Allah or Christ. (Response to a chain email)

Sometimes, people spew venom and fabricate falsehood in the name of God. The instant chain email which is circulating around the globe is an excellent example of how some persons with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude are giving vent to their repressed fears through presentation of falsehood.

I count myself as one who is firmly against terrorism and the Islamic variety which is present is especially repugnant. But it is no more repugnant than the killings which have taken place over the centuries in the name of God or otherwise. A quick recap of some of horrific killings and murders of the last century is given below, and we have not counted Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

· Communist Russia. 20 million.

· Communist China 70 million.

· Japan (WW II) 12 million Chinese civilians.

· Idi Amin 300,000.

· Khmer Rouge (Cambodia) 1.5 million out of a population of 7.1 million.

· Rwanda (Hutu & Tutsi) 1 million (20% of the population)

· Darfur 800,000. (This century)

Now if we tally all the killings by all the Muslim terrorists, it won’t notch up to any of the figures above, Jihad or no Jihad.

The email in question originated in the United States (NOT Britain) by Rick Mathes, of the Mission Gates Prison Ministry. The aim of this ministry is:

· To lead prisoners to a saving knowledge of Christ, to confess Him as Savior and to live their lives under His Lordship.

· To disciple them in Christian living that does not shame our Lord.

· Help them return to society as members of the evangelical church of their choice. They return to "the hood" and when people get to know them, they get to know Jesus.

Here we have an evangelical preacher whose sole mission is conversion. Obviously, he stands in opposition to Islam which is another proselytizing religion. He could not get an Imam, so one of the prison inmates who was performing religious rites as best he could for the inmates was taken as the Imam and his view has been propagated as that of all Muslims all across the globe. Even the Pope does not speak for all the Christians! And Islam has so many sects with varying beliefs, traditions and interpretations of scriptures. No one Muslim can hence speak for what all of Islam believes, leave alone someone who is not even a cleric. Imagine the views of P Muthalik being taken as the view of all Hindus!

Regarding changing the demography of Britain in 20 years, even if all Muslim women of child bearing age in Britain give birth to a child every year, for the next 20 years, such an outcome will not take place. Simple math! That’s all. (This para was not part of Rick Mathes’s email)

Finally, let us say an uneducated Christian layman was taken as a Christian priest and put in contention against learned holy men from other faiths. I wonder how he would respond to what is written in the Bible (Old Testament)… God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1Chronicles 210)…. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy)…. killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen, sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6)…. murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married (Judges 21). When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). The last one of course has also been made into the great hit song ‘By the Rivers of Babylon” by Boney M.

What we really need to do is to stand up against all injustice and not only of the Islamic variety. The key perhaps is acceptance of our differences, especially in religious belief. As the Lord says in the Srimad Bhagawad Gita....’Worship Me in any form, and I will reveal Myself to My devotee in that form’.

Chain email:

Infidel or Non Believer.

Allah or the Lord Jesus Christ? The Muslim religion is by far the fastest growing religion in the UK.
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, 'Non-believers!

I responded, 'so, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?'

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of 'a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.' He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'

I then stated, 'Well, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope Benedict commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'
The Imam was speechless!

I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your 'friend' when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam remained speechless. Needless to say, the organizers and promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with this way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.

Within twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.K. to elect a government of their choice, complete with Sharia law.

I think everyone in the U.K. should be required to read this, but with the Liberal justice system, liberal media and political correctness madness, there is no way this will be widely publicised.

This incident happened in London

Demeaning the Army

Two mails I received got me thinking. The first was a letter written by Lt Gen Harwant Singh of the Indian Army and the other an excerpt from “A Tender Warrior’ written by Gen Hal Moore. The former deals with the loss of honour in the Indian Army and the latter pertains to the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia led by General Lee, to General Grant in the American Civil War and which exemplifies the concept of honour. While the context is different, it is the concept of honour that makes for great nations and great armies.

I do not think anyone in the Army has two views about what has been written by Gen Harwant Singh. These facts are known and have been a consistent sore point so far as our officers and men are concerned. However, I do not feel sorry for the Army. Many years ago, when Indira Gandhi propagated the concept of a committed bureaucracy, it was followed with such alacrity and sincerity, much like the tongawala’s arrest in the example given by Gen Harwant, that the good lady was forced to state ‘I only asked them to bend; they chose to crawl’. In a similar vein, the Indian Army loses in status with every pay commission because its leadership chooses not to fight for what is just and right. Perhaps 30 pieces of silver, in the Biblical vein is considered adequate.

While I do not feel sorry for the army as already stated, I do feel sorry for the country. There is always a price to pay for neglect and I fear that we are fast approaching that point. It is not a question of pay. The Army Chief may tom-tom from the highest roof tops that he has got a good deal for the army but he is fooling himself and he knows it. For, as the Naval Chief so nicely put it, ‘It is a question of parity’. And it has always been a question of parity. Not of pay. By reducing the debate to crumbs of bread we demean ourselves and the uniform we wear.

We are witness today to the police forces getting butchered in Naxalite violence in ‘the red corridor’. It really surprises me that the media which is so vocal on many issues chooses to remain quiet on an issue which will soon become a major national disaster. Now the question to be asked is if the civil administration and the police cannot control the situation, what then? Do you call in the Army to quell the population, like Pakistan is doing to its North West Province? The pay of all Pakistani soldiers fighting in their war against terror has been doubled. And yet they are crawling foot by foot and not really getting anywhere. Is our Army to be reduced to that level?

The Army fights for honour, but when the nation takes away that very honour, deliberately, and with malicious intent, the motivation to fight gets eroded. It is no accident that the United States is a super power. It was no accident which propelled Britain to world leadership for centuries. And it is not going to be an accident when China gets there too. A combination of economic power and military might is what makes for great powers. But no nation can be great when it dishonours and demeans its own Army.

An Army of Occupation: A Bureaucratic View of the Military

Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)

Many defence analysts are of the view that had theKashmir war not started in 1947, in less than a decade the Indian army would have been reduced to a constabulary. When the subject of modernization of the army was raised with Nehru, it is believed that he responded by saying that, if need be, the army should be prepared to fight with 'lathies.'

Kashmir operations notwithstanding, the plan to systematically and persistently downgrade the military was put into operation and by 1962 much had been achieved. The political class had come to believe that they had ascended an era of peace, free of international power politics, strategic power play and the role of military power to protect national interests had become minimal. It was a utopian world where reason and dialogue were believed to be the ultimate tools for the resolution of clash of interests and conflict situations. Though the Chinese did give a severe jolt and tried to shake our leadership out of their world of make belief, it succeeded only partially, because when 1965 came we found ourselves, militarily inferior to Pakistan in many key areas.

There was a pathological dislike of the Indian military by the congress party which came to power at the centre on attaining independence. Herein rests the answer to the military's down-gradation in so systematic and persistent a manner soon after independence! The Bureaucracy exploited this bias of the congress to the hilt and added to it the fear and the possibility of a military take over as had occurred in some of the neighbhouring countries. It also managed to restructure the higher defence set-up to the nation's overall strategic disadvantage.

Gen O P Malhotra as Chief of Defence Staff, in a note to the RM in 1981 raised the issue of down grading of service officers in the warrant of precedence (which bears on pay etc as well ) and that these down-gradations coincided with the termination of every war ( 1948,62,65, and 71. ) and this had seriously effected the morale of armed forces. A committee of three secretaries periodically revise the warrant of precedence, which is rubber stamped by the supreme commander of the armed forces, who is not known to have even once raised a query on this regular assault on the officers of his forces.

In response to Gen OP Malhotra's objection, the committee of secretaries recorded, "military officers were placed unduly high in the old warrant of precedence,presumably as it was considered essential for officers of army of occupation to be given special status and authority." While it appeared to be an independent perception of a few babus, the political class, either had a similar view or were indifferent to bureaucratic machinations. Of all the people of this world, we Indians, who have been under the heels of armies of occupation for more than two thousand years, should know what such armies are like. To call Indian army of the 20^th century (1900 to1947) an army of occupation was blasphemous.

Congress resolution of 1942 stated "The present Indian Army is an off-shoot of the British Army and has been maintained to mainly hold India in subjugation. It has been completely segregated from the general population." These were the very years in which the British used police and not the army to ruthlessly crush the 'Quit India movement' and that Lala Lajpat Rai fell to police 'lathies' and not an army bullet. Yet the Congress heaped this ignominy on the military.

From end 1939, the Indian army was out of India and nearer home involved in a desperate fight to keep the Japanese at bay. The congress leadership in 1942 had no experience of state craft or state power and could only accuse, agitate and was scared to name the police and found army a distant and easy target.

Segregation of military from the local population was nothing new. It was an essential requirement for maintaining discipline and professionalism. Even within Indian forts, the soldiers quarters were segregated from the rest. The concept of 'Chawanies' ( cantonments ) in India was first introduced by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Residences and offices of senior civil servants too were located in British cantonments established well away from civil population.

Gen Malhotra pointed out that on the other hand, this committee of babus while expounding the theory of 'army of occupation " failed to realize that a high place was accorded to the civil servants in the colonial bureaucracy, because they were the trusted paladins of the imperial power. It was the British P.M, Lloyd George, who referred to the ICS as the steel frame of the British to control India. It was the civil services and the police who were the instruments of oppression and were the willing and enthusiastic tools employed to crush the nationalist upsurge, fervour and the freedom movement. Recall that incident in Lahore where the police arrested a 'Tongawala' whose only crime was that he urged his lazy horse to move faster: at Hitler's speed. (chal Hitler di chaley). Police and civil services were more loyal than the king.

The Indian Army held NW frontier for a hundred years and prevented those wild tribes from across the Hindu Kush Mountains from making periodic forays into the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Later it fought a savage war in the jungles of Burma and finally stemmed, at Imphal and Kohima, the Japanese assault on India. The Japanese army was barbaric in the extreme and our people in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and POWs, had a taste of its brutality.

It is the mutinies in the Army and Navy which threw a clear signal to the British that it was time to leave. So it is highly malicious for anyone to term Indian Army as army of occupation. Consider this. The Indian government, in the first 50 years of independence, has deployed the Indian army to quell riots, maintain order etc 10 times more than the British did in their last 50 years of their rule in India. So much for the poor governance we have had all these years. A soldier is under oath and fealty to the constitution/ government of the day. There can be no grounds for him to break his oath. That is why the INA troops, and those of the Navy and Army who mutinied, could not be taken back into service after independence.

However, the suspicion injected deep into the political mind of a military take over lingers. Moreover the political class continues to be in the grip of the bureaucracy or as Nirad C Chaudhury puts it so succinctly, "the political leadership is helplessly flapping its wings against the bars of the cage in which the bureaucracy has placed it."

This down gradation of the military officers was even taken into armed forces headquarters, where a civilian officer in the appointment of Director equated with a Lt-Col /Col, was suddenly equated with a brigadier. This completely distorted the working equations at armed forces headquarters and had adverse impact on the working at Sercive Headquarters. Gen Rodriques, as Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee lodged a strong protest with the RM, against this chicanery of the bureaucracy, but the protests fell on deaf ears and political class appeared helpless against continued assault on the military.

Since the down-gradation of the military is continuing to this day: 6^th CPC being the latest manifestation of this six decade old policy, presumably the Indian military is still being perceived as an army of occupation. Military service has become so unattractive that few want to join it and those inside want to quit. 15 of the brightest colonels of the army have declined to sign up for the Higher Command Course, which is an essential stepping stone for promotions to higher ranks. In the last two years over 2000 officers have sought release from service, which includes brigs and generals. Is there similar leakage of talent in the civil services!

Indian army has been in, 'no war no peace,' state since independence. Wars apart, army has lost 569 officers and over 9000 JCOs and other ranks in counter insurgency operation during the last ten years. While there is little value for human life in India, the value of soldier's life count for nothing in this country. Therefore, one wonders whose army it is anyway and who will soldier for India!

We have the ambition to be a world economic power, but the vision and will of a third world country when it comes to creating strategic capabilities. Given the geo-strategic environments of the region and India's unwillingness to rise to meet the emerging challenges, the picture is getting fairly grim by the day. To complete that picture one may add the factor of de-motivation of country's armed forces.

Excerpt from ‘A Tender Warrior’,

by General Hal Moore

I pledged my life, my sacred honor, for America many years ago. Millions of men and women have made a similar pledge. Having lived with that pledge my entire adult life, after graduating from West Point, I can speak with great humility that it has been a privilege of the highest order to serve at the pleasure of The Commander-In-Chief.

An unequalled pledge of sacred honor took place on April 9, 1865. Before General Lee surrendered his whole Army to General Grant, all communications between the two leaders leading up to the surrender ended with, "Your obedient servant." It was a closing used by many great American leaders and presidents. But somehow, it became less important to emphasize civility in communications as America became more sophisticated and technology rooted.

America used to be the proud home of civility. We can be again. Seldom does civility stand alone. It is seldom a one-time act. It invites compassion and sacred honor as sister pillars. It serves others and strengthens the bond in relationships.

As Lee rode "Traveller" to surrender to Grant at Appomattox, Grant formed his Union troops in two lines. They stood with their swords at attention as Lee, with great dignity, progressed the final yards to the farmhouse, riding between the "formed lines of respect." With the slow, high-lifting discipline of each hoof, leader was preparing to meet leader at his and America's best - in the worst of times.

During the surrender, a personal movement of appreciated civility occurred. "General Lee removed his sword and handed it to General Grant, and Grant handed it back." After the surrender, as General Lee mounted his horse to depart, General Grant stepped down from the porch, and, moving toward Lee, saluted him by raising his hat. All officers present followed him in this act of civility, compassion and honor. Lee raised his hat respectfully, and rode off in great dignity...loving America still.

Although both were West Point graduates, they had met only briefly once before. During the surrender, from their letters in the beginning through the raising of hats at the end, the "good-bye" was a leadership exhibition in civility for all. It took the two of them to teach the soldiers present why, and how, we should serve one another - even during military surrender.

The surrender had been elevated to a moment of grace. That is what civility, compassion and sacred honor produce when the servant heart leads the best of leaders. They paved the way for future leaders to emerge in history by leading through authentic practices of civility.

Such leadership moments are never lost in history. Whether signing the Declaration of Independence, leading a platoon into battle, or surrendering to one another, there are two duties of a leader at all times: He or she is in that role to serve others first and concurrently to lead them to an objective. A crucial and delicate balance is required. To achieve this, to serve well, he or she must serve with honor and lead with civility.

---

MAC ANDERSON is the founder of Simple Truths and Successories, Inc., the leader in designing and marketing products for motivation and recognition. These companies, however, are not the first success stories for Mac. He was also the founder and CEO of McCord Travel, the largest travel company in the Midwest, and part owner/VP of sales and marketing for Orval Kent Food Company, the country's largest manufacturer of prepared salads.

His accomplishments in these three unrelated industries provide some insight into his passion and leadership skills. He also brings the same passion to his speaking where he speaks to many corporate audiences on a variety of topics, including leadership, motivation and team building.

Mac has authored or co-authored twelve books, which have sold more than 3 million copies. They include: 212°...The Extra Degree, Change is Good...You Go First, You Can't Send a Duck to Eagle School, The Power of Attitude, The Essence of Leadership, The Nature of Success, The Dash, Charging the Human Battery, Finding Joy, Customer Love, Motivational Quotes and Learning to Dance in the Rain.

For more information about Mac, visit www.simpletruths.com.

Portrait of Quebec

Tabernac, I tink I get it!

In a busy Parisian cafe, a tourist is sitting alone, enjoying a crème caramel. Another tourist approaches:

Me sit here?

No problem...

Thank you, very nice...

Are you on vacation?

Me, I arrive yesterday….

What country are you from?

Norway You?

From Quebec.

Quebec? Me not know Quebec ..

Quebec ... near the Atlantic, next to Ontario , the Great Lakes ...

No, me not know these places.

Never mind then, I'm from Canada ..

Ah! Canada! Canada I know! So why you tell me you come from Quebec?

Because, my first country is Quebec.

Oh, you were born in Quebec and immigrated to Canada ....

No, no, I was born in Quebec and I stay in Quebec ...

Oh, then your father is from Canada ?

No, no, my father, my mother, my wife, my dog, everybody, they come from Quebec ...

So why you say Canada?

For Gosh sake, because you say you don't know where is Quebec!

OK, but if you say you not know Norway, me I not say that my country is Japan...

Shit! Canada isn't Japan. Canada, it's my country.

Oh, your country not Quebec anymore?...

My country is Quebec but my country, it can be Canada too, if the person I speak to not know where is Quebec, Tabarnak!

Me not understand...

Look, it's simple: I come from the Province of Quebec , in the country of Canada.

Ok! But me not ask you what province you're from, I ask you what country. Me, I come from Lofoten region in Norway , but I answer you Norway when you ask me what country I come from...

I know, I'm not stupid, Coulisse! But me, when they ask me what country I come from, I answer Quebec even if it's the name of my province. For me, it's my country.

Oh, now I understand. You are a separatist, you want your Quebec province to be your country...

Are you crazy, Hostie? I don't want to know nothing from that shit!

Me, I not understand anything anymore.

I tell you before, it's simple. You ask me what country I come from, I answer Quebec because Quebec is my country, but I don't really want it to be my country, it would be too much trouble. I just want to say it. So, why don’t you just let me say it?

Me all mix up. You have passport from what country: Quebec or Canada ?

CANADA, Hostie!

So why you not tell me Canada right away?

Because it don't feel right. For me, Canada is Anne Murray, the Calgary Stampede, the Mounted Police, SARS, it's not my home all that. Home, it's La Famille Plouffe, Saraphin Poudrier, La P'tite Vie, Falix Leclerc, La Poune, Les Canadiens de Montreal, Les Bougons... Do you understand???

Less and less...

Listen, forget all that shit. Ask me another question.

Ok, what town you come from?

Mmm..., I don't know anymore...

You not know what town you come from?

Yes, yes, I know what town I come from, but my town it merge with another town, but soon it is going to demerge from the town that was supposed to be my town...

Oh, that very complicated. When you write your address, what do you write?

I don't know anymore. Before, I used to write Hull , but Hull changed to Gatineau , but they tell us to wait 3 years before stopping to write Hull to not mix up the mailman. But now, the Liberals they pass a law that make it ok for Gatineau to be Hull again, but I don't know if we have to wait 3 years to be able to write Hull , or when the 3 years are passed, if we have to write Gatineau for 3 years, and after we write Hull . Unless, of course, the PQ come back in power and we remerge with Gatineau, then we'll have to write Gatineau for 3 years.

I leave now; I have hurt in my head...

It's so simple Tabarnak: My town is Hull, my country is Quebec but if you prefer, my town is Gatineau and my country is Canada.

OK, I think I understand.

It's about time. Anyway, it was fun talking to you, if you come around where I live; maybe you come and see me...

OK, but where? Hull in Quebec or Gatineau in Canada ?

You're a pain in the ass. Forget the whole thing

That, my friends, is the portrait of Quebec!

American Drones and the Domino Effect

In the ongoing war against terrorism being waged on Pakistan’s western border, the relationship between cause and effect has started impacting the course of events. On 23 June, the funeral of a Pakistani Taliban commander, Khwaz Wali, in South Waziristan came under fire from US drones in the hope of nailing the Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud. Instead, up to 70 people, mostly non-combatants were killed and scores injured. There was no prominent militant commander among those killed in the missile strikes. Most were aged tribesman and children. According to tribal journalist, Nur Behram, who visited the Lattaka village, where the funeral prayer was attacked, “the villagers were critical of the Pakistan government for allowing the US to target their funeral prayers, where neither militant commanders were present nor the funeral was being offered at any training centre”.
The Americans blithely use the term ‘collateral damage’, when pursuing operational objectives in third world countries and have no compunction in targeting civilians if their intelligence inputs indicate some sort of terrorist presence in the target area. They would, however, be loathe to use similar tactics in their own homeland. For instance, if terrorists were holed up in a building with a score or more of hostages in New York, the American police would not bomb the building in the hope of killing a top terrorist, especially if that action would result in civilian casualties. The rules of engagement are apparently different when battling away from their homeland! While American action in the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is inexcusable, Pakistan’s acquiescence in the matter is a matter of national shame. It is not for us to advise the security forces in Pakistan how to conduct their counter terrorism campaign. However, the indiscriminate use of drones has set off a domino effect which will seriously affect ground operations.
The military campaign in South Waziristan, called ‘Rah-e Nijaat’ (Path to Salvation), appears to be a more calibrated strategy than that employed in the past. Militarily, the Army aims to minimise its vulnerabilities in a challenging theatre of combat through a ‘softening up’ process before ground troops move in. This involves targeting of leaders of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), blocking entry and exit routes to the area and subjecting the TTP cadre to aerial and artillery bombardment. Politically, there has been an effort to isolate Baitullah Mehsud from other militant groups in the area. However, the fallout of the drone attacks has changed the script to a large extent.
Pakistan’s efforts to set up Qari Zainuddin, a key tribal rival of Baitullah Mehsud as a challenger suffered a setback when the former drew first blood and had him assassinated. But of more serious significance is the incident in North Waziristan where the peace deal struck by the Government with the tribal leaders has been unhinged as a consequence of US drone attacks. On 28 June, as many as 150 militants linked to Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur ambushed a military convoy in Madakhel area of North Waziristan Agency killing 20 soldiers and injuring 35. Among the dead was a colonel, a major and a captain. To add insult to injury, the Taliban made off with vehicles, weapons and equipment from the slain soldiers. Gul Bahadur was supposedly an ally of the government and had signed a peace accord on 17 February 2008, but has turned away from the government after the drone attack. This is the first of the domino effects.
The Army high command is now caught in a bind. The military cannot ignore the deadly ambush on the 250-member convoy in which a significant number of soldiers were killed and injured. Such attacks could demoralise the troops if punitive measures aren’t undertaken. However, opening a new front when the armed forces are fighting on a number of fronts including Swat, Buner, Dir Lower, Bajaur, Mohmand, Darra Adamkhel, Orakzai and South Waziristan would over-stretch the military and confuse its priorities.
In another incident following the drone attacks, two soldiers were killed and three others injured in the first-ever suicide attack on security forces in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, (POK) when a suicide bomber ripped through an Army vehicle near Shaukat Lines, Muzaffarabad on 26 June 2008. This is the second of the domino effects.
Till now, POK had not been caught up in the bitter war between militants and the military being fought in Pakistan. The attack on an army vehicle has dangerous implications for Pakistan as POK has a sizeable military presence, given its disputed status with India. The potential for further attacks is immense and to that extent the security paradigm in POK will undergo a radical change with a larger number of troops being sucked in for internal security duties. Such a development could also bring extremist forces still based in Kashmir into the conflict and thus make for a headier cocktail. The expansion of the war is something Pakistan must avoid at all costs but a continuation of drone attacks on the hapless citizens of NWFP and FATA is likely to further exacerbate the situation.
On a wider canvas, the indiscriminate use of drones has in a sense brought together the warring militant groups in NWFP and FATA, who have come out to defend their turf against the military action by Pakistan and US forces. This is the third of the domino effects.
This will further compound problems of the Pakistan military in their ongoing operations against terrorism and will keep the focus of the world very firmly on North Western Pakistan and Afghanistan, relegating the Kashmir issue in importance. Shifting the focus away from Kashmir is detrimental to the Pakistan military establishment whose very raison d’être is dependent on keeping the Kashmir issue alive. We can thus expect to see an escalation of violence in Jammu and Kashmir, fanned and aided by Pakistan, albeit in a covert manner. To some extent, we are witnessing the same in the civil unrest currently underway in the Kashmir Valley following the alleged rape and killing of two girls in Shopian. The situation would require firm but delicate handling. Outside J&K, the Pakistan security establishment would be loathe to encourage incidents such as the Mumbai massacre, but the possibility of such incidents occurring and being supported by rogue elements within the Pakistan ISI and military establishment cannot be ruled out.
An indirect result of the drone attacks could give a fillip to the long term insurgency in Baluchistan, as a consequence of the escalating conflict in NWFP and FATA. Many in the Pakistani establishment view the violence in Baluchistan as a creation of India’s R&AW, operating from our consulates in Afghanistan. While this perception needs to be corrected, we can expect Pakistan to continue putting pressure on the USA to reduce India’s role in the reconstruction process in Afghanistan. Any escalation in violence in Baluchistan will be attributed to Indian intelligence agencies regardless of the fact that the state has systematically eliminated many Baluch leaders in what can at best be described as cold blooded murder.
It would also not be out of order to mention here that tens of thousands of displaced Uyghur’s have found refuge in Pakistan where the majority of them live in its two most populous cities: Lahore and Karachi. Uyghur’s have been displaced from Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital, where the population of mainland Chinese of Han descent has grown from 10 per cent in 1949 to 41 per cent in 2004. In direct proportion, the population of native Uyghur’s has declined from 90 per cent in 1949 to 47 per cent in 2004. Tension has surfaced earlier over the issue of Chinese Uyghur separatists receiving sanctuary and training on Pakistani territory and the kidnapping and killing of Chinese personnel by fundamentalists. Could the recent unrest in Urumqi be a creation of the Taliban as perhaps another response to the drone attacks to create friction between Pakistan and its closest ally China? The possibility is not as far fetched as it seems.
Even after two months of combat, the Pakistan army is still embroiled in Swat. We can but imagine what the going will be like when the war spreads in earnest to North and South Waziristan. Over a hundred years earlier, Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy of India, stated, “No patchwork scheme will settle the Waziristan problem. Not until the military steamroller has passed over the country from end to end will there be peace. But I don't want to be the person to start that machine.” A century down the line, the Pakistan military machine has started rolling and we can but await the final outcome. In the meantime, India must continue to be very sensitive to the situation developing in J&K and ensure that the militants and their sympathisers do not derail the present popularly elected Government. India must also ensure a strong presence in Afghanistan, regardless of Pakistani protestations to the contrary.

Gay Rights and Article 377

The issue of homosexuality has finally come out of the closet subsequent to the ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalising the act. In a society as sexually repressed as India’s, where the very mention of the word ‘sex’ conjures up a sense of immorality, the attention given by the print and visual media to the subject is welcome for two reasons. Firstly, it has focused attention not just on the subject of homosexual behaviour but on sexual norms in general, a theme generally held taboo and not discussed by most Indians. Secondly, it has exposed the deep rooted hypocrisy in Indian society which outwardly exhibits a façade of strict Victorian morality when faced with issues pertaining to human sexuality but inwardly has an exceptionally high prurient streak, which perhaps is a reflection of sexual repression.

The hypocrisy of the religious class is all too apparent in the various statements coming out from self styled religious leaders. A common argument given by such people is that homosexuality is forbidden by God. How these people claim exclusive right to knowing what is and what is not ordained by God is a mystery I fear we shall never quite solve. Religious texts have all been corrupted by human hands down the centuries and are often open to varying and different interpretations. But more importantly, tying down the will of God to a simple matter of sexual behaviour is getting the Almighty down to the level of humans, disregarding God’s Divinity. Perhaps this has something to do with the problems being faced by these very same people in controlling their own sexual urges and desires, which only the greatest of sages have so far been able to accomplish. Sexually frustrated people will generally be the most virulent in upholding a rigid and strict Victorian code of morality. As Henry Fielding brings out in his book, “Tom Jones’ (1749 AD), albeit in a different context, but reflecting the same moral hypocrisy, ‘those women talk most of their honour who are the least likely to lose it’.

Hindu society has traditionally been more open and tolerant of sexual behaviour, a reflection of their inclusive nature, till Victorian morality seeped into our shores. Muslim societies too, were never sexually repressive and were more tolerant of homosexuality than the West. In the pre-modern era, Western travelers were amazed to find Islam "a sex-positive religion" with men openly expressing their love for young boys in words and gestures, while Eastern visitors to Europe were perplexed by the taboos surrounding human sexuality. Arab poets from the celebrated Abu Nuwas (8^th Century AD) onwards wrote in praise of "beardless" or "downy-cheeked" boys. Closer home, British soldiers in the early 19^th Century spoke of almost hundred percent homosexuality in Afghanistan. The words of an Afghan love song ‘Wounded Heart’ (Zakhmi Dil) are very suggestive in this context: "There's a boy across the river with a rectum like a peach, but alas, I cannot swim." In the tenth century, the Ghaznavid Empire was founded by Subuktagin, who got started as a king's boyfriend. His son, Mahmud Ghazni (971AD – 1030AD) loved a slave-boy named Ayaz. Huseyn Mirza, who ruled from Herat (1468-1506), and his vizier (prime minister) Hasan, both had harems of boys. Babur became infatuated as a seventeen year old with a boy known as Baburi. Need we go on!

The issue of homosexual behaviour cannot be viewed from the narrow confines of religious texts open to varying interpretations depending on the proponent of a certain viewpoint. It also needs to be disassociated from fickle moral preaching which is transient in nature. The correct and enduring standpoint must be based on the rights of an individual and his freedom to exercise those rights. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is thus a path breaking one which will be welcomed by all those who value freedom. Repression can only Talibanise the mind and set India on the path to losing other essential freedoms to religious and social bigots. The Government must hence support the decision of the Delhi High Court and not go down the path it traversed many years earlier in the Shah Bano case.

Response to Appu Soman

Appu Soman is a perceptive writer but his article lacks substance, is short on logic and relies for the most part on unsubstantiated sweeping statements. The American habit of simplifying everything through coinage of new terms such as describing India as a ‘flailing state’ is certainly eye catching but hardly relevant in the context of India’s development paradigm. Whether the presidential or parliamentary form of government is better suited for a country as large and diverse as India is a matter of debate, but to attribute all our ills to the parliamentary system is stretching credulity to its limit.
It is fashionable to blame politicians for all our ills but at least they are accountable and can be removed from power with every election should they fail to perform. It is this element of accountability which must be put into the public domain if we are to address the various malaises which Soman talks off. We remonstrate when the manifestations of poor governance are apparent, but when it comes to substantive structural issues, there is somehow limited proactive engagement to shape governance norms.
Poor governance, mismanagement, inefficiencies and malpractices have eaten into our system like an all pervasive cancer due to lack of accountability. Our administrative echelons however are loathe to strengthen mechanisms which would compel accountability. If we continue to regard responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other attributes of account-giving, the low level of importance they have been receiving, governance will further weaken and we will continue to face challenges, as we do presently.
Accountability is the unifying thread in governance. Enacting legislation and restructuring an institution should not be about change of name and an opportunity to structure space for maneuverability; instead it should be about substantively mainstreaming change that can strengthen governance. We need to exploit the potential of implicit transparency-building arrangements such as electronic procurement, electronic tracking of supply chains and the use of technology in public finance management - budgeting, accounting and auditing systems, and put all of this in the public domain.
Soman talks of corrupt governments but his remarks would have been better directed at corrupt government officials. If some of our Babus lack integrity and are willing to do the bidding of their political masters for personal gain, then no system of governance will ever work. How to promote integrity within the civil services is the challenge which we face and will continue to face unless both responsibility and accountability are fixed. As of now, too many people in the higher hierarchy of governance are not accountable for their actions. This suits the vested interest of both the bureaucracy and the political class. To blame the latter and leave out the former is merely an attempt to whitewash the malaise of corruption and non-performance in which we are steeped. If the heads of all our intelligence agencies were made to roll post Kargil, the likelihood of a 26/11 occurring would have been bleak. And if, along with the home minister of India and the chief minister of Maharashtra, a few bureaucratic heads had rolled too post 26/11, then the likelihood of another 26/11 occurring would be rare. In the event, I think it would be wise to assume that we have not seen the last of outrageous acts of terror in India and should be prepared accordingly. While the debate over the form of government best suited to India’s needs will continue, a broad-based agenda for systemic reform of governance, which can institutionalise accountability, must be accorded the highest priority if we wish to be taken seriously in the comity of nations as an emerging world power.
This appeared in The Straits Times, May 22, 2009
India: A 'flailing state' By Appu Soman.
The largest election in history involving more than 700 million voters has resulted in the victory of India's ruling alliance, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party. The verdict disproved gloomy predictions of a hung Parliament and the further strengthening of regional parties. The new government will be far more stable than many of its predecessors.
But the fact remains that, like previous governments, the new administration will consist mostly of politicians unfit to hold ministerial office. While several provincial satraps have been cut down to size, new, aspiring ones have garnered significant support. Despite the manifest success of Indian democracy, its parliamentary system is not succeeding in providing good governance. Obviously, India is not a failed state. Professor Lant Pritchett of Harvard's Kennedy School has coined a new name for India: a 'flailing state' - a state where the government's extremely competent upper echelons are unable to control its inefficient lower levels, resulting in poor performance. But this analysis gives credit where none is due: India's problem is its top political leadership's lack of competence. The inability of its current political system to provide effective government places the country in a different category: a non-performing state. The idealism of India's freedom movement quickly evaporated after independence in the face of the opportunities for patronage that came with power. The way its political system evolved has made politics the surest path to wealth. The money spent to win elections - often including the purchase of a party's nomination - is recouped many times over once the winner is in office. Half of India's legislators who stood for re-election this time had tripled their assets in the past five years.
Given the country's religious, caste and linguistic divides, politicians saw how easily they could leverage even a small following into votes. Soon, political parties began to break up, giving rise to a large number of regional and caste-based parties. Most of these parties are led by political dynasties that prize loyalty over merit. Because of the splintering of political parties, India has had only one single-party government and eight coalition governments in the past two decades. Members of coalition governments have treated the ministries allocated to them as fiefdoms, to be milked for their benefit. Over time, India's government has become primarily a tool for advancing the personal interests of politicians rather than the entity responsible for running the country. The opportunity for personal gains through public office has made electoral politics an automatic career choice for politicians' progeny. Record numbers of sons and daughters of political leaders and millionaires - and people with criminal backgrounds - contested this election. We are seeing the formation of a new Indian caste - a caste of rulers different from the traditional Kshatriya caste - before our very eyes. Like existing castes, the new caste specialises in one occupation: political office. Just as someone became a carpenter or a trader in an earlier era merely through birth, members of India's ruling caste now become leaders of parties, members of legislatures and Cabinet ministers solely because of their parentage. And as with the older castes, there is no need for any qualification for the vocation. Lack of vocational competence never barred Indians from remaining in their caste; likewise, how well one performs in political office is not a criterion for politicians to continue in positions of power. India's parliamentary system requires ministers to be members of the legislature. Party leaders select family members and other loyal followers as candidates for elections, with absolutely no consideration of their abilities to fulfill ministerial responsibilities. The result is Cabinets that are simply not capable of managing the problems confronting the country's national and state governments. Even with the best political leadership, governing India is no easy task. Successive governments staffed with unqualified politicians have failed dismally to carry out the core governmental functions of maintaining law and order, providing the basic services expected of modern societies and promoting economic growth. The country's high-performing private sector has so far masked the failure of the Indian state. In its current form, India's parliamentary system can produce only non-performing, corrupt governments. It rewards ambition, promotes office-at-any-cost politics as well as devalues merit.
Taking away the prize of ministerial office from elected representatives might discourage wealth-maximising politicians from entering politics. It is time, therefore, for India to consider introducing a presidential system of government, which would reduce the scope for 'horse trading' and allow the country's leader to select competent people for Cabinet positions.
The writer is a fellow of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Response to Mr Aakar Patel

Response to Aakar Patel
Mr. Aakar Patel, like so many present day journalists relies more on the sensational rather than facts. His article lacks research and more often than not uses innuendo as a substitute for the truth. His analytical ability too is suspect which perhaps has more to do with bias rather than a lack of intelligence. While Patel may try to pose as an investigative reporter, he should not entertain visions of being an Indian version of a Carl Bernstein or a Bob Woodward. He often writes with reasonable clarity and focus as indicated by his blog as also his column, published on Sunday in the Pakistani daily ‘The News’ but the present article is more worthy of the trash can.
Mr. Advani matriculated when he was 14 years old; that puts his date of matriculation as 1941. As per Aakar Patel, Mr. Advani joined the RSS because he was forced out by partition. This is not true. He joined the RSS in 1942 and became the President of the Organisations Karachi branch. As he was actively in politics at that time, it is no surprise that he did not complete college. Thousands of young men and women similarly sacrificed their youth for the cause of independence. Aakar Patel could not have been totally ignorant of this fact. That he chose to suppress it indicates ulterior motives which can do no good to the cause of journalism.
Aakar Patel continues to drift towards the inconsequential when all he can talk of is the problem which Mr. Advani had with worms as a young man, the fascination which Mr. Advani had for Dale Carnegie’s writings or the hurt he felt at the defacement of Hindu deities at Chittor. Aakar Patel is also not overly impressed with Mr. Advani’s journalistic skills, but has Mr. Advani ever claimed to be a leading journalist? And what is so wrong about writing film reviews? Will Aakar Patel treat Mr. MF Hussain with contempt because he was a cheap sign board painter in the streets of Mumbai before he became famous! He also talks with certain derogatoriness of Mr. Advani getting his first executive position when he was fifty years old. For a man who spent his life in politics, that is par for the course and Aakar Patel should have known it. Nehru was a lawyer for a few years before he joined public life and rose to become India’s first prime minister. Do we even in our wildest imagination believe that he was unfit for the job? Experience does not come simply by holding a government job, especially when we talk of the political domain.
Getting down to more substantive issues, Ayodhya has always been a cause of concern to the vast majority of Indians. The issue was not created by the BJP but has been the cause of tension even when the British ruled India. A mass uprising in 1949 saw the installation of the images of Ram and Sita in the structure. And the Congress was in power at that time. Another Congress Prime minister opened the door to the Shilanayas many years later. Let us not forget history. I do not support the way the mosque was destroyed. But why is Aakar Patel not ready to accept Mr. Advani’s statement that the destruction of the mosque was the saddest day of his life. It may also be worthwhile if Mr. Patel goes through the ASI report on the excavations conducted at the site in 2003; that is if he is not too lazy to do so – a charge he levels at Mr. Advani.
The way the hijacking of IA 814 was handled was certainly a cause for embarrassment but it reflects more on an institutional failure and our unpreparedness to deal with such situations. To put the entire culpability on Mr. Advani is neither correct nor an accurate reflection of what transpired then. Incidentally, we have not learned much since then as experienced in the shoddy manner we reacted to the Mumbai carnage in November last year. And Dr Manmohan Singh was the Prime minister this time round. Kargil was an institutional failure too, and a systematic overhaul of our agencies is called for to prevent a recurrence. Sadly, this too is not forthcoming regardless of which Government is in power. The sloth in quick decision making will remain the bane of this country unless we start sacking civil and military officials at the highest levels for incompetence.
With reference to the Gujarat riots, it would be worth his while if Aakar Patel, who is himself a Guajarati carries out an analysis of the communal riots that have taken place since independence in Gujarat and work out the statistics for the periods when the Congress was in power. He will be surprised. Also, one poor Muslim family which suffered grievously in the post Godhra riots and was taken with great fanfare to the paradise that is West Bengal has chosen to return to Gujarat. Mr. Patel may like to move from his chair once in a while and find out why.
I personally admire Dr Manmohan Singh so I will not get into a scathing criticism of the man just to score a point. But the fact remains that India went into a process of reforms not because Mr. Singh felt it was the right thing to do but because India was bankrupt at that point of time and international lending agencies forced India to adopt the course. Mr. Singh no doubt needs to be complimented on doing a good job. However, could the good Doctor kindly explain why the impetus given to building highways and harnessing the waters of our rivers was put on the slow burner by his Government? Obviously, politics takes priority over national interest.
Politics ultimately is the art of the possible and both Dr Singh and Mr. Advani have an important role to play. But our journalists must stop this mudslinging and get down to substantive issues if they wish to be taken seriously.


Advani the party man or Singh the economist?
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk
Reply to All Aakar Patel
Fri, Apr 24 2009. 9:46 PM IST

LK Advani might become prime minister next month. What kind of a leader will he make? Let us examine his qualifications. Born in 1927 to a rich family living in a Parsi neighbourhood of Karachi, Advani is from the Amil caste of merchants. In his autobiography, My Country My Life, he tells us “as far as I can remember, I stood first in every class till matriculation” and “when I completed my matriculation, I had just turned 14”.

But at DG National College, Hyderabad, Sindh, he fails to get a degree in five years. His Lok Sabha résumé mentions an LLB from Bombay University, but does not say when he got it. His autobiography’s 986 pages do not mention this degree, or his attending this college, at all.
Forced out by Partition, Advani becomes an RSS worker. He spends years in Rajasthan’s villages, where he is “scared of one thing: tapeworm”.
This is because, over the years, he sees many people with the painful exit wound this worm would make on its way out from their legs. He writes about this at length, showing that his fear, for himself and perhaps also for the villagers he served, was real. But he does no research, else he would have learnt that it was not tapeworm but guinea worm.
On a visit to Chittor fort, he is “pained to see thousands of idols of Hindu deities broken and defaced by intolerant Muslim invaders”. Such experiences “were bringing about a strange transformation within me”.
Then, for seven years, till 1967, Advani is a journalist at the RSS journal Organiser, where he writes film reviews.
His writing is lazy and he leans on clichés and stock phrases. He describes a criminal as “dreaded gangster”. He uses too many adjectives and likes hyperbole. He calls Indira Gandhi’s Emergency the “darkest period in Indian history”, but then reports its years wrong in three places (pages 259, 266 and 270).
I edited newspapers for 10 years and I can place Advani as a journalist immediately. He would not have risen beyond middle rank.
He says Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends And Influence People would “clearly rate as one of the five or six life-transforming books I have read so far”.
After a brief term in Delhi’s municipal council, because of his RSS connection, Advani is nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Jailed with other opposition leaders, Advani comes to power in 1977.
His life’s first executive job comes to him at 50 and he becomes minister of information and broadcasting.
This lasts two years.
In the 1980s, he finds his cause at Ayodhya. He begins a campaign, but does not understand the nature of India, and what his movement represents.
When his fired-up audience screams: “Jo Hindu hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raaj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of Hindus will form the government)”, Advani says he did his job by telling them they should instead say: “Jo Rashtra hit ki baat karega, vahi desh pe raj karega (Whoever promises to ensure the welfare of the country will form the government)”.
But how many of us remember this modified slogan?
As the procession rolls, riots flare across India. Advani is disturbed by references to “Advani’s blood yatra”. He is not responsible, he tells us, because “there were no riots at all along the Rath Yatra trail”. Six hundred Indians are killed.

The mosque falls on 6 December 1992. He calls this a “tragic happening” and the “saddest day of my life”. Having led the mob to its goal, he’s surprised by its behaviour. Three thousand Indians are killed. He does not understand that his movement is not positive, for the temple, but negative, against the mosque. And that is why the issue has died after the structure was flattened.
Advani’s second executive job comes at age 71, when he becomes home minister for six years (1998-2004). The three major events concerning his work during this period are at Kandahar, Kargil and Gujarat. Advani’s home ministry fails to immobilize the hijacked Indian Airlines flight when it lands at Amritsar. The BJP then surrenders to Jaish-e-Mohammed and releases the leader of the Deobandi warriors, Masood Azhar. He’s still doing terrorism.
At Kargil, Advani’s spies are unable to predict or detect infiltration. Over 400 Indian jawans are martyred. In Gujarat, 1,000 Indians are killed on the BJP’s watch. The prosecution is so bigoted, or incompetent, that the horrified Supreme Court transfers cases to Mumbai.
If Advani has such a poor record on security, why do his supporters refer to him as strong? Sadly, this image comes from his willingness to do violence to India’s Muslims.
Having had only eight years of executive experience, the same as the average 32-year-old, Advani has no long view. He does not understand strategy.
He thumps his chest and warns Pakistan to behave after taking India nuclear, but is taken aback when Pakistan’s generals immediately use this as an excuse to weaponize their own programme. This has destabilized South Asia for generations.
He opposes the Indo-US nuclear deal. Why? Because America does not treat India as “equals”. He views strategic policy through honour and emotion.
Of his autobiography’s 48 chapters, not one is on economics. Muslims, Kashmir, terrorism, Pakistan, Musharraf, Kargil, Shah Bano, Naxalism, Godhra, Assam, Ayodhya. These are his concerns. His passion is all about what other people should not do.
Under Advani, the BJP’s three policy thrusts were all negative: Muslims should not keep Babri Masjid; Muslims should not have polygamy; Kashmir should not have special status.
He offers nothing creative, even to Hindus, only resentment.
There is one brutally tough man in politics, but it is not Advani. This man is cold and emotionless when you observe him talk.
If power means the ability to influence change, he is the most powerful leader in the history of India.
His policies, 18 years old, cannot be bent, forget changed, by leaders who came after he wrote them.
He shamelessly laughs off the sneering accusation that he hides behind a woman, and cannot even get himself elected. He is ruthless enough to discard his allies and embrace his enemies when it suits him.
He is cold-blooded enough to ignore the corruption of his allied ministers, because he understands it’s unimportant in the long run.
He has risen in the world by merit alone. Born in the hamlet of Gah in West Punjab, he studied under kerosene lamps and walked miles to school. He never stopped walking. He went to Punjab University, Cambridge University (where he won the Wright’s Prize in 1955 and the Adam Smith prize in 1956). He went to Oxford University and wrote his DPhil thesis on “India’s export trends and prospects for self-sustained growth”. At 30, he understood the problem with Nehru’s economic model. At 59, he got the chance to set it right, and he did.
He is the most qualified man ever to hold office in India, and it would be difficult to find another as qualified across the world.
Like Harvard’s Obama, he has supped at the table with the world’s intellectual elite and absorbed their ideas. Now, facing a crisis, the world looks to Manmohan Singh for answers.
At the G-20 this month, London’s Financial Times put him on its masthead next to Obama and sent three editors to interview him. All Indians who are ashamed of the quality of our leaders must try to read this interview: www.ft.com/indepth/g20. First question: Do you agree with China on the failures of the global monetary regime and the case for a new reserve asset in place of the dollar?
It’s not the question they would ask of Advani.
Aakar Patel is a director with Hill Road Media.
Write to Aakar at replytoall@livemint.com