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

Firing from Sunil Tripathi’s shoulders

They found his body in a river. He might have been any 22-year-old, but in the past ten days his face and name became the cause of social media speculation. To analyse it as mere online dysfunctional behaviour would be superficial. It reveals deep-seated prejudices.

Sunil Tripathi, a student of Brown University in the US, went missing on March 16, after he quit his studies. He had left behind his wallet and cellphone in his dorm room.  His parents started a search, using every possible avenue, most prominently a Facebook page and YouTube videos. His photograph became familiar.

A month later, on April 16, the bomb blasts happened in Boston at the Marathon. Of the two men in the blurred images, one resembled Sunil, whose face had brought out so much sympathy from strangers. It got linked to the blasts by virtue of the vague similarity, and his disappearance. Devious mischief-makers projected this as a case of 'Hindu terror'.

When it was confirmed that the two attackers were Chechens, and Muslim, there was counter-jubilation. Sunil's unfortunate death at such a young age got transformed into martyrdom. The medical coroner said that there was no evidence of foul play.

There is every reason to believe it, for he had no connection with the Chechen brothers and had made no overt attempts that would reveal where he was. An accident, a mugging gone wrong are possibilities. He was also depressed.

His death and the blasts are far removed and yet in public memory they will be seen together.

Rather surprisingly, it isn't just by outsiders. The Independent reports: 

“The family of Mr Tripathi, who was studying philosophy, said they were trying to seize on last week’s negative publicity and use it in their efforts to trace the young man."

I can understand the situation. But, will anyone say the Tripathis did not care for the victims of the Boston blasts? Or that they are not concerned about terrorism? Of course, they are. They live in the country. Sunil was getting a good education. Their attempt to use the negative publicity could be attributed to desperation.

In fact, except for that one statement, they have shown amazing grace. In a statement where they thanked the public for their support, they also added:

“Take care of one another. Be gentle, be compassionate. Be open to letting someone in when it is you who is faltering. Lend your hand. We need it. The world needs it."

This has not happened among the rabid Hindu rightwing. For them, it became an occasion to bait Islamists, and everyone was seen as such only because of the faith they were born into or pursued. Those who had not even mentioned Sunil were taunted as supporters of terrorism. There is just so much insecurity that no one cares about those who die because of terrorism, wherever they are. To assume that one billion people are terrorists is absurd. To assume that all of these one million support acts of terror is vile. To convey that except for those belonging to the faith of the terrorists, everyone is a natural victim reveals a truly superior delusional mindset.

One might recall the denial about Dhiren Barot, Al Qaida’s “first Hindu operative”. I had written then:

The Barot episode brings the prejudices even more sharply to the fore. The British Indians are distancing themselves from his Hindu origins. The message being that it is only "those Muslims" who indulge in terrorist activities. This is a curious denial of contemporary history, for Indian Muslims have been systematically put to test due to Hindu radicalism. And it has not been done by militant organisations, but by the State establishment in places like Gujarat.

Using a young man's death to gain sympathy for a cause is as bad as those who implicated him. However, the “editors of the Reddit social-news forum apologised for what they said turned into a 'witch-hunt'."

What sort of hunt is on now? It is disturbing because instead of putting matters to rest, as Sunil Tripathi's parents have done — and they should have been granted the privacy to mourn — the web world is not going to let it go. They know little about Chechnya, and the fact that two bomb blasts in Pakistan, one in Peshawar and another in Karachi, were carried out by Chechens. So much for pan-Islamism, Muslim brotherhood and uniformity.

In India, we do know that there is Hindutva terror, either by what people like to call 'fringe elements' or by organised groups, and in rare cases elements within the state machinery.

It most certainly is not to the extent of fundamentalist jihad, and the primary reason is that Hinduism is not practised in as many regions in the world as Islam is. Fanatic Islamists end up as enemies of their own people. Where does the Al Qaida operate from? Where is the Taliban concentrated in? The Hezbollah? What has happened to the Arab nations that strove for democracy? The rebels ended up electing religious leaders.

Where does the anti-kafir stand figure in all of this? We just read about the minaret destroyed in Syria. Mosques are bombed. I don't care much about buildings, although their sanctity lies in what they offer to the devotees, like any other place of worship. But why are people who pray to the same god targeted? This is not collateral damage, for they are planned attacks.

As long as this will be ignored to give forum to an archetype, it will bring out just how inhumane social discourse has become where death become theatre. The baggage of bigotry spares no innocents.

The tragedy of Sunil Tripathi is that he got caught up between other deaths before dying. 

© Farzana Versey

---

Also Regurgitating jihad: Boston Marathon

Beyond Wisconsin: Page of Terror and Establishment Apathy

Page of Terror and Establishment Apathy
Beyond Wisconsin
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, Aug 7

“Nobody's angry here. We're just confused. Was this a random act? Was this directed at us because of the way we look?”

The questions were raised by an onlooker at the site of the Sikh gurudwara at Oak Creek in Wisconsin where six people were killed by a white man on the morning of August 5; he was shot dead by the cops.

Why is nobody angry? Why assume it might be a random act? What does the loaded “way we look” convey and why let it overshadow the terrorist attack? The FBI will conduct the investigations as a “domestic terrorist-type incident”, but for a large section of the media Wade Michael Page, a former sergeant, is a “lone gunman” or a “shooter”.

The motives are as clear as sun in a cloudy sky. It now seems that he was a neo-Nazi. In fact, civil rights groups go a step further and refer to him as a “frustrated neo-Nazi”. Was he frustrated with the ideology or was his frustration a spur to become one? This is a convenient back-up vague term to absolve mainstream terrorism.

To caricature him is easy, for the blueprint is ready and almost cool – balding man with tattoos, strumming the guitar with devilish music in an offbeat band called End Apathy. His motto to “stand proud and raise the white man’s flag” is confusing white supremacy with neo-Nazism. Both have different histories. Tanking up on the latter is a hands-off stance for internalised racism. The Nazi satan image gets props for also psychologically working on public memory as victimisation.

There is tardiness to investigate the possibility of a larger group’s involvement, a routine that is followed when the shoe in on the other foot and forces are deployed to trace leaders, assistants, handlers, trainers, foot soldiers.

The United States is home to 700,000 Sikhs. They are handed out certificates for being “a peace-loving community”, implying their innocence only by default, while the criminal’s antecedents remain enigmatic and diffuse the pattern of devious behaviour.

State Rep. Mark Honadel, whose district includes the temple, said, “Unfortunately, when this type of stuff hits your area, you say to yourself, 'Why?' But in today's society, I don't think there's any place that's free from idiots.”

That we are still battling with terminology to use for terrorists in some parts of the world reveals just how much semantics play a role in brainwashing people.

It includes the victims, who are hostage to the munificence of an all-embracing country. There is diffidence among non-westerners to talk about racism or what is now increasingly obvious as white terrorism.

This has two very dangerous consequences: It results in suspicion and infighting among different ethnic groups, and the claiming of tragedy points makes it possible for the ‘war on terror’ to continue as a sanctimonious bubble for the Western establishments.

The discussion on gun control is just one of the sidelights to obfuscate the issue. A person with a gun does not necessarily go on a killing spree. There are unlicensed weapons available. There are bombs and the use of more basic forms of ‘fundamentalist’ tactics. The latter can spread right from televangelism to a president sneaking into another country to bolster the morale of his forces that have no business to be there in the first place.

How do we deal with a “lone gunman”, a “psycho” and other such assorted creatures that are products of psychiatric superpower wards as opposed to an organisation that can conveniently, and legitimately, be called a terror outfit? Did a group pilot an airplane into the Twin Towers? Were we not told there was just one soldier who walked in the dead of night and shot down villagers in Afghanistan? Anders Breivik was alone when he killed 77 people in Norway. Kiaran Stapleton “kept smiling” as the court pronounced him guilty for the murder of Indian student Anuj Bidve in Manchester.

How individualist are they? Why do we not just say that there is another terrorism that does not need caves or a rugged terrain? Countries carry the baggage of history, of calamities, of attacks. The ruling elite do not have to muddy their hands to clear the rubble, so they muddy the minds of the citizens. The melting pot swirls the ladle and scoops out the good from the bad. It is an act so subtle that no one notices it.

It is left to the conditioned-to-feel displaced and mentally unstable white guy to carry the moral fable forward. He is like any recruit at a terrorist training camp. His ideology is not born in a vacuum. He is doing it for country. The political leadership will quote from the Constitution, but they have whetted the appetite for vengeance with rhetoric. Incidentally, the indictment of soldiers by some senior officers is an even more potent testimony of such lobotomy. Not surprisingly, Page’s six year stint in the US army during the 90s, partly in psychological operations” is mentioned prominently, even if he was demoted and quit the military with a “Less Than Honourable Discharge”.

Despite this, he comes across as a backroom loyalist. His 9/11 tattoo in many ways subliminally exonerates him. America has not allowed the world to live in peace ever since that day. One Sikh leader stated that it “implies to me that there's some level of hate crime there”. Another one wants “to educate Americans about diverse groups and act ‘to lessen this kind of rage’”.

A crime that should be seen in isolation has become communalised. It is, strangely enough, pluralism that has caused it – a pluralism where you may look and dress like Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber but not like ‘natives’ like you. Instead of pushing for quick action and security, there is trepidation over “mistaken identity”, that some white guy might think you are someone from the al Qaeda. The chairman of the Sikh Council on Religion and Education believes: “There’s always an apprehension and a sense of fear that this kind of incident will take place anywhere, anytime.”

Can this not happen to others, too? Sikhs were killed for being Sikhs in their home country, India, where the ruling party conducted an operation inside the Golden Temple. Sikhs have had to fight for their right to wear turbans and to carry their kirpans, symbolic swords. Was there any al Qaeda then?

If 9/11 is being propagated as a definitive revenge-worthy date to flush out enemies, then will insurgency and terrorist attacks on some Indian states be seen as fallout of the Partition of 1947, and subsequent wars with Pakistan and China too?

Mitt Romney is concerned that the Wisconsin attack took place at a house of worship. This gives the crime another colour. Places of worship draw attention to the faith, more than to the community. But in the world outside America, there are sects, castes, sub-castes. However, in an alien land, a temple of any religion has more than emotive value. It represents an uprooted cultural identity.

There is already guilt by association. Pakistan’s liberals who berate those who sympathise with the plight of Muslims in Assam or Rohingyas of Myanmar instead of the Balochis in their own backyard are themselves reaching out to American Sikhs. The Peshawar ones are a forgotten story. 1984’s massacre of Sikhs is a fade-out for India.

The sense of urgency different communities feel to identify with such sorrow at the individual and group level is most certainly part of a larger political expression. Every such tragedy is about lost human lives. The need to emphasise it beyond the obvious is driven by a subconscious need for self-preservation and, as a consequence, actualisation.

- - -

(c) Farzana Versey

Mani and Hafiz: Truth or Bare?

I understand that when a politician is on a private visit to a country, he does not speak on behalf of the country. Mani Shankar Aiyar, by virtue of being a former diplomat based in Pakistan, is knowledgeable about the country. It seems that he has lost touch with it, and even his home country.

Sitting on a panel discussion in a studio in Islamabad, he was confronted by Jamaat-ud-Dawah chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed through a phone link:

"Giving India MFN-status is not correct in any manner because there are already big problems that haven't been resolved, including the Kashmir issue. At this moment, the dams being made by India will create a crisis in Pakistan."

This is the man considered the mastermind behind the Mumbai 2008 attacks. His position would not be much different.

It is Aiyar's comment that is typically on a limb:

"There are some persons like Hafiz Saeed in our country who do not want things to move forward but thankfully the ordinary people want our ties to improve. We can improve our relations irrespective of what his (Saeed's) opinion is. We want him to be caught and taken to a terrorism court."

By getting into this same-same maze, he is in effect implying that the Hafiz prototypes in India are against any ties with Pakistan.

We do have a consolidated saffron terror in place, but it is essentially and rather tragically targetting people within the country.

It is pertinent that a couple of days prior to this studio peace, a piece of news which has much to do with Hafiz Saeed went largely unnoticed. The amicus curiae, advocate Raju Ramachandran, told the Supreme Court that Ajmal Kasab was not part of a larger conspiracy for waging war against the nation.

As reported:

'Maintaining that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him beyond doubts, he told he bench that his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to get himself adequately represented by a counsel to defend himself in the case have been violated during the trial.'

Kasab said he was brainwashed like a "robot".   

What would Mr. Aiyer's position be? Does he believe that brainwashing takes place only in the area of terror? This is where we need to look at the scenario holistically.

Saeed's opinion is not an isolated one and neither is it restricted in both countries to fringe elements.

There are two crucial segments.

1. The overtly nationalist middle class that believes that an enemy gives credence to identity.

2. Those who take what appears to be a cynical view that

a) the terror industry is over-rated
b) peace through confidence building measures does not do away with insecurity. These placebos cannot and are not meant to address diplomatic issues.

Almost all politicians have spoken about such initiatives and gestures. Does anything tangible come out of it?

In the Islamabad studio, it was Hafiz Saeed who spoke honestly. Mani Shankar Aiyar is being hailed for his brave move in confronting him, when he was just aiming aimless darts.

Perhaps he might like to see the large queues outside the High Commissions in India and Pakistan to understand how difficult such 'private' visits are for those he is claiming to speak on behalf of.

Digvijay Singh and the many shades of terror

The problem with Digvijay Singh’s recent statements about saffron terror is that they seem tangential. The question is most certainly not the veracity of what he has said, but it is also rather convenient to ignore what he is saying. It has resulted in a bizarre blame game with both sides claiming to be beaten up with rods and sticks. Then, there is the banter of “Is the Congress party with him or does it distance itself from his comments?”

No one cares about the initial spark when the Indian Mujahideen were seen as natural suspects. Here are quotes from some reports:

The government's refusal to speak on the nature of groups behind the terrorist attack saw Muslim leaders object to conclusions about an IM hand. Some even hinted at saffron terror.

While Congress did not speculate on the identity of terrorists behind Mumbai attacks, the party did not take kindly to IM being named without official confirmation. The party reaction came in response to questions about terror outfits being named within minutes of the recent Mumbai incidents.

AICC spokesman Shakeel Ahmed said, "You should ask this question to mediapersons sitting left and right in the room because they have named the group. Only they can answer how the culprits are identified within minutes of an incident." Terror outfits should be named only after the government had confirmed their role, he said. "This is a sensitive issue. So one should not speculate on it, it vitiates the atmosphere."

For the past few days we have seen a veritable line-up of all possible names – SIMI, HuJI, LeT, ISI, Kashmir extremist groups, IM. So, why is there such a reaction when saffron terror is mentioned? Digvijay Singh did not implicate them, but said in response, “I do not rule out anything”. It was only later that he said:

"I have been saying that RSS was spreading terrorism in the country and it has been making bomb factories.”

He clarified that it was not about these blasts.

In a rather well-timed move Swami Aseemanand who had confessed to his role in several blasts has said he is “innocent”.

The rightwing is getting all hot and bothered and its party spokesperson Shahnavaz Hussain stated:

"The BJP condemns the disgusting statements of Digvijay Singh and seeks an apology from Congress chief Sonia Gandhi on this.”

Well, there are a lot of people who are disgusted with a lot of things. Instead of an apology, ask Digvijay Singh to produce the evidence he says he possesses regarding the role of saffron terror.

I am a bit curious about the Gujarat IM angle. I think there is a concerted attempt to push the Gujarati idea deliberately. The IM’s role is probably the most obvious from the perspective of observers, but I find this portion from a report datelined Ahmedabad rather intriguing:

Terror outfit Indian Mujahideen has tied up with Taliban for sinister plans in India. Crime branch officers, who arrested a key IM operative, Danish Riyaz, in June claim to have unearthed details of the joint venture between the IM and the religious militia in Pakistan-Afghanistan.

A senior crime branch officer said, “Emails and correspondence of Danish with five top terror operatives, including Haroon of Kolkata, have revealed this conspiracy across international borders. Haroon had also been to Hyderabad to meet Danish to discuss their plans.”

These developments had taken place before Danish was arrested from Vadodara railway station in June. “According to Haroon’s emails, 10 handpicked youths from across the country were to be sent to Pakistan and then Afghanistan for terror training,” said another senior officer of the crime branch.

This sounds like some corporate tie-up. Danish was in Gujarat, a state that is known to be quite hard on any form of terrorism. It is a known fact that chief minister Narendra Modi spends a good deal of money on spying.

If their plan was across international borders, was Mumbai their testing ground? (Do note that they were to go to Pakistan and then Afghanistan for training – does it mean there is a hierarchy in this schooling?) Since Danish did not get to meet with his colleagues, did they carry out the attacks without any ‘leader’? It is extremely pertinent to keep track of what happens when a key member of a group is arrested soon before a major attack takes place.

I find it rather interesting that while Digvijay Singh’s comments allude to the fact that terrorism has no colour and he is pulled up for it, the liberals saying so are seen as, well, liberal. Shabana Azmi said it on a TV panel discussion.

Let us get real: Terrorism has a colour. It has an ideology. It has motives. It has specific targets. It has enemies. It comes about due to several reasons – from anti- majority to anti-minority to anti any other.

- - -

In fact, the term terrorism has gained popular currency and is used for just about anything – from fashion to pop culture to food to activism.

Terrorism is a word that is used carelessly.

Imagine a group of citizens who do not want a flyover on their road. The Peddar Road residents have been fighting against it for several years. Earlier singer Lata Mangeshkar, who lives on the main road, had said that the pollution would affect her voice and had even emotionally blackmailed the authorities by saying she would leave the city if it came up. This is a tony locality and it is fair to raise doubts about kickbacks and pollution, even if it might do these people some good if they checked the number of cars per family in these same areas before grumbling about pollution. However, I am plain disgusted to read someone from the residents’ association say:

“If a high-intensity bomb is exploded by terrorists on and under the flyover, it will fall in our compounds. Also, the area lies on a fault line. In case of any calamity, even the rescue vehicles won’t be able to reach people.”

Actually, I am not disgusted. It is expected. Pollution does not sound grand enough. Think of bombs falling in their compounds.

And here is the Times of India. Look at the picture, see who is in it and the caption they have used with it:

SECURITY ABOVE ALL ELSE: A policeman tells a biker that he can’t park his vehicle at Zaveri Bazar on Monday

No comments from me.


End Note:

- - -

Make up your minds, Mumbaikars. You either laud the 'spirit of Mumbai' or you rubbish people who continue their plans to host functions. The Shiv Sena has taken Shahrukh Khan to task for celebrating some film release. He is not in it and has no stake and it was planned much ahead. People have watched the film, eaten popcorn, laughed and joked.

It will be the film community that will attend police functions and be tapped for money, and they will contribute. There is much to critique about Bollywood, but when the Sena and other parties hold their special meetings and have chai-pakoras and start planning on their next move, they too are celebrating the possibility of their victory in the next polls. If they are not, then shut up and promise you will not contest elections riding on the back of this incident. I will say the same applies to Digvijay Singh, who I am reasonably certain will not win. Shabana Azmi can.

Contradictions anyone?

The Swami’s True Lies

Aseemanand is right. He probably has been forced to confess to his role in the bomb blasts in the Ajmer dargah, Mecca mosque, Malegaon and Samjhauta Express. But he is wrong that it is the investigating agencies that are doing so. It is likely that the Sangh Parivar put pressure on him when the saffron terror dragon began its first leap in public domain. In The Saffron Smokescreen, I had written:

So, what is the role of Swami Aseemanand? It is to create a soft-focus photoshopped image of the RSS. Has he mentioned any high-level functionary in his confession or any remote link to prominent leaders? Do any of the persons mentioned claim to take their instructions from a higher authority? No. The demon of Hindutva terror is doing its dance and there is no way in which to wish it away. The best course is to accept the extremists in the fringe fold of Hindutva, the over-enthusiastic, misguided people.

He now says that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) had put pressure on him. The smart thing is that because all the cases are in different states he can blame one at a time. He says that the Rajasthan ATS has not allowed him to hire a lawyer. So which lawyer had said that he was tortured into making the confession, although he had recorded his statement before a magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC which is admissible in a court of law?

If he is innocent, then why did the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, say that there may be some radical members but they were told to leave the organisation since there was no place for extremism within it? He had said that the accused are not in any way connected to the RSS. Why, then, were they asked to leave?

As for Aseemanand, what happens to his heart-tugging story about the Muslim boy who reformed him? Kaleem who was wrongfully imprisoned and his “good conduct” affected him so deeply that he wanted to do “prayaschit” (penance) and therefore confessed. Was Kaleem from the investigating agencies?