remembers at an opportune time. The present Zardari-Singh meeting is not terribly important, except to discuss the same old things. I also do not believe that the US bounty will suddenly make terrorism an issue. It has always been an issue.

The American establishment is only making sure it gets a sneak preview. While peace between the two countries is whimsical, the state of unrest has helped outsiders a great deal. This bane has been a boon for them, for a huge world population can be managed, if not colonised, by the simple expedient of posing as a saviour figure.  It simply does not understand that terrorism in these parts is feeding off angst. It is playing on sentiment.

To put it simplistically, for the West the Mumbai attacks showed India as a rich country and Pakistan as a few men in dinghy. Good old David Headley, Hafiz Saeed’s video maker and map drawer, managed to get a visa to India and do his recce trips as a US citizen. They have him there. Do the two countries have the courage to ask America what exactly it is doing with him?

Hafiz Saeed is roaming free. His December 2011 rally against NATO killings turned out to be bigger than that of most politicians. This was not in some small town, but in Lahore, where he turned the ‘war on terror’ on it head by urging the Pakistani authorities to revoke its cooperation. Whether anybody likes it or not, there are many Pakistanis who support his organisation, Difa-e-Pakistan. Political pragmatism would make it imperative to be on his side, because at least with regard to NATO he is expressing the prevalent sentiment: “In 10 years of war that US has fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan actually lost more than the invaded country.”

 

Afghanistan has been a sore point with mainstream Pakistani politicians from the time of the influx of refugees during the Afghan war to the Taliban entering the plains and attacking just about every group of people. The splitting of hairs over ‘good Taliban’ and ‘bad Taliban’ has in fact blurred the lines. In the popular imagination, the U.S. is to blame for it. The audacious move to assign ‘guardian angels’, troops to watch over their sleeping comrades “against possible attacks by rogue Afghans” after an American soldier Sergeant Robert Bales killed sleeping Afghans, amounts to playing victim.

Pakistan is caught between these two victim-aggressors. It is willing to risk drone attacks, but the authorities probably believe that the rightwing within might come in handy. The view that Pakistan wishes to create communal tensions in India works symbolically to the benefit of Pakistan and India should disabuse such notions actively. If Pakistan wishes to destabilise India by hitting out at its totems of economic progress, then why would it want to do trade with India and why should the Indian government encourage it?

If India believes that the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is behind it all, then does it make any sense to ask Pakistan to hand over Hafiz Saeed or to even try him? More importantly, if India believes that all acts of terror emanate from Pakistan, then is there any purpose in pursuing peace? Peace does not merely mean no war. It conveys a sense of confidence and trust. Neither country trusts the other.

This leaves a large opening for America, and it never fails to appear. The farce of a $10 million bounty will be played out in salons rather than in Islamabad or New Delhi. This is a huge bait for Pakistani liberals and expats to fill the U.S. coffers during the run-up to the elections. The money will be in trust, without it being spoken of in such clear terms, and the well-wisher Pakistani lobbyists will buy peace. America knows this only too well.

The obvious question would be: Aren’t there more prominent Indians in that country? Rich Indian immigrants are keener on being American; they do not have to prove their innocence, unlike Pakistanis. This is a major difference.

What has this got to do with President Zardari meeting Dr. Singh? If one is to understand some of the ‘peace’ proponents, then India is doing a subtle America without the bluster. The lead opinion piece in The Times of India had this gem:

“Clearly, Zardari has stolen an imaginative moment from the bitter-sullen history of India-Pakistan, by asking to come to pay his respects to a cherished and much-beloved saint across the Indian subcontinent. It shows what we, despite the horrendous Mumbai attacks of 2008, are still capable of. Perhaps the Pakistani president will seek forgiveness for those attacks and pray that both countries can move on by jointly erasing the scourge of terrorism. God knows, there are more people killed in Allah’s name in Pakistan today than elsewhere in the region.”

This is so full of Pat Robertson type evangelism, with its penance and forgiveness tone, that one wishes that all SAARC meetings are held at the shrine. In fact, such ‘private’ visits only reinforce the belief that we in South Asia will always mix religion with politics.

Taking such peace talks further is a piece in The Hindu jointly written by former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Humayun Khan and former Foreign Secretary of India Salman Haidar:

“Peace within the region is an essential requirement for India to continue on its upward path. It must make renewed efforts to convince its neighbours that it poses no threat to them. It still has to fully convince them that it is ready to honour their independence and separate personality.”

How can such a thing be proved? India is fighting movements within almost as much as Pakistan is, with probably fewer casualties. The emphasis on economic progress, in fact, diverts attention away from political instability. There is no doubt that India being the larger nation has to respect other nations, but their sovereignty depends on how they manage contradictions within. Bilateral peace has little to do with this.

“To further allay apprehensions, discussions could be initiated on relocation of forces along the border and on regular meetings between chiefs of the armed forces and of intelligence agencies. The need for better understanding between the two militaries cannot be over-emphasised, because the security syndrome in Pakistan is the major obstacle in the way of progress.”

Do the armed forces act independently? They don’t. Besides, there is a difference between armed conflict and terrorism. Terrorism does not take the regular route. While Pakistan has to deal with the army as possible government, India has to handle the politicisation within the army. How they talk to each other matters little when compared with how they operate inside their own countries.

Dr. Manmohan Singh does not have to worry about the Indian armed forces posing a threat to his position. Asif Ali Zardari has to every minute of the day. A little prayer at the dargah will not change that. What he might get by way of benediction is a new eureka motivation: blame the existence of Hafiz Saeed on newbie willing to sup with Islamists Imran Khan for the moment. Wasn’t seize the day an all-American novel?

(c)Farzana Versey

Published in Counterpunch, April 4

- - -

Image of Asif Ali Zardari and Dr Manmohan Singh courtesy Open magazine

Clinton Plays Snake and the Rope

While most of the media is patting Hillary Clinton for the “tough talk” with Pakistan in Islamabad, what the US Secretary of State has really done is to send out contradictory signals. Take these two quotes:

• "Our relationship of late has not been an easy one. We have seen distrust harden into resentment and public recrimination. We have seen common interests give way to mutual suspicion."

• "We work with the Pakistani military and intelligence services [so] that any person who has committed a terrorist act or is about to commit one can be intercepted. There are many ways of doing that. I think it's one of the real successes of the relationship."

What tough talk? The US has its ways, so where is the mutual suspicion? This is the façade. It is ridiculous, as has been implied by one set of analyses, that things got a bit difficult between the two countries because of Osama bin Laden. What of him? That he was found in Pakistan? Or, that the Americans killed him? Or, that the Pakistanis helped the Americans?

The only problem with the ‘end of Osama’ deal is that the US administration is suffering from an itch. It has to fight terror, but it has nothing to show. After camping in Waziristan and Kabul – not to speak of hovering over the Middle East – it has figured out that the Haqqanis are in charge of the terror network in this part of the world.

The supposed Clinton missive is about asking Pakistan to do all sorts of things to the Haqqani faction that sounds like a bad mixer-juicer-grinder ad: "to encourage, to push, to squeeze…That is what we are looking for." All this is apparently for a peace chat. She reportedly added for good measure, revealing an appalling lack of understanding, that it was not clear whether the militants were ready for talks.

Damn them. Really. Pakistan’s military chief, Gen. Kayani, had in fact made the ‘tough call’ by saying “we are not Iraq or Afghanistan”, although everyone knows that it would take a minute to become one. The US can do that if it has a ruse. Pakistan has managed to resist obvious puppetry due to its Saudi connection.

Since Clinton has already said that the US worked with the Pakistani army, why is she ranting? Because that is her job profile. Her quick visits are part of the banshee cry that needs to resound.

If anything, this was a PR exercise.

"Every intelligence agency has contact with unsavory characters, that is part of the job of being in an intelligence agency. What we are saying is let's use those contacts to try to bring these people to the table to see whether or not they are going to be cooperative." She noted that it was the Pakistani intelligence services that requested the U.S. meet with the Haqqanis.

Where is the problem here? Why make noises about the ISI then? If the US and Pakistan are in this together, then every single meeting is a wasted effort. They are merely sending out signals to no one in particular. Since every intelligence agency has contacts with unsavoury characters, why does the US always need help? Is its own intelligence falling short or do they avoid unsavoury characters due to some moral reasons?

The most delectable comment was from The Guardian quoting Pakistani officials responding to criticism about intelligence links with the Haqqanis as saying:

“It's not like we can pick up the phone and call them to Islamabad. We know people who know people who know them.”

Sheer brilliance!

As for Ms. Clinton’s “you cannot keep snakes in your backyard and expect they will only bite the neighbours'', why has it just become a much-touted quote?

Which neighbours was she referring to? Is she okay with such neighbouring? This is such a typically selfish attitude. And, anyway, the United States of America does know about snakes in Pakistan’s neighbourhood. Its CIA helped create one. When he bit it, they decided that anything that looked like a reptile was a threat and had to be done away with. What no one realised as that the American administration was the chameleon dangling a rope and screaming, “Snake!” A win-win situation.

The noose and the venom, real and delusionary, are powerful weapons of destruction.

The over-the-top Pakistani press

A Pakistani columnist decides that “introspection is not as fashionable as Roberto Cavalli shades” and goes on to pen an ode to all the brands he can think about, not to mention referring to his country’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar as HRK. Is that a trendy take on SRK, Shahrukh Khan, or Her Royal Kink? My views have already been expressed.

Masood Hasan’s column in The News lacks a sense of propriety and proportion. So much like outsized shades, isn’t it? These are the same ‘liberals’ who will take up for a Veena Malik whose contribution to foreign policy was to be cooped up in an Indian reality show. Take a look at the canapé-level arguments:

“Let’s get one thing straight. One dresses for the occasion. Anyone recall Angelina Jolie’s ‘designer’ outfits on her many visits to the Afghan camps? There is a time and place for all things. I think HRK didn’t quite get that right. She has many things going for her but maturity and a sense of balance seem to be virtues that Pakistan’s new foreign minister does not care about much.”

Angelina Jolie did quite the opposite with a devious purpose, by playing up stereotypes. There is also a huge difference between camps and a country. Ms. Khar was a visiting minister to India, a nation that is home to several flagship stores of international labels.  

“While she must have spent an enormous amount of time choosing her wardrobe and accessories – she has a talent for accessories as a gushing designer confided last week, one wishes there were men or women who could have briefed her on how she must conduct herself – but this is unlikely in a country where ‘yes sir, yes sir, three bags full’, is the most successful strategy.”

This tells us a good deal more about the gossip Mr. Hasan has his antenna up for rather than the minister’s conduct. The important thing is not how she was accessorised, but whether she made any false moves in her speeches. The way one conducts oneself depends on behaviour and not on what one wears. Unlike the President Asif Ali Zardari who referred to Sarah Palin as gorgeous in an official meeting, there was nothing remiss about the way Ms. Khar projected herself. She was indeed briefed, but about Pakistan’s political position that she reiterated. Perhaps the “yes sir, yes sir” types are not as adept as spotting labels as Mr. Hasan is.

The dear gentleman is doling out epithets with a double-edged sword. He calls Indian diplomats suave, but adds what can only be considered an Omar Sharif-like standup act. He states:

“The Indians thus dress so simply that you can mistake them for minions whereas they may be billionaires. They go to work in loose sandals and creased trousers or faded jeans but sit and make strategic decisions that run into billions of dollars and have the power to change the direction of their huge country. Simplicity is not a put on like our constant bowing and scraping to the Maker without any meaning or sincerity. Our rulers and high stake rollers live in mansions of glory. Indians richer than their counterparts here live in modest homes. Retired generals there live in small houses or high-rise flats.”

One understands the inherent feudalism in Pakistani society, yet one fails to comprehend the blinkers the writer wears, either while writing or when he visited India. Has he heard about the Ambanis, the Tatas, the Birlas, the Godrejs, the Premjis, the Narayan Murthys, the Reddys? Has he read about their private jets, their parties, their weddings, their lifetsyle, their homes, and of course their accessories? Our ministers often refuse to leave their bungalows even after their term ends and retired generals take their time retiring. He is clearly basing his “loose sandals” observation on something from R.K. Narayan’s books, or perhaps referring to some of the older politicians who prefer to dress in traditional wear, such as the dhoti or the mundu. Rest assured, they are not trying to identify with the common man, for they get into their limited edition vehicles too and have a neat collection of real estate and jewellery.

If there is anyone who reveals caste and class consciousness it is the writer. He obviously does not understand the implication of the term minions. It is insulting that he thinks Indian leaders could pass off as vassals only because of what they wear. Perhaps he was just served his rack of lamb marinaded overnight by a member of the staff who he treats like a minion.

One does not know whether Ms. Khar read up on India, as he admonishes, but he does not seem to have done so. Instead of telling us what he expected out of the discussions, he decides to make a list of the lady’s wardrobe ‘malfunction’. Indeed, Indians went overboard in noting her couture with unbecoming awe and Pakistanis with derision. The internal politics of her tax evasion is a matter that ought to be discussed and resolved by the people and her party. Her shoes have got nothing to do with it. Why should a foreign minister tell India “my country is struggling – with terrorism, suicide bombers, law and order, the Afghan problem, a poor economy and so on but that we would prevail if there is peace”? Mr. Hasan seems to be suffering from a perennial mai-baap hangover due to Pakistan’s helplessness with regard to the US.

Had she highlighted the details that are not a secret anyway would the honourable columnist step down from his pedestal and permit her the indulgence of accessories? Or would he expect her to be dressed up as a ‘struggler’? America is going through its worst debt crisis. What are its ministers supposed to wear? As one who has visited Pakistan a few times and seen both its elite and its interiors, I do not see how drawing attention to the social ills would take the peace process forward. Has Masood Hasan spoken to the law enforcement people, the Afghans, the terorists, the very poor, the suicide bombers and asked them how exactly they view the peace process?

What did he expect from this meeting when there have been others that brought nothing? I guess it would be expecting too much from someone who, while dissing the “lollipops”, spends considerable time reading up on the shenanigans of the “fash frat”. It is a pity that he feels Pakisanis have egg on their face. I suppose it is inevitable if all you concentrate on is the chinks in the chick’s armour.

The Hina Factor: Pakistan’s Wicked Ploy

Oops, you did it again! Krishna and Khar

This is Asif Ali Zardari’s shrewdest move. Sending Hina Rabbani Khar on what amounts to be the equivalent of cricket diplomacy. This is not meant to be a sexist comment. She pretty much sailed through the India test by fire even as Pakistani intellectuals and the media have been rubbishing her ever since she was appointed to the post.


What are the dynamics here? It seems impossible to disregard the references to what she wore, how she looked and spoke, and it is a tad stupid for well-traveled Indians to comment on her designer labels as though they are not exposed to these. If anything, they look a bit awestruck even as they seemingly reduce her to superficials. The Times of India decided to tread carefully and mentioned our foreign Minister S.M.Krishna’s necktie, as though it were mandatory to give him equal sartorial time.


Zardari’s victory is that he knew the attention would be diverted from important issues although he had said that giving a 34-year-old with little experience the plum assignment was “a demonstration of the government's commitment to bring women into the mainstream of national life". There is no contradiction in his mind that the mainstream is the elite. He is sending out a few messages here: our societies are obsessed with the façade of economic progress, so let us dress the part even if we are dependent on foreign aid. A report had said that Richard Holbrooke was keen that she was given more responsibility. As foreign affairs minister she does not need to know what happens in the bastis. Does Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, know? She has to convey Pakistan’s intentions, which is an easy job to do because India already knows it. As she said in a television interview, when questioned about her meeting with the Hurriyat leaders before her official itinerary, that this was the “stated position of Pakistan”.


Rather smartly, she also took the age issue head-on and said it was a matter of how one sees it. She has been an elected MP and served two terms as junior minister that helped her “learn on the job”. This sounds like a simple statement. Think about it, though. The head of our government is not elected; the woman running this country has no experience; the youth leader has been learning on the job for years now with the added advantage of dynasty. If we decide to look into our own backyard, Ms. Khar’s debut would appear like quite a masterstroke.


So, what is it about her that has riled Pakistanis? A former envoy, Zafar Hilaly, had been dismissive: "Asif Ali Zardari clearly does not want a heavyweight in the job. Hina will play the role and say her piece; but I don't think anyone is expecting anything significant from her."


He should know that no minister can do anything significant with India. We have been playing a carrot-and-stick game for years and will continue to do so. All paperwork, statements and dossiers will be cosmetic offers.


There are derisive put-downs that she is just a rich spoilt woman from a feudal family. This comes from the media; most of the owners and editors are rather well-off and have other businesses and most certainly give the time of day to social butterflies. In fact, some noted writers have made a career of carousing for the Chanel chicks. They seem to have forgotten that none of their prominent leaders has been a grassroots person. Zardari is himself a greenhorn with a shady history. What about Benazir Bhutto? What was her experience except to belong to a political family? Jemima Khan had dismissed her  as "The Kleptocrat in an Hermes scarf" (my rejoinder was here), completely forgetting her own posh Goldsmith girl days. What is Imran Khan’s experience that some people think he’d, be a great prime minister? One will not question the political experience of military leaders because they rule either by coup or from the coop.


Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy added some perspective but a bit harshly: “In a male dominated culture, she will be derided as no more than a pretty face. This would be true even if she was hard-as-nails and an exemplary negotiator. She will also be the object of jealousy within the PPP, where sycophants know that the boss decides and suck up to him. How forcefully Khar is able to present Pakistan's position as foreign minister remains to be seen. Although she was selected for her docility rather than bold originality, there could always be surprises."


How many Pakistanis, forget politicians, have expressed a position that is boldly original on matters of foreign policy? Any national psyche makes it incumbent for people to believe in certain aspects; much of it is inherited baggage. If she is to push Pakistan’s position, that too with regard to India, how can she be original?


Before her visit, a report had quoted an unnamed observer who said, “It is well-known that Pakistan's foreign policy is in the hands of agencies, not the foreign minister or even the President. Hina will have a tough time proving that she is not just a puppet. I don't think anyone is going to forget that her roots go back to the Musharraf administration."


This goes in her favour. Pervez Musharraf conducted the biggest PR exercise in India during the Agra Summit although it ended rather badly. He became a martyred hero, so the connection is her silent trump card. Again Zardari, who it is suspected could get close to Musharraf again in one of those opportunistic alliances that his father-in-law was so adept at, has played his cards well.


And for those who are talking about maintaining the status quo, that is what Indo-Pak relations are about. That or months of sulking. The outcome is, as expected, simplistic. India and Pakistan have agreed “on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism including among relevant departments as well as agencies to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice”. This is worth a yawn although it gives sufficient grist for several yarns.


The confidence building measures (CBMs) will be another Samjhauta – compromise. You take some missiles out of the way, but that does not prevent the threat perception and the real threat. It is not about whether either country decides to attack, but how much it feels the need to defend itself. This is never overtly at the government level. We have coined the phrase “non-state actors” just to make sure that foreign ministers can “agree” without having a clue as to what is happening behind their backs. The intelligence agencies have to deal with the headache, unless they are the headache.


The Line of Control will now be accessible for travel and trade. Is this a big leap forward when the economies of both sides of Kashmir are not really bullish? As regards travel, residents of Kashmir are anyway given visas more easily.


In general terms, trade opening acts as one more people-to-people initiative.


By far her entertaining the Hurriyat leaders at the Pakistani High Commission before meeting our foreign minister  - while deemed undiplomatic and a kick to protocol - was her real moment. Tutored she was, but she made it seem like the most natural thing to do. India and Pakistan are just two nations. Emphasise Kashmir and you sit on the TNT bomb. To keep it simmering has proved to be the most lucrative aspect of Indo-Pak politics. CBMs are just loose change.


- - -


Also published in Countercurrents

Pakistan, America and Bloodied Money

It looks like the United States of America now believes in the Sharia. On March 17, Raymond Davis got off by paying blood money to the families of the two men he had killed on January 27. Pakistan’s law minister Rana Sanaullah declared that Davis, supposedly a CIA agent, had been pardoned by the heirs of the murdered men as per the Islamic law where blood money (Diyat) amounting to Rs. 37 crore ($2.3m) was received. They had signed the papers in court.


One needs to know about the Pakistani establishment’s use of the Islamic laws. Will it pardon the killers of prominent politicians if they pay blood money to the families? If the law is so clear, then why did the authorities put up a fight against their own legal provisions and go around patting themselves for not buckling under US pressure? Does the government of Pakistan not owe its citizens proof of evidence regarding the receipt of the money as well as the nature of US involvement in the issue? How did the most powerful nation in the world agree to become part of such a transaction?

Why did America want Davis back? He is not innocent; he has killed two people that resulted in another incidental killing. What went on behind the backdoors of diplomacy that ‘proud Pakistan’ capitulated so easily and packed him off immediately? The court had indicted him and then quite suddenly within a few hours the families pardoned him. Are such families supreme in Pakistan and have a say in such matters?


It is regrettable that some commentators had been talking about the Pakistan-US fracas as giving an opportunity to fundamentalists. In a country where cases drag on for years, it has been only two months since the incident. The Taliban has been around and one Davis coming or going would not have changed that. While trying to put on a brave front against the CIA, Pakistan was really buying time with its own fanatic forces. If Faizan Haider and Faheem Shamshad, the two men Davis shot dead, were ISI’s snoops following him, then what exactly was their role? Elementary logic would suggest that the US would want to know more about that. Anyone under diplomatic cover, or any outsider for that matter, is routinely tailed in Pakistan. He would have been aware. So, were they ISI agents or someone else?

The incident has been extensively recorded. In brief, the two victims were on bikes; one took out a pistol when Davis was driving through a Lahore street; Davis took out his gun and shot at them. Initially, he stated it was in self-defence. However, on-the-spot footage shows that their backs were turned to him. Ibad-ur-Rehman was run over by the American vehicle. How so?


Davis was said to be part of a team investigating the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s operations. Did Davis get some incriminating evidence? Does the US need any to bludgeon ‘threat perceptions’? The arrogance is amazing. Cameron Munter, the US ambassador in Islamabad, has expressed gratitude to Pakistan and its people for pardoning Davis. Using Twitter the embassy conveyed the message from His Excellency: “I wish to express, once again, my regret for the incident...”

Gratitude to the people? The people are out protesting. The lawyers of the victims’ families were not allowed to meet their clients. By accepting such a pardon, the US government seems to have adhered to the role of the Sharia. Does it mean that it will now not interfere in Pakistan’s internal problems that will be sorted out using the same Sharia?

When the ambassador expresses regret, does it mean that he accepts responsibility for more than just the deaths, but also the reason for it? The US was probably in a tearing rush to get Davis before they got him because he may have more information about the US than about Pakistan.

It is surprising that the media refers to rightwing parties and Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf organising demonstrations. Are the liberal parties and the liberal activists who have often exposed their own laws also not protesting? Why do they not come out strongly against this sell-out when they were all gung-ho about their country’s strong stand earlier?

This is as much a human rights issue as any other lynching. Only because it is an American with a gun, he cannot be pardoned. Is the money that has been reportedly paid tax free? Has it been deposited in the banks of the next of kin of the murdered men? Who according to the Sharia is entitled to this amount in the family? Have all these provisions been taken care of?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denies that the US government has paid the money. If that is so, then on what grounds do they want Davis back? The government where a crime is committed conducts a criminal investigation and tries the person. There are reports that the money was paid by the Pakistani government with the help of Saudi intervention. The US has indicated that it “fully expects to get the bill” and will pay for it.

Sure, except that this isn’t a laundry bill. Someone has got to come clean. It is a dirty deal and there is blood in more than the money.

- - -


Images: The News and Aaj TV, Pakistan

- - -

Published in Countercurrents, March 19

A 50 Crore Suitcase and Pranabda’s Memory

The WikiLeaks revelations are becoming a huge yawn. Why is everyone so shocked? Money has always been used to buy over politicians to join in or abstain from voting. Everybody who does not suffer from amnesia knows about Satish Sharma and his Italian marble floors (or was it bathroom?). And the BJP need not jump around too much. They have their own slippery characters. I am also not amazed that someone showed a US embassy official two cases of Rs. 50-60 crores in cash. Shouldn’t there be certainty about the amount? There is a huge difference between 50 and 60 if it is in crores (500-600 million rupees).

However, I am amused. Imagine some middleman going to meet an American diplomat with two suitcases and opening them. “Sir, look. This is to show we are buying our ministers. I am swearing on this money that after they get it you will have nuclear deal in your pocket. This is word of gentleman’s honour, sir.”

American official replies, “Aww, c’mon. You guys are jest so smart, you wanna show us that no one’s gonna get laid off in Eendia. Why didcha not give this money to the US lobbyists? Typical Eendians.”

“Sorry sir, my patriotic blood is boiling over the top of vessel and I am crying over spilt milk. We are hardworking, heartfelting people. Our Sant is helping you lots and also sending butter chicks to Oval Maidan.”

“What the hell is goin’ aan? Chicks and Maiden?”

“Yes chicks are sent to Oval Maidan, you cannot hide all that. I came with clean soul to show you corruption money for free and frank exchange of idea, not to listen to you baelshitting.”

“Hold aan. I ain’t listenin’ to your crap.”

“You have to listen. Our pride of India Sant Chatwal is sending buttered chicks Punjabi speciality to your big leaders, he is also giving chanda.”

“Who is Chanda?”

“Your American English is weak. Not who but wot, okay? I am learning in British system. Chanda is donation for getting your man and woman in office to do things.”

“You’re crazy, maan.”

“Haan, haan, I am crazy and when you come to power and want to sell phataphat bomb you come to us and we are buying also because we want to be like Big Mac. I am now going. This money is only to show we are sincere to buy people.”

“Are they slaves?”

“Sir, we don’t have slaves. You had slavery. We only have simple corruption to help servants of public.”

- - -

Public servant Pranab Mukherjee has stated: “What happened in 14th Lok Sabha cannot be dragged to the 15th Lok Sabha. The government of the day is not accountable to 14th Lok Sabha but the 15th Lok Sabha.”

Pranabda, you have a sense of humour. It is like parents saying after the second child is born that they are not accountable for the first one’s poop. Were they not responsible for potty-training, for feeding the kid right, for ensuring that it was given gripe water and thup-thupped on the back to burp?

The finance minister is washing his hands off the goings-on in the Lok Sabha. It would mean that none of the crimes committed should stick, no issues that have been raised ought to be raked up again. Let us go all the way and erase history completely then. Flush it down like so much old baby poop.

Rahul Gandhi, Saffron Terrorism and America

Time to come out

Had anyone heard Rahul Gandhi talk about ‘Hindu terrorism’ before? Then why is everyone jumping the gun and accusing him of vote-bank politics? Will the saffron leaders make up their minds whether he is trying to get Muslim votes or that he should not have talked to a foreign diplomat? Were these parties not crowing just the other day about how in Nitish Kumar’s economic paradise, Bihar, Muslims voted for him just as they had done in Narendra Modi’s Gujarat? So, why are they getting into a tizzy?

Closing ranks - Uma Bharti with the BJP's Lalji Tandon

Uma Bharti wants Rahul to learn history, and indeed he should, just as much as she should not only learn history but also stop telling lies. And denying the existence of saffron terrorism. History is Nathuram Godse. History is the Jan Sangh that was in opposition to the Muslim League even before the Partition. History is that religious politics has been around.

I again wish to point out, as I have done earlier, that these WikiLeaks cable reports are quoting western diplomats. In this case:

(Rahul) Gandhi is reported to have told US ambassador Timothy Roemer although “there was evidence of some support (for the LeT) among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim community, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community”.

Where would she be without them? Sadhvi Pragya with the BJP top leadership

Is this not true? While Jammu and Kashmir has seen outside infiltration, we cannot ignore the local militant groups and the role of the security forces, whether there are WikiLeaks about it or not. And no one can deny the polticisation of the armed forces during the BJP regime. That was a very real threat. Sadhvi Pragya was with an armyman.

Incidentally, it is Muslims who should be raising their voices since he has mentioned support to LeT from the indigenous Muslim community (and not even ‘radicalised Muslim groups’). But, we shall let that pass because not everyone can be in denial.

Anyhow, compare the casualties caused by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in the rest of India with those in communal riots. Don’t the figures speak for themselves?

Here are some quotes:

“If he sees a fringe group as the biggest threat…it only underscores how ignorant he is about India.”

         - Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP

The BJP, VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena are fringe groups? Don’t try and divert attention. He mentioned the radicalised political groups and everyone knows about the support they get. As much as the LeT gets from the powers in Pakistan.

“It is ‘shocking’…there is a race among senior Congress leaders to project Hindus as terrorists.”

- RSS

This should have happened long ago. It is unfortunate that the RSS is branding all Hindus and assuming they support this sad little organisation. Just as not all Muslims will support the Jamaat-e-whatever and the Indian Mujahideen. Hindutva parties must fight the Congress for its role in communal politics as and when it actually takes place. But at that time these parties are busy doing their own ballot dancing.

“They don’t know what the Hindu ethos stands for. To call Hindu groups more dangerous that the LeT is the product of a sick mind.”

- Prakash Javdekar, BJP

Is the BJP in charge of the Hindu ethos? It is a way of life, isn’t it? It is about karma, isn’t it? So, let the Hindus decide what ethos they wish to follow. I don’t know how exactly Rahul Gandhi has been quoted, but since he has stood by the general comment, I’d like to state that any person with some perspective can see that ‘more dangerous’ is contextual. It also means that the BJP is not denying anything.

Narendra Modi - the economy is at the tip of his sword

One can safely aver that had he said that it was less dangerous the effect would have been the same.

Some have said that he should have shown maturity while talking to a foreign diplomat. Had he said something really nasty about the Indian Mujahideen would anyone have questioned his maturity?

I am pleasantly surprised he dropped all inhibitions to state this. Consider the background. The US plays Pakistan rather well and knows pretty much what it is up to. He has given them another headache to worry about. This has nothing to do with vote-bank politics, but the survival of the Congress party’s supremacy in Indo-US cooperation. If America says, “Fight terrorism”, then the Congress will shoot back that we will be with you, Uncle Sam, but help us out to deal with our opposition.

I’d say, this is a new mature Rahul Gandhi, and never mind what you will watch in the debates on TV tonight. All that frothing will create minor studio storms. The Gandhi guy has ensured that the pool of still waters will run deep into the US mindset. He is not interested in what Indians think.

I won’t vote for him, but I’ll lend him my ear.

Meera badnam hui zaalim India ke liye?

Time for 'zandu balm'?

Why are Indians taking out morchas saying that the frisking of our ambassador to the US is an insult to India? I think they should object to headlines like ‘Indian envoy Meera Shankar patted down in US’. Seriously, it isn’t funny.

Some say it was because she was wearing a saree and everyone’s patriotism is frothing on placards. I think even the Pakistani former envoy used to wear a saree. So, Ms. Shankar is merely dressing in what she is comfortable and probably accustomed to rather than upholding Indian pride. She is on assignment and could be on the job in Tanzania or somewhere next.

The US airport security is supposedly following the rule books. I know we have complained about other prominent examples and it is time to question the prudence of diplomatic licence. If the US is extra vigilant, then I think every country ought to be. How did David Headley get in here? Wasn’t it the Indian embassy that gave him the visa? Forget this pat down ruckus and trying to make it into a women’s issue, which it is not. We all get ‘patted down’ in our own airports and with all the metal someone like me has on her person they find rather interesting places that are not even pat-downable.

If the VIPs do not want to go through the ‘insult’ then all countries must just insist on a separate enclosure. Let us not carry this ‘mai-baap’ attitude further. Had someone questioned her inappropriately or said something nasty about India, then we have every right to protest.


End quote:

“Our democracy has become a bit too noisy.” Pranab Mukherjee

I understand, Pranabda. When you find a silent democracy please let us know.