What Francois Hollande Learned from George Bush and Obama Did not

It took a terrorist carnage in Paris to make the French discover the wisdom in US actions post 9/11 and for their president Francois Hollande to discover his inner George W. Bush. When a socialist French president echoes words used by a Texan Republican American president we can be sure we are living in a new era of common sense prevailing over pompous platitudes. On the other hand when an American president nonchalantly says, after a carnage in California, that he misjudged how anxious his citizens are because he does not watch cable TV, we can be equally sure that the desire for a moral halo is outstripping a dire need of sense of urgency. Amidst these two scenarios stands the divisive figure of George Bush.

The Bush that Hollande discovered and echoed was the post 9/11 but pre-Iraq war Bush. That sunny fateful Tuesday morning is etched in my memory. It was a morning when the words "the world will never be the same again" stopped being a trite cliche and became a new emphatic reality. It was the day when an age of American innocence ended. Bush who had assumed office under a cloud of derision and lack of mandate became the voice of America in a moment that he certainly would not have wished nor hoped for but he rose to the occasion. Nancy Gibbs of Time magazine wrote archly that history came down in a fell swoop and lifted him. When Bush left office with his legacy in tatters as the nation reeled under the greatest recession since the Great Depression he and many of his supporters felt that history will judge him kinder with the passage of time as it has done to Harry Truman. Their hopes were answered, sadly, when Paris felt the sting of terrorism.

Image from http://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/3e/d07fa8ab4e693d9657bcc69b7223dd/40985FE_DA_130425bush2001.jpg 

Bush said "we are at war" and many guffawed pointing out that it was impossible for a nation state to be at war against a rag-tag motley group of non-state actors. Theoreticians trotted out to chortle that it was neither a war and even if it was war it cannot be won because it lacks a definition of what would constitute a 'win'. The Bush doctrine has now been vindicated by Hollande.

It is fully to George Bush's credit that he recognized that 9/11 was indeed war. Osama Bin Laden had indeed declared war against the US, only thing is unlike Clinton now the US had a president who understood that Bin Laden meant business. That a motley group of religious fundamentalists with an amoeba like structure spread across the globe could be considered an entity and waged war against was the recognized with an instinctive genius that Bush was never recognized for.

Bush, unlike Obama who needs to watch cable TV to learn what his citizens felt, channeled the rage of Americans and gave expression to the resolve that the country wanted to see in it's leader. With his arm slung over a fireman, standing over the rubble of World Trade Center, with a bull horn Bush declared "I hear you, the world hears you and those who did this will hear from us". Asked what his aim was he bluntly said, in Churchillian manner, "there's a poster out west in Texas 'wanted dead or alive'". There was no waffling, no lecturing, no elaborate reasoning just a blunt statement of the desired outcome. Time magazine columnist Lance Morrow was searing in his column calling for a 'purple rage' and advising grief counselors to stay away.

On a day when the fires were still smoldering in New York City and Washington D.C. Bush said America was attacked by those who detested her for her way of life and what she stood for. The naysayers chuckled that the attacks had nothing to do with the terrorists antagonism towards American ideals. Tellingly Hollande used those same words and said Paris was attacked for what she stood for.

Bush understood keenly that this was a different war and that the usual paradigms of war, valid for several millennia, will not suit this new war, this new manichean struggle of the 21st century. "There would be no surrender or signing aboard a ship" predicted Bush. Unlike Obama who needed a do-over of his Oval office speech against ISIS Bush delivered a new doctrine speaking from Oval office saying "we'll make no distinction between terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". He called it a "war on terror".

Bob Woodward quotes at length Bush's speech to the Congress and the nation. Watched by "80 million" Americans Bush declared "our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done". As for the new nature of the conflict Bush advised Americans that they "should not expect one battle bust a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It ma include dramatic strikes visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success". Where Bush was quick to identify the nature of the enemy and help the country resolve itself for a lengthy conflict Obama was keen to ridicule the nature of ISIS by calling them a 'varsity JV team'.

Brussels and Europe at large have recognized that their cities have become sanctuaries for terrorists. It is not without reason that Hamburg was were the 9/11 plotters gathered to plot their heinous crime. A bin-Laden could not have operated without impunity but for the sanctuary provided by Kabul.

Hollande, learning from Bush, has vowed that France will cut off the oxygen for terrorist operations by choking the money flow. America due to its pre-eminent position in the world of finance could leverage institutions at its command to identify and stifle the flow of money that financed terrorist operations. When treasury secretary announced the presidential proclamation Bush flew into a rage because he wanted to make the announcement himself in order to impress upon everyone the central role money plays in terrorism and by making the announcement himself he wanted to show the world that he was deathly serious. Again, this was Bush's own idea with an instinctive realization of what the country was against and an awareness of the tools available at his disposal.

In response to the racist bigotry that is being unleashed by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the crazed GOP primaries both Obama and Hillary Clinton have discovered the virtues of how Bush faced the conflict by demonizing the terrorists while consciously and steadfastly refusing to demonize an entire religion or an entire people. Woodward points out how Bush repetitively emphasized that it was not a war against the Afghans or Islam. Bush, Woodward says, wanted the first bombs to dropped over Afghanistan to be food packets. Outreach to children and women of Afghanistan were key elements of Bush policy. Bush even made it a point to invite a Muslim cleric to the memorial service at the National Cathedral.

Americans have forgotten how ill organized the country was just before 9/11 and the changes that Bush ushered in. The FBI and CIA were prevented by law from exchanging intelligence, the president could not make a secure telephone call from Air Force One, while Bush Sr could go to war in 1991 with off-the shelf plans there were no off-the-shelf plans for this war, the military had been under equipped, human intelligence sorely lacked, the laws for snooping were outpaced by technological advances that the terrorists took advantage of and much more. Make no mistake Obama has retained many of Bush's security policies and has actually took the drone warfare policy to levels that even Bush demurred to do.

Bush gathered an international coalition before he went to war, something that even the French have no bothered to do with their air strikes. As much as Bush wanted to present a globally united front in the war against terror he was aware that there will be a day when the US will carry the burden alone as it does now. Obama cried from rooftops that the US lost international prestige under Bush's watch but he has been both unwilling and incapable of stitching together any meaningful coalition to carry on the Afghan operations that he found himself necessary to continue with a troop addition.

While Hollande learned from the Bush who went after bin-Laden Obama is eager to avoid being the Bush who went after Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately Obama took his caution to such an extreme that even his own Secretary of state blithely told an interviewer that "do not do stupid stuff cannot be the organizing principle of a great country". This week yet another former Secretary of defense who served under Obama went on the record to say what a detached war time president Obama is. Apparently during cabinet meetings to discuss the threat of ISIS Obama would get busy checking messages on his blackberry. Talking to left leaning public broadcaster PBS Obama blamed media coverage of the attacks in Paris and California for fueling anxiety amongst the public. 'Media coverage' is what Obama thinks is responsible for citizens feeling anxious after two brazen and heinous attacks. Thank god he was not in the presidency when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

A former administration official went on record to say that Obama dithered on cutting off the oxygen of money supply to ISIS, the oil wells, worrying about the damage to the environment. Finding political courage to kill bin-Laden, while commendable, does not compare to doing what it takes to win a war against a merciless enemy. Obama, it is now becoming increasingly evident, is no war time president. I shudder to think of what an Obama would have done before D-Day or at Stalingrad or before Hiroshima.

Obama, like many in America and elsewhere, saw Bush exclusively through the prism of the Iraq war and the mistakes of the doctrine of pre-emptive war. That is a sad mistake for even in a war as plagued by mistakes as the Iraq war was there came a moment when Bush discovered leadership, albeit much belatedly. While everyone including his own 'Iraq study group' advised Bush to cut and run from Iraq he resolved that he will not abandon Iraq to chaos and announced the surge under David Petraeus. The Iraq 'surge' was a success that Obama threw away and yielded a vacuum that ISIS was only too glad to fill in.

It is still too early to say who will take over from Obama but I'm sure that at this point anybody but Obama would prosecute the war against ISIS much better. Hillary Clinton may even be a better Commander in Chief than Obama himself.

Terror at Godhra and What Secularism is NOT

L.K. Advani gifted political discourse a poisonous word, 'pseudo-secularism'. 'Pseudo-secularism', Hindutva ideologues tell us, is the specious perversion of secularism whereby the minority community gets a carte blanche and worse an insulation from criticism whereas the majority community is game for criticisms and judgments ranging from the valid to the ludicrous. This criticism of secularism in practice is done solely with a view to discrediting the very idea of secularism and never for calling out hypocrisies. 

Political columnist and staunch anti-Hindutva ideologue Gnani Sankaran in a recent TV interview played into the Hindutva lobby by whitewashing the grotesque terrorist act of burning a railway coach full of Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob at Godhra which in turn set off the deadly Gujarat riots that left hundreds of Muslims and Hindus dead. 

From Guardian News Paper.

Asked why there was a failure to condemn Godhra Gnani tried to rationalize that those who died in the 'accident' were 'Kar Sevaks' (those who lend a hand for the construction of the controversial Ram temple in the place of the destroyed Babri Mosque). He further piled on that as a human being he feels sorry for the dead but just as one does not condemn the death of Hitler so too he cannot condemn this act. This is shameful, to say the least. Helpless women and children were killed in a cold-blooded and carefully planned act of terrorism. 

Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor, to cite a parallel, famously referred to the 9/11 victims as 'little Eichmanns' to suggest that the victims were not innocent and therefore it was ok to kill them. 

Even as George W Bush was being hated around the world he was loved warmly in Hindu India. Bush was a true friend of India but one reason why Hindu India loved him was because he unflinchingly labeled 9/11 as an act of Islamic terror. He bluntly said that he wanted Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'. To Indians who have been subject to acts of terrorism which its leaders would refuse to call it by its name this was welcome news. 

Identifying itself as 'progressive and liberal' many media outlets and intellectuals, usually on the Left, would be too eager to call out Hindu fundamentalism while imploring all India to be 'understanding' of acts of terror when the perpetrators were Muslims. If those who perished in Godhra were Kar Sevaks and therefore did not need anything more than customary sympathy what would Mr Gnani say of the poor patients in an intensive care unit at a Government Hospital in Coimbatore where members of Al-Ummah had planted bombs? Stop this hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is injuring the cause of secularism much more than what Modi and Advani can instigate. 

Secularism is not denial of any religion but that principle by which each person gets to practice his or her own religion and the state steers clear of favoritism. Karunanidhi, supposedly a self identified atheist, would never lose an opportunity to poke fun of Hindus or their cherished beliefs but would meekly submit himself to adorning a Muslim skull cap or accept blessings from Christian priests. When Narendra Modi refused to adorn a Muslim cap offered by a Muslim priest there was furore. Secularism is not where one gets to impose his religion on another. As constitutional functionary Modi should not be showing any favoritism and that is all we can ask of him. And Modi, though a chief minister, is an individual too who is free to worship or not worship as he deems fit. My issue with Modi is not that he is Hindu or worships at a temple. 

Congress party is a master of playing vulgar politics wherein, while lecturing on secularism, they would seek the diktats of the high priest of Jumma Masjid. Asked if his party is encouraging dynasty politics by promoting his son M.Karunanidhi gruffly replied 'my party is not the Sankara Mutt'. Hindu outfit leader Rama.Gopalan shot back "it is only in Jumma Masjid that the inheritor is a son". 

Even in movies it is Hindus or a section of Hindus, especially Brahmins, that come in for liberal ridicule. I'd support it as free speech and also self-depractory irreverent humor towards gods is a very Hindu trait too. But when such liberty is exercised only towards one religion it smacks of hypocrisy. 

Not even Muslim theocratic states spend on their citizens for undertaking Haj. It is absolute hypocrisy for a secular state to be paying for religious pilgrimage by one community. The cost to the exchequer in 2009 was a whopping Rs 800 Million ($140 Million) approximately Rs 70,000 per person. The Indian government spends Rs 200 per Hindu pilgrim on a pilgrimage to Mansarovar in Tibet. Ironically several Muslim leaders themselves have said, as it is factual, that this is against Islamic law. A Muslim is supposed to undertake Haj on money saved by him. 

All that said it is also often true that Hindus wield considerable power as voting blocs and that power is time and again used to cover up for crimes of the high and mighty.

The Mumbai blasts of 1993 were a direct consequence of the total impunity with which Bal Thackeray was able to carry out a riot killing hundreds of Muslims in Mumbai. The Sri Krishna committee said that Thackeray operating like an army general. Thackeray did not spend even an hour in jail. 

It is not uncommon to see Hindu sadhus wield enormous political power and even in the face of overwhelming evidence of illegalities they are seldom arrested. Whether it is Bangaru Adigalar or Baba Ramdev the much feared Indian Income Tax department is toothless. 

Gnani is at his gadfly best when he called out the hypocrisy of India's TV channels ranting over the siege of Taj Hotel in Mumbai, during the attack of November 2008, where the rich and powerful were holed up. He wrote a column decrying the selective outrage of TV channels that almost totally ignored victims at the train station who were poor unlike the Taj patrons. I wish Gnani apologized for that thoughtless remark and strengthened the idea of secularism. 

The myths of pseudo-secularism are aplenty and deserve a debunking separately which will follow soon. I wrote this column today so I could do that debunking without anyone asking about this. Pseudo-secularism is a bogey of hypocrisy with a sinister agenda and I shall deconstruct it brick by brick.

References:

1. Gnani's interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVi_kaWfnMA

2. Ward Churchill's comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_September_11_attacks_essay_controversy

3. Modi refusing Muslim cap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-09E-t9RJj0

4. India loves Bush http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/02/28/india-pro-america-pro-bush/

5. Coimbatore Bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Coimbatore_bombings

6. Frontline (sister publication of Hindu) whitewashes Godhra http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1915/19150110.htm .

7. Haj Subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_subsidy

8. Column by Gnani on Hotel Taj siege - 'Hotel Taj: Whose icon is it' - http://openspace.org.in/node/808

Rajiv's Assassins : Justice Delayed, Justice Served and Justice Forgotten.

It is unconscionable that a death row convict has to wait for a decade, with his life hanging by a thread, to learn whether or not he would die or live. That is barbarism. The convict may be guilty of a barbarous crime but it does not behoove any nation that seeks to think of itself as a land with laws and humanitarianism. Even the most despicable death row convict is deserves to have a 'clean' death. Not a tortured death. Nothing is greater torture than to keep in suspense a convict's fate. India's Supreme Court, the one remaining institution of some semblance of competence in India, has delivered a landmark judgment in telling India's government that they owe it to death row convicts to ensure a speedy response for mercy petitions. Kudos to Justice Sathasivam and team.

Bringing Rajiv's assassins to justice is less important than justice being done for all and for all time to come. The Indian state is very cavalier in its attitudes towards human lives and the Supreme court has now ensured that this pernicious and barbarian attitude of sleeping over mercy petitions will come to an end.

Indian laws do not envisage life imprisonment as 'true life imprisonment' unlike, say, US laws where convicts can be sent to jail with no hope of parole or getting out alive. Some deserve that punishment. I do not subscribe to characterizing judicial punishments exclusively as 'opportunities for reform'. Sure such an opportunity should exist but there are crimes where judgments can only be punishments.   It is not my wish to see Rajiv's killers, especially Murugan, who was intrinsic to the heinous plot, to be freed but the paramountcy of law and legal precedence is far more important. The three killers along with the other four should be released post-haste. This humiliating episode should make the Indian state realize thus far and no further.

However, I do not subscribe to cheering the convicts as 'innocents'. They've been pronounced guilty, repeatedly, by all courts including the now much loved Supreme Court. The officer who recorded Perarivalan's confession statement gave a bombshell interview saying that he left out a key sentence in recording the confession. The officer said he omitted recording that Perarivalan did not know that Rajiv was the intended target of the bomb attack for which he had procured the batteries for. Yes, his ignorance of intended target may have indeed spared him the gallows. That said it is sheer propaganda to claim that the officer exonerated Perarivalan.

Photo Courtesy: The Hindu. From L to R - Perarivalan, Murugan and Santhan.

 
Alongwith Rajiv several others died. Several were policemen of very low ranks. Son of one such policemen had posted a comment, in a vernacular magazine, recounting how his family ran from one hospital to another looking for his father only to find him later as a mangled corpse riddled with projectiles and torn apart. In the melee that ensued everyone was only worried about Rajiv and the aftermath of his assassination. Congressmen who today lament about the other victims did not bother about them until today when such victims are convenient bogies for sympathy.

Mrs Arputham, now many call her venerably Arputhammal, as mother waged an unrelenting struggle against the mammoth and inhuman state. That Perarivalan is today spared from the gallows is greatly due to her herculean efforts. In her own interview while claiming that her son was innocent she does concede that their family, like many other Tamil families she says, helped LTTE. Thats a partial truth with dangerous self-blindness. Out of the millions of families maybe a few hundred families actively involved themselves with the LTTE. Their family, thanks to its association with DK, was actively involved with helping LTTE. Nalini's brother, Mrs Arputham says, accosted her son. Even if one were to agree that Perarivalan did not know about Rajiv as target the 19 year old adult should've realized that he is being accomplice to a possible murder. As such, it is shameful to make a mother's grief as witness to a son's ignorance.

Another pornography of grief is propagandizing a pleading letter by the daughter of Nalini and Murugan. I feel sorry for her. I do. But sorry does not put Humpty Dumpty back. Her parents were part of an assassination plot that, incidentally, murdered 14 others. Many of the other victims were sole breadwinners for their families and their families were plunged into penury where as a sympathetic Sri Lankan diaspora sheltered Nalini's daughter and brought her up in London. I've written before that India should not have bothered about the dilemma of the state creating an orphan by executing Nalini and Murugan. The state would not have orphaned their child. Nalini and Murugan orphaned their daughter by indulging in a crime as a couple. The case of US executing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg is pertinent to recall here.

A very perverted argument in this discussion of Rajiv's killing is the angle of IPKF. Mrs Arputham talking to Hindu said "How can we justify Rajiv's approach to Eelam. How many Tamils were killed by IPKF? How many women were raped by IPKF?". I've heard many say "well Rajiv deserved it". Nothing is more vulgar and unjust. Such people make it appear as if Rajiv Gandhi sent the Indian army with an express mission to kill and rape Tamils. Rajiv, with all his faults, was no Pol Pot. Jeyawardane ensnared, amateur politician and overnight PM, Rajiv, in a civil war. Prabhakaran, as he would time and again, broke the truce launching a war against the Indian army.

Yes, there were incidents of IPKF raping women. Even today Indian army has that stigma in peace keeping forces in Africa. However Mrs Arputham and millions of Tamils conveniently forget that IPKF too suffered heavily due to guerrilla tactics of LTTE. When a military officer visited my school in 1988 several of us asked about this rape incident. He, by what appears in hindsight now as nonchalantly, said "there are biological reasons". But he added a less spoken truth too. He said IPKF would avoid frisking young girls, many children actually, but the same girls would cross a checkpoint and pull out a grenade from within their skirts and toss it. IPKF was also not given a free hand in crushing the enemy. They had to fight with one hand tied behind their back. Indian army suffered large casualties due to muddled policy making in Delhi.

In media we do not often hear from two sides. Tamil media in a jingoistic overdrive is giving a megaphone only to Mrs Arputham. We seldom hear from the then investigating officers or army leaders of IPKF.

North Indians are aghast that Tamils might be celebrating the release of three assassins. Thats unfair and short on memory. Gandhi's assassins are worshipped by quite a number of people. Indira's assassins were mourned and celebrated in Gurdwara's across Punjab. It is despicable but thats the reality. And lets not forget that murderers of thousands of Sikhs sat in ministries. One man's terrorist is, sadly, another man's freedom fighter.

Tamils who accuse the rest of India of not caring for their concerns are being unfair. How many Tamils cared for Simranjit Singh Mann who was held in prison for 4 years in connection with Indira's assassination and later acquitted. How many Tamils even know about the case of the 'Jodhpur Detenus'. After Operation Bluestar nearly 365 Punjabis were arrested and were collectively referred to as 'Jodhpur detenus'. Many, without any justification, were incarcerated for nearly 4 years. How many Tamils even know that K.P.S. Gill became the fabled Super Cop thanks to the mass graves that he helped populate? Interestingly S.S.Mann told Rediff in a 1999 interview that Rajiv's assassins should be pardoned. India is a land of 'million mutinies' with communities rarely being emotionally unified on an pan-Indian level.

As always the ever irrepressible Jeyamohan waded into the this issue with a lengthy blog at the end of which he facetiously professed ignorance about state craft and political science. He need not have added that disclaimer the blog was evidence of his near total lack of knowledge in the topic.

Jeyamohan glorifies the LTTE assassination as if it was some ideological political reaction to the prevailing ideology, albeit, a violent one. Then he attribute to Nehru what was originally a Jeffersonian thought, that a truly democratic form of government should allow subversive protests even if it meant overthrow of an existing governing system. This is wrong on two levels.

First, Nehru, shaped by Gandhian freedom movement with pan-Indian nationalism as its bedrock, was dismissive of separatist movements. Nehru was extremely intolerant of any separatism, including non-violent ones. He would ridicule the Dravidian party clamor for separatism, with some justification but not wholly, as 'nonsense'. He would not hesitate to not just arrest his friend Sheikh Abdullah but exile him to far away Tamil Nadu too. Nehru, incidentally, was an admirer of Stalin and Lenin. The Indian state has always crushed with an iron hand any and every separatist movements. From Naxalbari to Punjab to Kashmir India has time and again showed that it is not a soft state.

Second, Prabhakaran was not espousing any alternate ideology or form of government. Rajiv's killing was a politically motivated targeted assassination with no qualms of conscience about collateral damage. The suicide bomber was clothed in deadly bombs enough to kill more than one. Prabhakaran wanted to ensure that Rajiv was killed no matter how many others were killed along with him. Prabhakaran would repeat the Rajiv style assassination two years later to kill Ranasinghe Premadasa. To honor acts of cold blooded murder as quest for alternate ideology only shows that Jeyamohan needs to stick with what he knows best and refrain from topics he knows nothing of.

I support the death penalty because some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrators, by committing those, forfeit their right to live. The Delhi rapists, Timothy McVeigh, Ajmal Kasab, all deserved to die. It is silly, as Jeyamohan does, to tie necessity of death sentence to lack of adequate police. In fact if the police-population ratio is very low it is all the more reason to scrap death sentence because the crime may not have been investigated properly.

Amidst the Modi wave thats sweeping the country a word thats often tossed is 'pseudo-sceularism'. Coined by Advani it refers to what Hindus call as preferential treatment of Muslims in the name of secularism. Muslims like Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru have been executed without much delay unlike Hindu killers like the Rajiv assassins or Naxal leaders (as listed by Jeyamohan himself).

Jeyamohan bares his Hindutva self when he argues that Islamic terrorism, which has international support, should not be spared. He even calls for expedited justice so that no fantastic attempts, like a flight hijacking, take place to trade hostages. By citing an exceptional one time fact Jeyamohan calls for tribal justice against Muslims. India executed Afzal Guru without even intimating his family despite an entire state being on the edge of violence. How many flight hijackings took place to release him. The Muslim terrorists at least only hijacked a flight Khalistan terrorists blew up an entire aircraft killing hundreds of Indians and today we have a Sikh Prime Minister. Some pseudo secularism this. Lets not forest brigand and murderer Veerappan taking an erstwhile matinee idol as hostage and demanding the release of his acolytes in prison who were accused of murdering a police official. In fact many Muslims have been arrested without any shred of evidence and held in prisons. What can Jeyamohan tell them? By the way Punjab separatism too had its supporters from outside. What about LTTE that had a robust international network to lobby and raise funds? Save your outrage Jeyamohan.


I've an overriding concern with the Supreme Court judgment though. Now I don't want subsequent mercy petitions to be disposed of hastily and petitioners executed hurriedly to avoid being seen as lethargic. The Supreme Court should lay down rules for transparency in the mercy petition process and hold subsequent governments to account.

The one part of Mrs Arputham's crusade to free to her son that is really honorable and a signal service for families of other convicts is the attention she has brought to how inhuman the Indian prison system is. Mrs Arputham was subject to cruel humiliation, including, once, being asked to use a toilet without closing the door, for her attempts to see her son in prison. The Supreme Court should duo motto take up that issue and put an end to such travails. The mark of a civilized society is one in which even a murder convict can claim human rights.

A bitter mother who is few steps away from complete victory Mrs Arputham minced no words about Karunanidhi and Veeramani, two of Tamil Nadu's most duplicitous self styled custodians of Tamil interests. She labeled them aptly as turncoats. Poor Mrs Arputham had to undergo such himalayan personal travails to know their true colors.

The seven convicts may see justice served, though delayed. But, with a heavy heart, we need to remember that Rajiv and the remaining victims will not get their justice.


My earlier blogs on this issue:

1. The Rajiv Killers and the Death Penalty Debate http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2011/08/rajiv-killers-and-death-penalty-debate.html

2. Jethmalani's Travesty and Hypocrisies Galore in Tamil Nadu http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2011/08/jethmalanis-travesty-and-hypocrisies.html

Other References.

1. Mrs Arputham's interview to Tamil Hindu - http://tamil.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/ராஜீவ்-கொலை-பெரிய-தப்பு-அற்புதம்-அம்மாள்-நேர்காணல்/article5723757.ece
2. 40 of Jodhpur Detenus release - Article from India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/while-40-jodhpur-detenus-are-released-long-wait-continues-for-the-rest/1/329192.html
3. Jodhpur Detenus and withdrawal of draconian laws - Article in India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/release-of-jodhpur-detenus-withdrawal-of-draconian-laws-step-in-the-right-direction-taken-in-punjab/1/323257.html
4. S.S. Mann's interview in Rediff - Mentions clemency for Rajiv's assassins - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/release-of-jodhpur-detenus-withdrawal-of-draconian-laws-step-in-the-right-direction-taken-in-punjab/1/323257.html
4. Jeyamohan's article on 7 assassins http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=46899

From Parasakthi to Vishwaroopam: Fascism In Tamil Nadu

More than 50 years ago it was possible for a movie character to ask  a temple priest "when did your god speak?", "you worship a goddess and yet molested my sister". The dialogues in that movie, Parasakthi, were penned by upcoming screenplay writer and atheist ideologue M.Karunanidhi. It was possible only because the god he mocked was Hindu and the priest he scolded was Hindu too. To be sure, where the hero says that the god is 'stone' the word 'stone' is muted but it is clearly apparent given the context of the rest of the dialogues. Karunanidhi's mentor E.V.Ramasamy, more stridently atheist and self-styled iconoclast, took a rally with a picture of Lord Rama garlanded with slippers. Again, it was possible only because he chose a Hindu god.

In 2013 Kamal's magnum-opus (at least in his mind) Vishwaroopam became a political football between radical Islamist groups , vengeful government and a supine judiciary. Radical Islamist groups raised a ruckus and wanted a total ban on the movie on the pretext that it injured the sentiments of Tamil Nadu Muslims by portraying all Muslims as terrorists. They took further offense to how some Islamic habits, like praying, were used by terrorists.

There is nothing demeaning to Islam or muslims in Kamal Hassan's 'Vishwaroopam'. Yes the story revolves around terrorism and yes the perpetrators happen to be muslims. To be specific, they are Afghan Taliban. The protagonist who stops them is muslim too. In a telling scene where FBI agents and Kamal, playing an undercover RAW agent who is muslim, wait outside the door of a terrorist who is about to detonate a dirty bomb. As the agents peer through a camera suddenly an agent exclaims "what is he doing" pointing to Kamal who is offering prayers. Another FBI agent answers "he is praying, for you too". In that one frame Kamal, the director, deftly shows the divide that is often frustrating in this debate about terrorism. Unfortunately his depiction of the protagonist as an observant muslim is brushed aside as tokenism but his depiction of terrorists as muslims is taken as an indictment against a religion.

The depiction of Taliban is pretty accurate and in fact tame compared to what the Taliban really inflicted on the people of Afghanistan and regions of Pakistan. Some muslim organizations that have taken to the streets to get the movie banned were silent when the Taliban shot at point blank range, Malala Yousufzazi, a 15 year old girl. When Tamil poet and commentator Manushyaputhiran, who is muslim, condemned the brutal beheading of a Sri Lankan Tamil girl, he was threatened by one muslim organization which is now openly calling for Sharia law in Tamil Nadu, India.

In a contrived sequence to convince viewers of a Tamil speaking Taliban there is reference to Kovai and Madurai. This is made in the passing with no reference to actual terrorist events that took place in Kovai. In 1998 a string of bomb blasts ripped the industrial town of Kovai and one location included an ICU in the local government hospital. Supposedly tensions between Hindutva and Muslim organizations had simmered there for a while. Later raids in Muslim neighborhood unearthed a huge cache of explosives sufficient to wreck the entire city. The docile state was stunned.

The depictions of beheading with religious overtones and a hanging that is preceded by religious intonations of justice etc are exactly what transpired in Afghanistan. Let us not forget how American journalist and a Jew, Daniel Pearl, was lured in the pretext of giving an interview and later beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. KSM, master mind of 9/11, recorded the gruesome beheading and mailed it to Pearl's wife who was pregnant at that time. Today KSM is rotting in Guantanamo. Videos recovered, by CNN, in Afghanistan showed terrorists being trained on inflicting sheer terror on innocent populations. The instructions included textbooks, video tutoring etc , for instance, poisoning community water storage with botulinum.

Jihadi videos regularly use, with telling effect, religious symbols and religious texts. They, unfailingly, situate their depraved acts within a religious context. A documentary that traced 9/11 plotters to Hamburg shows how places of worship became beehives of terror plots. This is fact. To take offense to movie depictions that show a man praying before detonating a bomb is silly and whitewashes what happens.

Intellectuals who love to be politically correct recoil with horror at the term 'clash of civilizations' when referring to the conflict between the West and Islam. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

If Christian west can put up with Martin Scorsese's 'Last temptation of christ' that shows Christ fornicating with Mary Magdalene or a New York City art exhibit that shows a crucifix in a jar of urine or a pop star denigrating the cross then it is silly to expect the same Western countries to ban anything critical of Islam including any intentional insult.

Philip Pullman publishes a book titled 'Good man Jesus and scoundrel Christ' with the back flap saying, cheekily, 'this is only a story'. So why not Salman Rushdie publish 'Satanic Verses'? I also object that Rushdie is to be defended because his work is art. Even if it is trashy his freedom to trash is to be protected. If one can trash Rama or Christ why not another god? Free speech is a rare commodity in India. Press Freedom Index rates India lower than Afghanistan on free speech. Pulitzer finalist author Suketu Mehta wrote in New York Times "in India today, it seems, free speech is itself an atrocity".

The radical group Towheet Jamat and its fiery leader used the hypocrisies of Indian democracy deftly to further his agenda in banning the movie. Every political party and every religion and every caste has stifled free speech when it suited them. The speech is at http://vimeo.com/58302985 . Apart from a very unsavory remark on Kamal's daughter it is a speech that puts to shame everyone and tells 'don't throw stones from a glass house'. Every religion has flexed its muscle seeking to ban critical opinion. No Bollywood film maker would dare to make a movie on Mumbai riots that the Sri Krishna committee squarely blamed on Bal Thackeray. 'Da Vinci Code' was banned by Tamil Nadu to placate a publicity hungry bishop.

Whether it is Afghanistan or Kashmir or Iran or Saudi, oppression of women, trampling of human rights across the board, lack of liberal democracy etc are hallmarks of those Islamic societies. When a mullah declares that new born babies need a burqa or that a women only music band should be banned the rest of the world lets out a collective gasp. In India Muslims enjoy many concessions like being able to run their educational institutions as they  please, yet their womenfolk are the least educated. That Rajiv Gandhi, in order to appease Islamic fundamentalists, robbed a destitute Muslim woman, Shah Bano, of her right to alimony, stands as a shameful chapter in India's record on human rights. 

Discrimination is another bogey that is raised by Muslims. I say its a 'bogey' in as much as discrimination was not invented by Tamils of other religions as an exclusive weapon against fellow citizens. Discrimination in housing, places of work, schools etc are a shameful, despicable yet pervasive part of Indian life. It is not only a Muslim who is discriminated against when they try to rent a home. A Dalit trying to rent in Mambalam, a Hindu trying to rent in a Christian enclave, vice-versa are all discriminated against. Can a Hindu open a shop in Burma Bazaar? How many non-Muslim students study in Islamic educational institutions? 

Islamic terrorism is a fact of life. If words like Saffron terror and Christian fundamentalism can be used to refer to extremism in those religions I see no reason why we should shy away from 'Islamic terrorism'. A simple listing of terrorist activities over the past few years would illustrate that almost all were Islamic terrorism. Talking of 'look at the context, look at the bigger picture' etc is pure sham. Britain gave refuge to thousands of muslims fleeing persecution in Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet that is where innocent people were killed because……British army was in Afghanistan and Iraq. What can one say when a Pakistani immigrant, whom the US had the grace to allow to become a citizen, plots to blow up tourists and innocent citizens in New York City Time Square? What can one say when an organization plots, in the name of religion, to blow up tens of airplanes killing innocents by the planeloads? 

If Towheet Jamat wants to stop stereotyping I'd love to see them protest against every such incident. I'd love to hear from the so called 'Arab street' loud denunciations of such heinousness. Let us remember that unlike North India Tamil Nadu has been relatively more secular and more peaceful towards its Muslim citizenry. The only protests we hear from the Islamic world are violent bloody protests against a cartoon, a Papal quote, a mediocre movie, a despicable youtube video. 

That a movie certified, under Indian laws, can be stopped by a lumpen organization on the sheer power of threats is chilling. Now any fundamentalist organization will feel emboldened to flex its muscle just to gain political mileage. The High court should have put its foot down on the case and yet they were mere spectators in this shenanigans. Once a movie has been certified by a censor board what is the need for a judge to have a screening. That a court would nullify its own ruling issued barely the night before and let a film maker run from pillar to post portrays the law and order situation in a bad light. The government's vindictiveness was merely capitalizing on the situation for reasons that are not just speculative. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Towheet Jamat has done a disservice to Tamil Muslims because the general population has only re-affirmed its stereotypes and a climate of "this is what they are" has come about. Given today's social media many a Tamil has watched the incendiary speeches of the Jamat speakers and has drawn his or her own conclusion. That the movie is Taliban centric made many to wonder on social media comments: 'so are those who protest against the movie support Taliban'? 

A parting word on the movie. There is much talk of whether or not the movie measures up to Hollywood standards. What is 'Hollywood standard'?

Terrorism is a difficult subject to deal with in a movie as Spielberg learned in 'Munich'. 'Munich' depicted how Israel sought and killed Palestinians who murdered Israeli athletes in Sep 1968 at Munich Olympics. Spielberg who is Jewish sought to explore the minds of those Mossad agents who were on a trail of vengeance. Charles Krauthammer, Jewish conservative columnist, ripped into Spielberg in a withering op-ed in Washington Post (Read it here 'Munich:The Travesty')

"...the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names -- Spielberg's List -- and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.

The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper -- before he is shot in cold blood by Jews." 

Even Spielberg's much revered 'Schindler's List' had its share of critics who felt that Spielberg trivialized Amon Goeth's brutal sport killings. Kamal Hassan, with no Tony Kushner by his side, and no Spielberg himself might have been incompetent to stage even a modicum of a discussion. It could also be the fear of how it would be received by an audience benumbed by inane mindless entertainment and a populace where mischief mongers are a dozen a dime. However Kamal had no compunction in his usual snide tasteless jokes about Brahmins and Hindu religion.

Kamal is no serious intellectual. He dabbles in a lot and is a power house of talent. He is a wonderful actor. Social commentary, intellectual analyses is not his forte. In an interview, possibly rattled by the protests, he made stupid claims and plainly idiotic assertions. 

Kamal opined "if Jews who had lived for just 60 years in Israel feel patriotic about Israel then what would a Muslim feel about a country he has lived in for 500 years". When actor pretend to be intellectual such stupidities happen. His ignorance of Jewish history and Israel is appalling. He goes on to claim that Muslims feel dispossessed today because "they have suffered so much injustice. They have ruled this country for centuries and where are they today. They chose to live and die in this country". Bollocks. Muslims in India are far better than any non-Muslim in Saudi or Pakistan. I do not mean to say that there is no injustice or nothing bad has happened to Muslims. Yes Babri Masjid, Bombay riots have happened. But that is not all there is to Muslims in India. Violent Islamic conquests cannot be swept under the carpet either. Islam did not enter India peacefully. It is stupid to claim so.

The movie shows Taliban indoctrination of children, how schools were closed, treatment of women (just hinted upon). All of that is fleeting and is not dwelled upon or dissected intelligently. Everything is captured only fleetingly as the movie slides into classic hero versus villain in a spy caper. Context is dead. Incidentally Kamal, in an interview, proudly said that when the US embassy read the script they were impressed by the details. The details include scenes of Taliban target practicing on Bush photographs.

Kamal has indeed slogged. Some, like the Kathak dance, are self-indulgent. The character could very well have been a Bharathanatyam dancer but Kamal chose to do Kathak. It is admirable that he did so in order to slog hard under Kathak maestro Birju Maharaj just so it does not come off as cheesy.

I've always felt Kamal tries to do a lot like a glutton and is finally weighed down by what he brings on himself. He is not a good director or a screen play writer. He needs, for his own good, to have a third person to do those just so he is reined in. The screen play is muddled, many characters just flit by. I am not too bothered about loopholes in some logic. After my staple diet of Rambo and Bond movies I know that logic is for the naive.

Kamal has accomplished a decent movie that is 'Hollywood' class if one considers Vin Diesel and Rambo and 'Die Hard' as 'Hollywood'. Also to be charitable let us remember that Kamal has to be mindful of political sensibilities and he does not have a free creative hand as in Hollywood.

A Tragedy In Wisconsin And Some Debates

On Aug 5th Wade Michael Page, a member of a White supremacist group, went to a Gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI and killed, in cold blood fueled by racism, 6 people. He would have killed more but for a timely alert by kids aged 4 who saw him first. Page terrorized a group of peaceful worshippers until SWAT teams took him down. The Sikh community and Indian-Americans at large are still reeling from  the emotional aftermath. President Obama ordered a national day of mourning and assured India's Sikh Prime Minister that all will be done to protect Sikhs in America. Wisconsinites and Americans at large poured forth their sympathies. Rev Paul Armstrong of United Methodist Church in Oak Creek told Time "we are in this together..the community is saying we hold the Sikhs in high regard". A year ago Rev Armstrong had taken members of his church to the Gurdwara and was "totally impressed by their hospitality and their tales faith". (Below picture is of the community in Oak Creek mourning, courtesy Time magazine, more pictures at the bottom of the blog, also from Time )

The tragedy in Wisconsin took place within a month of another mad guy (now, medically mad) taking an assault rifle to a Batman movie and mowing down tens of moviegoers. That triggered a debate about America's vexing issue of gun control. Fareed Zakaria argued, correctly, in Time that America has a gun problem and really needs to look at the issue disappasionately. Zakaria went so far as to say that Americans who do not support gun controls are doing a disservice to the famous 'second amendment' which is cited for the 'right to bear arms'. The Wisconsin shooting took on another layer of controversy viz. 'racism'. Sikhs have been targeted, 700 times according to Sikh associations, since 9/11, being mistaken for Muslims. Some of those incidents were fatal.

Wade Page was a racist, pure and simple. He was a member of white supremacist gang and had an application for KKK, the most notorious racist organization in USA. Page, reports now reveal, was an avid listener to a certain genre of pop music that, NYT called, 'fueled hate'. Even music can be used to fuel hatred. Two op-eds appearing in Washington Post and NYT, by Sikhs, amongst others, have taken this racism angle head on.

Arjun Sethi, writing in Wash.Post, recounts painful incidents like being bullied in high school (pushed into girls toilet), profiled at courts, where he appeared professionally. Sethi points out how FBI for reporting hate crimes does not have an option for Sikhs to record. MLK Jr scolded America that its promissory note returned "insufficient funds". Sethi called for America to live up to its promise of equality for its diverse population since that is 'what drives immigrants here and what makes USA the envy of the world'.

Bhira Backhaus, writing in NYT, celebrated the century old Gurdwara in Stockton. Backhaus, like Gogol in Jhumpa Lahiri's 'Namesake', recalls growing up amidst a culture clash. He had married 'outside the Sikh community' causing a 'painful breach' with his parents until their last days. Backhaus is comforted that when his parents reached out to him at last he understood that he still "belonged to the community". Then he raised the question if the devotees would have been spared had they 'dressed' like the rest of Americans (almost all women folk in that Gurdwara were in Salwar) or talked like Americans.

That the victims were brown skinned was the only reason they were killed. No matter what dress they wore or what accent they spoke Wade Page would not have spared a single one of them. Backhaus concludes by saying "to wipe away what has come before, who we have been over the centuries, also means to forget who our own mothers and fathers were". This is where I differ. This is moment of great tragedy and the cause is clear, racism, hence I tread carefully on this 'assimilation' debate.

Active discussions are taking place on the fact that Sikhs, unlike other Indians, wear a visible sign of their religion. The turban and a beard for the menfolk. It is their religious precept and they should be free to do it without prejudice like a pastor wearing his cassock or a Jew wearing his yarmulke. Assimilating does not mean forsaking all that.

Backhaus would love for Americans, of all races, to respect his faith, his values and whatever goes within the amorphous term 'culture'. But he has no word to say about the fact that his parents, RIP, thought it was sacrilegious to marry outside his community. His parents had lived in US for decades and I am sure expected to be treated as equal human beings. Should not Indians show the same acceptance towards American culture? Why do Indians look at American girls as something less? Why do Indians advertise for their girls "need groom for Indian born American girl, BUT brought up with Indian values". What does THAT mean?

When I saw 'Bend it like Beckham' I was indeed thinking 'are Sikhs in UK that insular from their fellow British'. Acceptance is a two way street. I understand that the community is anguished and very angry but how come nobody thought it proper to even mildly acknowledge the fact that the country has rallied around them unlike their mother land whose leader, in response to 3000 sikhs being killed, said "when a huge tree falls the earth is bound to shake".

I've been shocked to hear Indians carelessly use derogatory words referring to Afro-Americans. The term 'racism' is loosely used and often refers to whites as the perpetrators. Afro-American council members in DC spoke in blatant racist terms about 'Asian groceries'. Criticizing media adulation for South Asian basketball sensation Jeremy Lin an Afro-American athlete spoke in racist terms.

I am a strong supporter of being assimilated into the local culture. America's prosperity, its secular fabric, its openness etc are all the result of American 'culture'. Indians should learn to become Americans. A woman of Sikh origin is the governor of a Southern state (South Carolina). Preet Bharara, Manhattan Attorney, featured on the cover of Time and listed by Time as one of the '100 most influential, is the scourge of Wall Street.

Many Indians wonder why not US ban hate speeches. White supremacists are often monitored by FBI but America's vaunted 'first amendment' protects a lot of speeches including some abominable ideas. Hate speech is protected speech too. FBI or Department of Justice usually act with care when they prosecute for hate speech. This political correctness and respect for constitution is hotly debated. Before Indians accuse US of racism in turning a blind eye to white supremacist hate groups let us remember the Fort Hood shooting. Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 people in an army base. Nidal Hasan was flagged for provocative ideas but was given a pass.

When a person wags his finger at Americans and asks "why should I forget my language, my culture, my homeland etc" it would be fair to be asked back "so why bother to come here". An H1B guy who sends an email 4 days after landing saying "the common man on the road has no morals in USA" I am appalled. Why do Indians, who desire to be treated as equals and as 'Americans', at the first available instance ready to look at America like they were guests examining the country seeking to pass judgments? Indians need to first look at themselves as Americans and not as 'visitors' with a smug look of ' I love your money as long $1=Rs50 and I hate everything else'. If they think so it is ok except when they eagerly seek green cards or citizenships. There are millions of Indians and other countrymen who would love to become Americans for the love of American culture and they deserve that green card more than the smug Indians. Weeks after 9/11 I was at a party where a Sikh, a millionaire franchisee owner of Pizza Huts, declared solemnly "America is a terrorist country". This, from a person whose motherland is yet to prosecute, let alone convict, 28 years later, a single person for a pogrom that killed 3000 Sikhs. He did not even demur that 3000 of his fellow countrymen were killed just weeks back. As much as we want Americans to accept us it is high time we thought about how accepting we Indians are of Americans.

I disapprove of Indians celebrating India's independence day in USA complete with a flag march and, of course, a Bollywood actress. Those celebrations in NJ/NY are a shame both for India and USA. There is place for only one flag in US, the stars and stripes. That Empire State building lights up in tri color is the magnanimity of Americans. That Diwali is celebrated in the White House is a sign of arrival for Indian-Americans. Schools in NJ and even offices elsewhere celebrate Diwali. the Aug 15th celebrations, rediff.com points out, is strongly Hindutva in character pushing away other Indians. North Indians do not treat South Indians, especially Hindi illiterate South Indians, as fellow Indians. An advertisement for A.R.Rahman concert in NJ states "there will be as few Tamil songs as possible". When ARR first visited US North Indians booed him when he played Tamil songs. Then Tamils returned the favor for Hindi songs leading to that kind of advertisement. Indian Americans are a fractious lot. Instead of this useless Independence Parade if Indians organize symposiums on India's greatest achievement, its Freedom struggle, it would make Americans proud of India.

America can certainly do better and it is my wish to continue to hold America to its promise but we also need to remember that Americans are human beings too. 19 hijackers belonging to one religion declared a religious war killing 3000 Americans and the story continues till today. The Times Square bomber, a Pakistani, was even made a citizen. Yet he chose to kill fellow Americans on American soil. In this climate very regrettable acts of profiling and hate crimes occur. To be fair they have not proliferated. Bush's Secret Service agent was asked to get off a plane because he was a Muslim. Later Bush appeared on live TV with the agent beside him to condemn that incident. Bush, it should be noted, invited a Muslim cleric to offer prayers in the National Cathedral along side members of other clergy in the wake of 9/11. America has actively prosecuted hate crimes.

Today a Wisconsin teacher says he will learn more about Sikhism and teach his students. We wish a tragedy does not have to be the reason for that learning but this is the only sane redemption a society can strive for.

Obama's Drone Wars and Romney's Taxes

Election season cometh and so I now turn to more serious issues away from other frivolities. "What is Mitt Romney hiding?" President Obama would like to see the voters worry about what Mitt Romney is hiding by not releasing more than 2 years of his tax returns. Answer: Nothing. Mitt Romney cannot hide anything from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and as a multi-millionaire his tax returns are probably audited every year by the IRS. So why is Romney not releasing more years. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney his father George Romney, when he ran for the Presidency, released 10 years of tax returns saying pointedly "one year, could be a fluke, perhaps done for show". Romney's critics gleefully point to his father and pretty much ask him "are you your father's son". Senate Majority leader Harry Reid snubbed Mitt Romney saying "on the issue of releasing tax returns the apple has indeed fallen far from the tree". 

Romney's wealth is estimated around $200 million. Romney is not the first millionaire to run for the presidency. FDR, JFK, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton were all millionaires in the same league as Romney. When unemployment is stuck at 8% and his own ability to relate to common folks is called into question it is political suicide to release tax returns that can be mined for political pot shots. The rumor mills are abuzz with other possible reasons like Romney paying almost no taxes in 2009. Romney's income mostly derives from investments and in the years when stock market nose dived he probably booked enough losses resulting in almost no taxes. In a 15 second attack ad such nuances will be gladly overlooked. Already Romney's tax rate, 15%, is fodder for criticism and fuels the 'tax the rich' debate. This is politics so there is no place for truth telling and I expect none from the Chicago pols. Romney's income is almost exclusively from investments. Dividends are now taxed at 15% as part of the sweeping Bush tax cuts passed in 2001. Note, dividends are what a company pays AFTER paying corporate taxes (where the US is the highest in the world) for money an investor put in stocks AFTER paying his share of individual taxes. There is a larger sensible debate on taxes. 

Obama's scare tactic on taxes and trying to tar the opponent as a rich out of touch  person who incidentally got rich by invidious schemes is not new. This is old hat. He did the same, with more justification then, to Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton, after nearly 20 years in government and shelling millions defending himself from Paula Jones and Ken Starr, was almost penniless when he left office. Bill Clinton's loan application to buy a home in NY was turned down for insufficient credit. That was 2000. When Hillary ran in 2008 her net worth was rumored to be $100 million. Bill Clinton became a rain maker blazing the speaking circuit and frankly peddling influence on behalf of investor Ron Burkle. Obama pilloried Hillary asking "what is Hillary hiding' then. Clinton had kept donors for his Presidential library and his 'Clinton Global Initiative' as a secret. The rumor mills went into overdrive asking 'who is paying Clinton and for what'. Today Hillary is a Secretary of State for Obama. 

The question voters, in particular, the liberals, should be worried about is 'What is Obama hiding from US citizens on the drone wars?" New York Times (not Fox news) ran a detailed investigative reporting on how Obama conducts his 'war on terror'. 

Obama's much publicized ban on torture, euphemistically during Bush days as 'enhanced interrogation', NYT says had subtle loopholes. NYT exults that the President, unlike his supporters, was 'never carried away by his own rhetoric'. The hypocrisy, we are told, is comforting. A blunt paragraph reads "A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks".

How does USA count civilian deaths in drone attacks, an official explained to NYT, "Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs". Simple. Make any fellow traveler a terrorist then the civilian count will drop dramatically. Not even the much derided neo-cons, called vulcans, in Bush's administration would have the gall to formulate that. An official added "It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants".

Conservative commentators pointed to the ludicrousness and plain hypocrisy of Harold Koh who as dean of Yale law school was a sharp critic of Bush. Obama, the US President, now personally signs off on a kill list that is vetted by his aides. Koh is now a top lawyer in the administration. Referring to presence of John Brennan to help the President decide on whom to kill Koh purrs "It’s as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war.” Many analysts have pointed to the loss of valuable intelligence by killing of assailants using drones instead of capturing them. NYT says that 'while scores have been killed only one has been taken prisoner'. 

Obama, his supporters in the Press exclaim, is an 'intellectual'. When NYT muses that "pursuing an enemy unbound by rules has required moral, legal and practical trade-offs that his speeches did not envision" I wonder where was the charming intellect. Apparently it was on holiday. No. Obama knew full well that what he talked on campaign trail will not be practical to implement. Soon after securing the nomination then senator Obama duly cast his vote for Bush's much hated FISA bill.

Angered by how close a bomber came to blow up a plane during Christmas Obama wanted to show the resolve o f USA, his resolve. Result was a ruthless bombing in Yemen that killed a 'target' with other innocents and children. 

Obama has prosecuted more people for breach of secrecy laws than all the other President's 'combined'. The word 'Nixonian' has been used. The killing of radical American cleric Anwar-Al-Awlaki in Yemen raised questions of killing a US citizen without 'due process'. OK, thats a bit hypocritical considering that nobody bothered about due process for Osama Bin Laden. Washington Post editorial and few other concerned liberals have asked Obama to release the documents concerning the decision to kill Awlaki. I guess being a US born terrorist begets some protection unlike the foreign terrorist.

Now there is talk of using drones to monitor US citizens within USA. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was livid at this blatant usurpation of rights. The famous liberals are not even whimpering.

Obama has effectively neutered the GOP on all the above. His own liberal base is holding their noses and voting for him purely out of their spite for his opponent. And the voters are asked to worry about Mitt Romney's taxes.

Road to 9/11: Harold Pinter's Anti-Americanism

On September 11th 2001 while America mourned several parts of the world mourned and in the same breath muttered "you had it coming". Sujatha wrote that the days USA's "gun boat diplomacy" are over and like a good father sent his son to USA to live and become, I guess, an American citizen. Aijaz Ahmed, living in USA, writing for Frontline divined that the 19 hijackers were thinking of the so many past injustices of USA.

When people complain of US foreign policy I hear the usual litany starting with Vietnam meandering through the past as far their erudition goes, perhaps the coup Teddy Roosevelt engineered to build the Panama Canal, to every present day conflict weaving an ugly tapestry of a hegemony run amuck. Yes, as in Vietnam, there are very justifiable blemishes on US foreign policy. No country in history with the economic and military size of USA could have an unsullied record. But to place America in the company of Nazi Germany or malign the US army like they were murderous blood lusty terrorists alone only betrays the pathological hatred of such opinion holders.

In spring of 2002, while the fires were barely put out and WTC was just mangled steel with 2500+ bodies still buried, Granta magazine asked eminent intellectuals across the globe to share their thoughts for an issue titled "What We Think of America". Orhan Pamuk, Ramachandra Guha, Amit Chaudhuri and many more including Harold Pinter.

Orhan Pamuk and Harold Pinter, both Nobel Laureates, perfectly bookend the range of emotions most feel about America. Pamuk, coming from Turkey, has a gentle portrait of USA told through a story of his childhood involving an American boy. Pinter's essay was an address he delivered On Sep 10th 2001, a day before 9/11. Pinter said the address is still relevant. Pinter eviscerates USA for the NATO bombing of Serbian forces of Milosevic. Pinter called the USA a 'rogue state', 'a fully fledged, award-winning gold plated monster...it knows only one language-bombs and death". Doris Lessing, another Nobel Laureate, wrote a meandering piece, "America, it seems to me,has as little resistance to an idea or a mass emption as isolated communities have to measles and whooping cough".

Harold Pinter scolded the USA for the NATO bombings in Bosnia and went on to organize funds for Slobodan Milosevic, need I add a word after that. Doris Lessing was a communist, a typical worshipper from afar who never lived under communism.

It is this 'gold plated monster' that sent thousands to the beaches of Normandy. Flagging off the D-Day landings Eisenhower said "half of them will not come back alive". America, Lessing says, allows ideas and emotions to wash over with little resistance like a populace stricken by measles. Sure, is that why America put its money and men defending Western Europe and her own beloved England. Referring to FDR's 'lend lease program' to England, Presidential historian Robert Dallek, chuckled, "what lend lease, there was no collateral to be lent against. FDR basically hoodwinked the people and supplied Churchill". Lessing jeers that Americans have short memories. She with a long memory forgot that US had to be dragged into both World Wars. It is a matter of conjecture that had US entered, what was seen as European conflict, earlier in WW-II much loss of life could have been stopped.

Torn between two wars, a terrorist attack that reshaped the psyche of a country and an economic recession, it was only USA that rushed its C-14 helicopters across the globe to save the thousands battling for life in Tsunami stricken Banda Aceh in Thailand. Note, there was no oil or any strategic advantage in Banda Aceh.

George W. Bush hiked the aid given to Africa to combat AIDS. A 2006 Washington Post article says he tripled the aid. Bill Clinton, through his 'Clinton Global Initiative', has negotiated with drug companies to supply AIDS drugs at a fraction of their prices. Why should American companies sacrifice their hard earned profits?

"Black Hawk Down" is a famous blockbuster that portrayed the infamous incident in Somalia. UN aid to famine stricken impoverished Somalis was being hijacked by war lords. US decided to take out one notorious war lord and the ensuing scuffle was absolute humiliation. The black hawk helicopter was shot down, the soldiers were killed and their bodies were dragged in the streets. This is the incident that is said to have crystallized Osama's vision that America could be hit. 1993 America was a different place. Cold War was won. NASDAQ and DOW soared, American economy was overheated. Clinton was battling for re-election. America was in no mood for war in a war ravaged Africa which had nothing to offer. Today millions of children face near certain death in Somalia due to continued famine.

When Russia imploded after the failed coup by the hardliners again it was America that rushed in to prevent USSR from self-incinerating. Yet again during a recession precious money was funneled to USSR to secure the nuclear war heads. David Hoffman, Pulitzer winner for his portrayal of Cold War arms legacy in 'Dead Hand', writes scathingly 'not one of USSR nuclear facilities met Western standards".

The Marshall Plan, Reagan's "Mr Gorbachev bring this wall down", Nunn_lugar aid for USSR, saving South Korea, rebuilding Japan, rebuilding Western Europe, saving millions in Bosnia and much more was all America.

Indira Gandhi came running to LBJ for wheat to feed India. USSR too, depended on US for food. Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat could not feed itself. Well after the bloody collectivization drives in Ukraine and killing millions of Kulaks it was the Yankees to the rescue. By the way but for US Zhou-En-Lai would have marched to Delhi and given a Bhai-Bhai lesson to Nehru.

Ask anybody today, including most Americans, who started the Vietnam war. The answer would be America. Truth, of course is different. America was dragged into it by France and brought itself great shame by its conduct. However here too a wrinkle is often ignored. We only hear how USA napalmed villages. We never hear how American GI's were brutally tortured by Viet-Cong, torture that makes Abhu-Ghraib, however shameful, look like picnic. Google the words "Hanoi Hilton". I'll blog on this separately.

Every international institution owes its independence (however arguably) and robustness to American taxpayer money. USA pays more than 60% of UN's bills. No other country comes close. IMF and World Bank, both born out of US leadership, have saved millions across the world, unarguably unless  you are a bleeding heart liberal and a closet communist.

Hearing criticisms of inciting a coup in order to build Panama Canal Teddy Roosevelt reminded his critics that the coup he  incited were only 51st in a steady stream of coups. The canal helped world trade for 100+ years and was recently turned over to Panama. For over 200 years it was dream and TR, in what would be the 'American Century', turned it to reality. Of course one could argue over the morals of the coup. What would miss the point is that coups were par for the course and TR's coup, not entirely engineered by him but only aiding what was already underway, helped world trade and millions.

The Granta issue highlighted a critical dichotomy. Those from erstwhile communist countries were more sympathetic to USA than those from well heeled western democracies. Only a pathological hater like Pinter could call NATO bombings as evil and fund raise for Milosevic. He and others like him are beyond the pale of reason.

An American GI was distributing sweets to children in a street side in Iraq. They were ambushed in a terrorist attack. When Time magazine interviewed an insurgent and referred to the incident asking "what about the many children", the insurgent replied "Allah will understand, we had to get that one soldier". To equate both is not just fallacious reasoning but a very facetious reasoning.

So was really US foreign policy the angering element in fashioning the ghastly attacks? Osama had zero interest in anything as remote as articulating an alternate world vision or in standing up for some high liberty. He launched a religious attack, pure and simple. One can keep papering over it but thats what it is. One crude question to puncture the logic would be this:"If US foreign policy begets terrorism then how come it was not the Vietnamese or Filippino's or Grenadans or Haitians or heck even Panamanians or Cubans, why was it only the Saudis?". A peek into Osama's persona and his evolution into a jihadist is for another day.

Road to 9/11: Fundamentalism Run Amuck

In the days after 9/11 it was fashionable to say "we condemn the atrocity but..." and then lecture down to America that America practically invited the attack. The reasons offered were projections of each persons own animosity towards America. Ranging from Sujatha Ranagarajan writing for a South Indian vernacular magazine to Noam Chomsky, considered the greatest genius in Cognitive psychology, the advices were variations of a meme: America's super power attitude, propping up dictatorial regimes, middle east policy, military adventurism etc. That the 19 suicide attackers left no note made it convenient for each person to trot out his or her own theory as to why they did it. Recently I finished reading Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer winning "The Looming Tower:Al Qaeda and The Road To 9/11". Around the same time Osama's killing happened and Washington Post published an article titled "Five Myths about Osama Bin Laden". The first myth was that Osama was trained by CIA.

A columnist for Frontline, a fortnightly from Chennai, helpfully wrote about the possible motivations of the hijackers, "Betrayal of the Palestinians, the destruction of Iraq! One can reasonably assume that these two great devastations of the Arabo-Muslim world were vivid in the memory of those 19 hijackers on September 11 this year". (Note the Iraq war the author refers here is the 1991 Gulf War that was fully supported by UN, Gulf States etc). Palestine. Iraq. Support of US to middle east potentates were all the most repeated reasons.

Lawrence Wright, based on extensive interviews and deep research, unravels the puzzle of who the actors and what were  their 'possible' motivations. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches I thought I shall write a few blogs on this topic and allied issues not just as a book review but as a history that not many are aware of and would lack the patience to accumulate by reading a 600 page book (its a page turner).

The suppression of free speech, the military state etc are offered as reasons that fueled terrorism since legitimate expression of dissent was prohibited. The support offered by US to such middle east oligarchies notably the Saudi Royal family is cited as cause. Bollocks.

Anger at suppression of democracy or democratic processes was the least of concerns for the hijackers or Al Qaeda. In fact Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Azzam all pay fealty to fundamentalist Wahhabi sect that was founded by US educated Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutb quit USA only because he was disgusted that USA was un-Islamic. Most left wing people who espouse social justice, affirmative action etc decried what they called US hegemony and used 9/11 to pillory US. What is worse is that they did not realize that Al Qaeda'a intellectual godfather Sayyid Qutb,Wright notes, hated egalitarianism. Qutb used to quote the Koran, "we have created you class upon class".

Sayyid Qutb rebelled against Nasser, not for more democracy, but because he said Nasser's Egypt was not Islamic enough and required to be overthrown. Sayyid was arrested, tortured and finally hanged.

Anwar Sadat is supposed to have told Golda Meir, "if you make peace with me you will go back to Israel a hero. If I make peace with you when I go back to Egypt I will be assassinated". Sadat's wife had made it easier for women to get divorce. Sadat, after the Yom Kippur War, made historical peace with Israel. His prophecy came true tragically. Sadat was assassinated. How was his killing justified? How did they justify killing a fellow Muslim? Sayyid Qutb's ideology of 'takfir' helped. By declaring that a muslim has become un-islamic by his/her acts, a takfir, the respective person is removed from being protected as a fellow muslim. Wright acidly notes, "the pious Anwar Sadat was the first pro-medern victim of the reverse logic of takfir".

Democracy was repugnant to the followers of Qutb. "Democracy was un-islamic. Therefore anyone who voted was an apostate and forfeited his life". Naguib Mahfouz, Egyptian Nobel laureate, was declared an 'infidel' and suffered a near fatal knife attack.

Often the apologists for terrorism speak fondly of how youth get attracted to terrorism due to lack of education and opportunities in life. Wright quotes a study of political prisoners in 1970's Egypt, "majority were sons of middle-level government officials, educated in science and engineering,...,They were not the alienated, marginalized youth that a sociologist might expect. While tomes are written excoriating the CIA coup in Iran to install the Shah as examples of US hegemony and US support of totalitarian regimes little have we heard on how Islamists engineered a coup in Sudan to install a Islamic regime. It is Sudan that was home later to Bin Laden before he ventured to Afghanistan.

In the murky world of middle east the attempt on Mubarak was another watershed event. Egyptian police abused a thirteen year old boy and blackmailed him into infiltrating Zawahiri's organization that was suspected of a hand in the attempt on Mubarak. The boy and another friend were used by Egyptian agencies to kill Zaawahiri and his associates in Sudan during a meeting. Sudanese intelligence discovered the plot and the boys were abandoned by the Egyptians. Many members of Al Qaeda objected to putting the boys on trial. Zawahiri, to prove that the boys had attained manhood, stripped them and then shot them. The boys confession and shooting was videotaped. The outrage infuriated the Sudanese government which chased Zawahiri out.

Bin Laden's own journey was an odyssey that culminated in 9/11. Incidentally, Wright says, Bin Laden hated Yasser Arafat. In Bin Laden's opinion Arafat was a secular and not islamic enough.

The presence of American troops in Saudi after the 1991 Persian Gulf War is cited consistently by Bin Laden as something that offended him. It did not matter that American army was stationed in Suadi at the behest of the government which feared Saddam more. Bin Laden loathed the fact that the gulf states took US help to stop Saddam Hussein. Incidentally Bin Laden hated Saddam (Iraq was more westernized than any other gulf state). Bin Laden tried convincing the Saudi king that he would stop Saddam with his mujahideens from Afghanistan. By the way nowhere in the book Wright establishes any link between CIA and Bin Laden (a fact confirmed by Peter Bergen, the only US journalist who interviewed Bin Laden).

What not many lay readers know is that Americans troops stationed in Saudi, not anywhere near Mecca, is nothing compared to how French troops entered Mecca itself at the behest of Saudi king. In 1979, yet another Islamist group, took Mecca by siege during Haj period. It shook the Islamic world. Saudi King after vacillating and unable to clear the holiest shrine invited French troops who then entered Mecca where no non-Muslim could ever go. (Saudi Arabia denies this happened). For something that the US had nothing to do with Khomeini blamed US and for good measure blamed Israel too. Needless  to say Anti-American demonstrations including burning down of an embassy ensued. It was the Bin Laden family that provided vital clues to the French on the building details.

An event that crystallized Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization was, according to Wright, the botched bombing in Amen on Dec 29th 1992. The bombing was supposed to kill American soldiers going to Somalia as part of an international relief effort to that impoverished country. The bomb went off but killed no American. A Yemeni and and and Australian had died. Bin Laden's deputy and mentor, Abu Hajer, justified it based on a fatwa by Ibn Tamiyyah. In a chilling rationale that defied any sane logic killing of innocents was justified. Wright, ends the chapter with a ominous note, "Al Qaeda would concentrate not on fighting armies but on killing civilians".

The last chapter, titled, "Revelations" rounds it all of. On 9/12, the day after the carnage, Soufan a Muslim FBI agent went to interrogate Abu Jandal who was apprehended for the Nairobi Embassy bombing. Abu Jandal, Wright says, 'was confounded by Soufan and what he represented: A Muslim who could argue religion with him, who was in the FBI, who loved America'. Sofan asked about the innocent women and children who died in that bombing. In particular Soufan asks about a woman on a bus 'who was clutching her baby, trying to protect him from the flames. Both had been incinerated'. Jandals reply was "God will give them rewards in the Hereafter". About them being innocent he reasoned cruelly, that the bombings took place on a Friday when Muslims were supposed to have been in mosques. If she was not in a mosque what was she doing on a bus. She was not a Muslim then but a 'takfir' and deserved to die.

Time and again the recurrent theme in the biography of each actor is a fiendish fundamentalism that cloaked itself in causes that were never consistent or helpful to the people they were supposed to help. Palestine, American imperialism etc were all fig leaf causes only to hide their desire of establishing a Caliphate. Re-establishing an Ottoman style Caliphate was their desire. In a post cold-war world the only remaining obstacle was USA.

No wonder Lawrence Wright got a Pulitzer for a landmark book. Wright patiently pieces together the jigsaw puzzle and leads us through the twisted world of terrorism. I shall continue with a couple more blogs. The 9/11 hijackers chose to meet in Hamburg for a reason. After 9/11 US citizenry was aghast at how agencies did not share information. The reasons for that and more await a little.