INTERNATIONL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO742
B.RAMAN
In a televised broadcast on December 31,2011,Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in parts of the country following anti-Christian violence by a jihadi group called Boko Haram. The State of Emergency will be in force in the Yobe and Borno states in the north-east. It authorises the Government to use the Armed Forces for counter-terrorism duties. Nigeria’s international borders with Niger, Chad and Cameroon are reported to have been closed.
2. The President’s action followed a series of bombings in the affected region on Christmas Day in which 42 persons were reported to have been killed. The bombings were directed at churches and other targets.
3.Before his televised address, Jonathan spoke at a church in Abuja where 37 people were killed. He said that Boko Haram, which had "started as a harmless group", had "now grown cancerous".
4. The full name of Boko Haram is jama'atu ahlis sunna lidda'awati wal-jihad. It means People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad. The shortened version of its name as Boko Haram in the Housa dialect means “Western Education Is Sin”. It has been campaigning against Western and Christian education and for the enforcement of Sharia in a country where Christians and animists are in a majority in the South. It was responsible for more than 450 killings in Nigeria in 2011.
5. The organisation was formed in the town of Maiduguri , the capital of the Borno State, in 2002 by a cleric called Mohammad Yousef. He was reported killed by the police in 2009.The name of its present leader is not known. It was initially thought of as an Islamic fundamentalist organisation with no links to Al Qaeda and other international jihadi terrorist affiliates of Al Qaeda such as Al Qaeda units in Yemen,Somalia and Algeria or the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) in Pakistan or the Taliban in the Af-Pak region. Since it stepped up its acts of violence in 2009, there are growing concerns of such linkages.
6.Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present head of Al Qaeda, believes that instead of over-focussing on spreading the jihad to the US homeland, Al Qaeda should concentrate on creating a prairie fire of jihadi intifada across countries that have a Muslim majority as well as lands that, according to him, traditionally belonged to Muslims, but are now under the control of non-Muslims. He has been saying that African countries such as Algeria should play an important role in this multi-front war for the triumph of Islam.
7.The spreading and growing pan-African jihadi violence since 2009 has to be seen in the beliefs and conviction of Zawahiri who is now in the driving seat of international jihadi terrorism. The death of Osama bin Laden during the US raid at Abbottabad on May 2,2011, was a set-back to those in Al Qaeda who had in the past advocated a US homeland-centric campaign. It has seen the coming to the fore of Zawahiri and his followers who believe that instead of wasting human and material resources for organising jihadi attacks in the US, Al Qaeda and its affiliates should concentrate on spreading the prairie fire of Intifada across the Islamic world.
8. In 2004, from Maiduguri, Boko Haram spread to Kanamma in the Yobe State where it reportedly set up a base called “Afghanistan” , giving the first indication of a possible Afghan/Taliban inspiration for its ideology and activities. It spread its targets and started attacking the police too. It then spread to the Bauchi area.
9.On August 26, 2011, the UN headquarters in Abuja was blown up by a suicide car bomber, leaving at least 21 dead and dozens more injured. On November 5, 2011,a series of coordinated attacks in Borno and Yobe states, mainly around Damaturu, killed at least 67 people, and practically destroyed a new police headquarters .Local government offices were damaged. A Boko Haram spokesman claimed responsibility for the attacks.
10.U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) Commander General Carter F. Ham stated in September 2011 that three African terrorist groups - Shabab of Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb across the Sahel region, and Boko Haram - "have very explicitly and publicly voiced an intent to target Westerners, and the U.S. specifically."
11.General Ham was quoted as stating after the Christmas Day bombings: "I remain greatly concerned about their stated intent to connect with Al Qaeda senior leadership, most likely through Al Qaeda in the lands of the Islamic Maghreb.”
12.A bipartisan U.S. congressional counterterrorism panel stated as follows in November 2011:
a. Boko Haram poses an emerging threat to U.S. interests and the U.S. Homeland.
b. Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing the capability to coordinate on a rhetorical and operational level with Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al Shabaab.
c. Boko Haram’s evolution in targeting and tactics closely follows that of other Al Qaeda affiliates that have targeted the U.S. Homeland, most notably Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
13.There still seems to be a difference of opinion in the US as to whether Boko Haram is a purely regional organisation of concern to Nigeria and its neighbouring States only or whether it has graduated into an international jihadi terrorist organisation capable of attacking targets in the US homeland.
14.Congressional experts seem to suspect a linkage between Boko Haram and the Pakistani Taliban called the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Since the US has a number of Muslim migrants from Nigeria, they seem worried over the dangers of Boko Haram developing sleeper cells in the US with the help of the TTP. Counter-terrorism experts of the US intelligence community share the concerns of the Congressional experts over the unchecked growth of the organisation in Nigeria, but do not feel it could pose a threat to the US Homeland.
15.The US intelligence Community seems to be under-estimating the potential of Boko Haram just it had under-estimated the potential of the LET till the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. The death of OBL might have weakened Al Qaeda’s senior leadership, but it has not weakened the jihadi virus and its trans-national carriers.
16.It is important for Indian counter-terrorism agencies to start closely studying the activities of Boko Haram.
17.This may please by read in continuation of my article of June 17,2011, titled AL-ZAWAHIRI: Advocate of Global Jihadi Intifada - International Terrorism Monitor—Paper No. 728 available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers46%5Cpaper4549.html
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
2012—HERE I COME
B.RAMAN
It is 27 months since we started living together---my present mistress and I.
I had known other women in my life. I met them somewhere, somehow. We drank, sang and danced together. We spent nights wandering in the streets of Paris, Geneva,Amsterdam, Rome, Venice,Naples, Montreal,Jerusalem, Tokyo, Bangkok, Vientiane, Copenhagen,Athens, Damascus,Kampala, Istanbul.We spent hours, days and weeks in the Islands of Greece, Bali, Angkor Wat.
We developed a liking for each other, a love for each other. We started living together---live-in companions. When we could live together no longer, we said adieu to each other. A painful adieu, but the pain lasted only till I met someone new. I was like Claude Francois’ vagabond of no importance. Like George Moustaki’s gypsy.
One night in 2009, as I was sleeping alone in my bed, I woke up to realise I was not alone. I had a new live-in companion---one I had not met or known before. She had unnoticed, unfelt, unsensed ,uninvited moved in to live with me.
She has been there all the time---a part of me. She follows me wherever I go like a shadow. She sleeps with me. We have no love for each other. Yet, we are destined to live together . Hang out together. Only death can part us.
How to describe my emotions when I found her inside me? Not happiness----definitely not. Sorrow? I don’t think so. Shock? A little bit.Fear, possibly.
Whatever were the predominant emotions, I managed to bring them under control. I managed to rid myself of the fear of pain and death. Blood coming out of my body---like water from the fountains of Versailles--- no longer unnerves me.
I have lost my initial fears of this unknown mistress. Disappointment lingers. That after having spent my life with wonderful women, I should be condemned to spend the last years of my life with a mistress whom I do not love.
But I had no choice. What cannot be cured has to be endured. What cannot be shaken off has to be accepted.
I have accepted my new mistress. I have learnt to live in peaceful co-existence with her. She has helped me get rid of the fear of pain and death.
I was born again in 2011. I have re-discovered the zest for life. I live and travel again. I do once again all the things which I had always loved doing---reading, writing, listening to music, fraternising with people, loving wonderful women.
I feel young again. I feel the best of me is yet to come. 75 is not an old age---an age of philosophical resignation with nothing more to look forward to till I die. It is an age of re-discovery of myself. An age of new thoughts and new love. Like the vagabond, I have started singing again---songs of life, love and tears.
2012---- Here I come (31-12-2011)
It is 27 months since we started living together---my present mistress and I.
I had known other women in my life. I met them somewhere, somehow. We drank, sang and danced together. We spent nights wandering in the streets of Paris, Geneva,Amsterdam, Rome, Venice,Naples, Montreal,Jerusalem, Tokyo, Bangkok, Vientiane, Copenhagen,Athens, Damascus,Kampala, Istanbul.We spent hours, days and weeks in the Islands of Greece, Bali, Angkor Wat.
We developed a liking for each other, a love for each other. We started living together---live-in companions. When we could live together no longer, we said adieu to each other. A painful adieu, but the pain lasted only till I met someone new. I was like Claude Francois’ vagabond of no importance. Like George Moustaki’s gypsy.
One night in 2009, as I was sleeping alone in my bed, I woke up to realise I was not alone. I had a new live-in companion---one I had not met or known before. She had unnoticed, unfelt, unsensed ,uninvited moved in to live with me.
She has been there all the time---a part of me. She follows me wherever I go like a shadow. She sleeps with me. We have no love for each other. Yet, we are destined to live together . Hang out together. Only death can part us.
How to describe my emotions when I found her inside me? Not happiness----definitely not. Sorrow? I don’t think so. Shock? A little bit.Fear, possibly.
Whatever were the predominant emotions, I managed to bring them under control. I managed to rid myself of the fear of pain and death. Blood coming out of my body---like water from the fountains of Versailles--- no longer unnerves me.
I have lost my initial fears of this unknown mistress. Disappointment lingers. That after having spent my life with wonderful women, I should be condemned to spend the last years of my life with a mistress whom I do not love.
But I had no choice. What cannot be cured has to be endured. What cannot be shaken off has to be accepted.
I have accepted my new mistress. I have learnt to live in peaceful co-existence with her. She has helped me get rid of the fear of pain and death.
I was born again in 2011. I have re-discovered the zest for life. I live and travel again. I do once again all the things which I had always loved doing---reading, writing, listening to music, fraternising with people, loving wonderful women.
I feel young again. I feel the best of me is yet to come. 75 is not an old age---an age of philosophical resignation with nothing more to look forward to till I die. It is an age of re-discovery of myself. An age of new thoughts and new love. Like the vagabond, I have started singing again---songs of life, love and tears.
2012---- Here I come (31-12-2011)
UIGHURS STRIKE AGAIN IN XINJIANG
B.RAMAN
At least eight persons----seven Uighurs and a senior police officer of the Chinese-controlled Xinjiang province --- were reported to have been killed on the night of December 28,2011, in Hotan's Pishan county. Pishan county lies on the southern edge of the Taklamakan desert near the border with Pakistan.
2. According to available details from reliable Uighur sources, a police party tried to stop a group of Uighur youth who were about to enter Pakistan near village Mukula. One of the Uighur youth allegedly stabbed Adil Abduveli, the leader of the police party. The remaining members of the Police party allegedly shot dead seven of the Uighur youth who were trying to cross over into Pakistan.
3. The police have alleged that the Uighurs who were killed were terrorists who tried to take hostage two police officers. This led to an exchange of fire during which, according to the Police, the Uighurs were killed. Uighur sources have denied this version.
4. Earlier this month, one Han Chinese was reported killed and several others were injured when an Uighur attacked a group of people with a pair of shears in the streets of Dolebagh township in Kashgar city. Following this, the police rounded up 50 Uighurs of the area for questioning. Thirty of them were released and allowed to go home after the questioning. About 20 remained unaccounted for. There was speculation that they managed to escape from police custody during the questioning and that the police had intensified border patrolling in order to prevent them from escaping into Pakistan.
5.There have been a number of stabbing incidents in the province this year. On April 18, a young Uighur stabbed six Han Chinese and then stabbed himself to death. Four days later, another Uighur allegedly stabbed to death a 39-year-old Han woman. On July 30 and 31, at least 14 persons were stabbed to death in the Kashgar area by two groups of Uighur youth. Previously, there was a ban on Uighurs possessing fire-arms. Now a ban has been imposed on their possessing their traditional knives too, which has added to their resentment against the police.
6.Doletbagh is a small town located in the southeast part of Kashgar with a population of about 14,000, 97 per cent of whom are Uighurs. Most of them are unemployed due to preference given to Hans from outside in recruitment. Unable to get jobs locally, the unemployed youth try to escape into Pakistan. Reliable Uighur sources allege that the youths trying to escape are killed either by the Han Police before they cross over or by the Pakistani security forces after they cross over.
7.Officers of China’s Ministry of Public Security, which is responsible for internal security, are attached to Pakistani security posts on the Pakistani side of the border to prevent illegal crossing of Uighur youth into Pakistan. (30-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
At least eight persons----seven Uighurs and a senior police officer of the Chinese-controlled Xinjiang province --- were reported to have been killed on the night of December 28,2011, in Hotan's Pishan county. Pishan county lies on the southern edge of the Taklamakan desert near the border with Pakistan.
2. According to available details from reliable Uighur sources, a police party tried to stop a group of Uighur youth who were about to enter Pakistan near village Mukula. One of the Uighur youth allegedly stabbed Adil Abduveli, the leader of the police party. The remaining members of the Police party allegedly shot dead seven of the Uighur youth who were trying to cross over into Pakistan.
3. The police have alleged that the Uighurs who were killed were terrorists who tried to take hostage two police officers. This led to an exchange of fire during which, according to the Police, the Uighurs were killed. Uighur sources have denied this version.
4. Earlier this month, one Han Chinese was reported killed and several others were injured when an Uighur attacked a group of people with a pair of shears in the streets of Dolebagh township in Kashgar city. Following this, the police rounded up 50 Uighurs of the area for questioning. Thirty of them were released and allowed to go home after the questioning. About 20 remained unaccounted for. There was speculation that they managed to escape from police custody during the questioning and that the police had intensified border patrolling in order to prevent them from escaping into Pakistan.
5.There have been a number of stabbing incidents in the province this year. On April 18, a young Uighur stabbed six Han Chinese and then stabbed himself to death. Four days later, another Uighur allegedly stabbed to death a 39-year-old Han woman. On July 30 and 31, at least 14 persons were stabbed to death in the Kashgar area by two groups of Uighur youth. Previously, there was a ban on Uighurs possessing fire-arms. Now a ban has been imposed on their possessing their traditional knives too, which has added to their resentment against the police.
6.Doletbagh is a small town located in the southeast part of Kashgar with a population of about 14,000, 97 per cent of whom are Uighurs. Most of them are unemployed due to preference given to Hans from outside in recruitment. Unable to get jobs locally, the unemployed youth try to escape into Pakistan. Reliable Uighur sources allege that the youths trying to escape are killed either by the Han Police before they cross over or by the Pakistani security forces after they cross over.
7.Officers of China’s Ministry of Public Security, which is responsible for internal security, are attached to Pakistani security posts on the Pakistani side of the border to prevent illegal crossing of Uighur youth into Pakistan. (30-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Thursday, December 29, 2011
ACME OF INSINCERITY, INEPTITUDE & INFAMY
B.RAMAN
December 29,2011, will go down in the history of Indian democracy as marking the acme of insincerity, ineptitude and infamy.
2. The Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party headed by Mrs.Sonia Gandhi conducted themselves in a manner that confirmed the suspicions of many ---particularly in the younger generation that is the future of this country---- that they have been insincere in their professions of wanting to rid this country of the evil of corruption by setting up an anti-corruption architecture that will fight this evil with determination and competence.
3. The Lokpal Bill introduced by the Government gave the impression of a leadership at long last conscious of the depth of public anger against corruption at the political and bureaucratic levels and determined to meet the demands and expectations of the civil society for meaningful and firm action to fight it.
4.But the shockingly casual manner in which the Government steered the passage of the Bill through the two Houses of the Parliament demonstrated that it was a make-believe legislative measure brought in not because the Government and the Congress had realised that was the crying need of the hour, but because they felt that it was the only way of diverting the attention and anger of the people away from the misdeeds of the Government and its failure to deal with this evil.
5.Whatever compulsions and anxiety there were in making the Government show even a modicum of determination to have the Bill passed were visibly dissipated when Anna Hazare, the leading and moving spirit of the anti-corruption crusade, and his team of young anti-corruption warriors failed to receive the expected measure of public support when they tried to shift the centre of their protest movement to Mumbai from Delhi.
6.The failure of large sections of the people of Mumbai----for whatever reason---- to respond as enthusiastically to the protest movement as the people of Delhi had done in April and August last brought out dramatically the insincerity of the Government and the Congress leadership. The urgency of action against corruption was lost right across the political spectrum and particularly in the Congress.
7.This insincerity was compounded by the amazing ineptitude with which the Government--- and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in particular--- handled even this make-believe legislative exercise. Ineptitude marked by lack of attention to details, a casual approach to important decision-making and a failure to do the homework efficiently before undertaking important administrative, legislative or policy-related exercises had become the hallmark of the Government since it was re-elected in 2009. It was behind many of the embarrassments faced by the Government one after the other throughout the year.
8. One saw it in the controversies that had surrounded the appointment of a new Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the attempted but jettisoned-half-way-through decision to permit foreign direct investment in the retail sector and now in the legislative exercise to seemingly end corruption. The Bill was badly drafted and provided for a Lokpal without the required independent investigative capability.
9.Moreover, under the ill-advised pressure of the Anna Hazare movement, the Government let itself be forced to tread into the domain of the State Governments by seeking to prescribe in a central legislation the contours of an anti-corruption architecture for the States. This roused the anger of many regional parties---even some who were supposedly allies of the Government in the ruling coalition. In the face of this anger, the Government lost its cool and lucidity. The anger was the result of a lack of consultations with the regional parties while drafting the Bill and the shocking insensitivity of the Government and the Congress to regional concerns and nervousness over the way the Government had gone about this exercise.
10. The Government got the Bill passed in the lower House where it managed to muster the required political support, but it failed to rally majority support in the upper House where it knew it was in a hopeless minority. By lunch-time on December 29, it was apparent to the smallest of political intelligence that the Government would be defeated if the Bill was voted upon .
11. One would have expected a Government and a political party with genuinely democratic instincts and impulses to convene a meeting of the leaders of different political parties represented in the Upper House and find a way out of the dilemma. There was no such move by the Government and the Congress Party.
12. Instead, they blatantly manipulated the proceedings of the upper House in a cynical manner through a mix of filibuster tactics and keeping the other political parties guessing about the real intentions of the Government. In the last hour before the House under the rules was required to be adjourned sine die, it witnessed disorderly scenes----that many suspected with valid reasons to have been choreographed by the Government--- that enabled the Chairman of the House to adjourn the House sine die disregarding the wishes of the members to extend the session.
13.Lack of decorum and gravitas had become the defining characteristic of our Parliament for many years. What one saw on December 29--- a day of infamy in the history of the Parliament---- was a charade organised by the Government in order to wriggle out of the promises and commitments made by it to the civil society of the country.
14. While the Government and the Congress as whole are worthy of total, unreserved condemnation for the way they turned democracy into a cynical exercise in the manipulation of procedures, specially strong words of condemnation are due for the Prime Minister, Mrs.Sonia Gandhi and Dr.Hamid Ansari, the Vice-President of India and the Chairman of the House.
15. Initially, the Prime Minister chose to absent himself from the House, but was forced by the members’ clamour for his presence to rush to the House. Subsequently, he sat through the proceedings without any visible attempt to provide leadership and enter into consultations with other political parties. Sonia Gandhi is not a member of the Upper House, but one expected her as the leader of the party to take over the leadership in the exercise to find a way out of the political quandary in the House. At a time, when her party badly needed her leadership, she failed to rise to the occasion and lead.
16. Dr.Ansari is a batch-mate of mine in the All-India and Central Services. He used to enjoy a tremendous reputation for his straightforwardness, but the way he conducted himself ---as seen on the TV---in the final minutes of this charade made many of us suspect that he chose to play along with this charade instead of stopping it firmly.
17. It was a particularly black day in the history of Indian democracy, the Indian Parliament, the Indian institutions and the Congress leadership. It is important for the public and other political formations which still believe in the importance of political ethics if democracy has to survive in this country to ensure that the Government and the Congress are not able to get away with their sins of December 29.
18. Fresh premature elections are the need of the hour if the reputation of Indian democracy has to be salvaged. All right-thinking persons---particularly the youth---should unite behind the demand for fresh elections. ( 30-12-11 )
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
December 29,2011, will go down in the history of Indian democracy as marking the acme of insincerity, ineptitude and infamy.
2. The Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party headed by Mrs.Sonia Gandhi conducted themselves in a manner that confirmed the suspicions of many ---particularly in the younger generation that is the future of this country---- that they have been insincere in their professions of wanting to rid this country of the evil of corruption by setting up an anti-corruption architecture that will fight this evil with determination and competence.
3. The Lokpal Bill introduced by the Government gave the impression of a leadership at long last conscious of the depth of public anger against corruption at the political and bureaucratic levels and determined to meet the demands and expectations of the civil society for meaningful and firm action to fight it.
4.But the shockingly casual manner in which the Government steered the passage of the Bill through the two Houses of the Parliament demonstrated that it was a make-believe legislative measure brought in not because the Government and the Congress had realised that was the crying need of the hour, but because they felt that it was the only way of diverting the attention and anger of the people away from the misdeeds of the Government and its failure to deal with this evil.
5.Whatever compulsions and anxiety there were in making the Government show even a modicum of determination to have the Bill passed were visibly dissipated when Anna Hazare, the leading and moving spirit of the anti-corruption crusade, and his team of young anti-corruption warriors failed to receive the expected measure of public support when they tried to shift the centre of their protest movement to Mumbai from Delhi.
6.The failure of large sections of the people of Mumbai----for whatever reason---- to respond as enthusiastically to the protest movement as the people of Delhi had done in April and August last brought out dramatically the insincerity of the Government and the Congress leadership. The urgency of action against corruption was lost right across the political spectrum and particularly in the Congress.
7.This insincerity was compounded by the amazing ineptitude with which the Government--- and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in particular--- handled even this make-believe legislative exercise. Ineptitude marked by lack of attention to details, a casual approach to important decision-making and a failure to do the homework efficiently before undertaking important administrative, legislative or policy-related exercises had become the hallmark of the Government since it was re-elected in 2009. It was behind many of the embarrassments faced by the Government one after the other throughout the year.
8. One saw it in the controversies that had surrounded the appointment of a new Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the attempted but jettisoned-half-way-through decision to permit foreign direct investment in the retail sector and now in the legislative exercise to seemingly end corruption. The Bill was badly drafted and provided for a Lokpal without the required independent investigative capability.
9.Moreover, under the ill-advised pressure of the Anna Hazare movement, the Government let itself be forced to tread into the domain of the State Governments by seeking to prescribe in a central legislation the contours of an anti-corruption architecture for the States. This roused the anger of many regional parties---even some who were supposedly allies of the Government in the ruling coalition. In the face of this anger, the Government lost its cool and lucidity. The anger was the result of a lack of consultations with the regional parties while drafting the Bill and the shocking insensitivity of the Government and the Congress to regional concerns and nervousness over the way the Government had gone about this exercise.
10. The Government got the Bill passed in the lower House where it managed to muster the required political support, but it failed to rally majority support in the upper House where it knew it was in a hopeless minority. By lunch-time on December 29, it was apparent to the smallest of political intelligence that the Government would be defeated if the Bill was voted upon .
11. One would have expected a Government and a political party with genuinely democratic instincts and impulses to convene a meeting of the leaders of different political parties represented in the Upper House and find a way out of the dilemma. There was no such move by the Government and the Congress Party.
12. Instead, they blatantly manipulated the proceedings of the upper House in a cynical manner through a mix of filibuster tactics and keeping the other political parties guessing about the real intentions of the Government. In the last hour before the House under the rules was required to be adjourned sine die, it witnessed disorderly scenes----that many suspected with valid reasons to have been choreographed by the Government--- that enabled the Chairman of the House to adjourn the House sine die disregarding the wishes of the members to extend the session.
13.Lack of decorum and gravitas had become the defining characteristic of our Parliament for many years. What one saw on December 29--- a day of infamy in the history of the Parliament---- was a charade organised by the Government in order to wriggle out of the promises and commitments made by it to the civil society of the country.
14. While the Government and the Congress as whole are worthy of total, unreserved condemnation for the way they turned democracy into a cynical exercise in the manipulation of procedures, specially strong words of condemnation are due for the Prime Minister, Mrs.Sonia Gandhi and Dr.Hamid Ansari, the Vice-President of India and the Chairman of the House.
15. Initially, the Prime Minister chose to absent himself from the House, but was forced by the members’ clamour for his presence to rush to the House. Subsequently, he sat through the proceedings without any visible attempt to provide leadership and enter into consultations with other political parties. Sonia Gandhi is not a member of the Upper House, but one expected her as the leader of the party to take over the leadership in the exercise to find a way out of the political quandary in the House. At a time, when her party badly needed her leadership, she failed to rise to the occasion and lead.
16. Dr.Ansari is a batch-mate of mine in the All-India and Central Services. He used to enjoy a tremendous reputation for his straightforwardness, but the way he conducted himself ---as seen on the TV---in the final minutes of this charade made many of us suspect that he chose to play along with this charade instead of stopping it firmly.
17. It was a particularly black day in the history of Indian democracy, the Indian Parliament, the Indian institutions and the Congress leadership. It is important for the public and other political formations which still believe in the importance of political ethics if democracy has to survive in this country to ensure that the Government and the Congress are not able to get away with their sins of December 29.
18. Fresh premature elections are the need of the hour if the reputation of Indian democracy has to be salvaged. All right-thinking persons---particularly the youth---should unite behind the demand for fresh elections. ( 30-12-11 )
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Monday, December 26, 2011
MORAL & LEGAL BATTLES AGAINST CORRUPTION
B.RAMAN
From today, the nation will be witnessing two non-violent battles against corruption----- the legal battle in the Parliament in New Delhi and the moral battle in Mumbai.
2. The objective of the legal battle will be to give legal shape to the anti-corruption infrastructure through the Lokpal Bill introduced by the Government for debate and approval with changes, if and where necessary, by the elected members of the Lok Sabha representing the will and the expectations of the voters of this country who chose to elect them in their wisdom in the elections held in 2009.
3. The objective of the moral battle, led by Anna Hazare for nearly a year now, will be to impart strength to the legal battle and to ensure that the legal battle gives birth to an anti-corruption infrastructure befitting the nation and the need of the hour to slay the demon of corruption which has stood in the way of the nation moving forward towards its goal of taking its due place in the comity of nations as a modern, developed power which is not afraid of admitting and correcting its deficiencies, the most serious of which is corruption.
4. If the national will has to ultimately prevail, it is important that the power of the Parliament as symbolised by the elected representatives and of the civil society as symbolised by Anna and his followers and a myriad of other non-governmental forces, each as worthy of respect as Anna and his movement, emerge successful from these two battles.
5. The two battles will be fought not against each other, but unitedly against the common enemy of corruption. The moral and legal dimensions of the battle are equally important. Neither can afford to weaken the other. If the moral dimension is weakened, the legal dimension cannot expect to prevail effectively. If the legal dimension is weakened, the moral dimension cannot expect to emerge stronger.
6.The elected representatives of the country and its moral representatives owe it to the nation to ensure that each does not undermine the other in their false pride and ego. This is not the time for false pride and ego. This is the time for rising to the occasion and realising and admitting that healthy accommodation of each other’s point of view is the need of the hour if the nation has to win the battle against corruption ultimately.
7. The nation expects the two forces in New Delhi and Mumbai to reinforce each other through mutual accommodation and mutual goodwill and not try to vanquish each other.
8.Will they do so? If not, the demon of corruption may be the ultimate beneficiary.( 27-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
From today, the nation will be witnessing two non-violent battles against corruption----- the legal battle in the Parliament in New Delhi and the moral battle in Mumbai.
2. The objective of the legal battle will be to give legal shape to the anti-corruption infrastructure through the Lokpal Bill introduced by the Government for debate and approval with changes, if and where necessary, by the elected members of the Lok Sabha representing the will and the expectations of the voters of this country who chose to elect them in their wisdom in the elections held in 2009.
3. The objective of the moral battle, led by Anna Hazare for nearly a year now, will be to impart strength to the legal battle and to ensure that the legal battle gives birth to an anti-corruption infrastructure befitting the nation and the need of the hour to slay the demon of corruption which has stood in the way of the nation moving forward towards its goal of taking its due place in the comity of nations as a modern, developed power which is not afraid of admitting and correcting its deficiencies, the most serious of which is corruption.
4. If the national will has to ultimately prevail, it is important that the power of the Parliament as symbolised by the elected representatives and of the civil society as symbolised by Anna and his followers and a myriad of other non-governmental forces, each as worthy of respect as Anna and his movement, emerge successful from these two battles.
5. The two battles will be fought not against each other, but unitedly against the common enemy of corruption. The moral and legal dimensions of the battle are equally important. Neither can afford to weaken the other. If the moral dimension is weakened, the legal dimension cannot expect to prevail effectively. If the legal dimension is weakened, the moral dimension cannot expect to emerge stronger.
6.The elected representatives of the country and its moral representatives owe it to the nation to ensure that each does not undermine the other in their false pride and ego. This is not the time for false pride and ego. This is the time for rising to the occasion and realising and admitting that healthy accommodation of each other’s point of view is the need of the hour if the nation has to win the battle against corruption ultimately.
7. The nation expects the two forces in New Delhi and Mumbai to reinforce each other through mutual accommodation and mutual goodwill and not try to vanquish each other.
8.Will they do so? If not, the demon of corruption may be the ultimate beneficiary.( 27-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
HOW TO REVERSE THE POLITICISATION OF THE CBI ?
B.RAMAN
(To be read in continuation of my earlier article of August 28,2011, on the Anti-Corruption Crusade at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-anti-corruption-crusade.html )
In 1941, during the Second World War, the British set up an organisation called the Special Police Establishment (SPE) to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in the War & Supply Deptt. Even after the War, the need for a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by Central Government employees was felt. It was decided by the Government of India to continue the SPE and give it a legal cover under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which came into force in 1946. The CBI's powers to investigate cases of bribery and corruption are derived from this Act. This Act was amended by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
2. The Act of 1946 transferred the superintendence of the SPE to the Home Department ( now called the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India) and its functions were expanded to cover all departments of the Govt. of India. The SPE’s territorial jurisdiction was extended to all the Union Territories. It was also laid down that its jurisdiction can be extended also to the States with the consent of the State Government concerned. The DSPE acquired the name the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution dated 1.4.1963.
3. Initially, the CBI’s powers were confined to investigation of cases of bribery and corruption by employees of the Government of India. Subsequently, its powers were extended to cover employees of public sector units, including public sector banks, too.
4. From 1965 onwards, the CBI was also entrusted with the investigation of economic offences other than bribery and corruption such as serious cases of fraud and important conventional crimes such as murders, kidnapping, terrorist crimes, etc., when ordered to do so either by the Government of India either at the request of States or with their concurrence or by courts.
5.The SPE initially had two Wings called the General Offences Wing (GOW) and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The GOW dealt with cases of bribery and corruption while the EOW investigated other offences entrusted to the CBI.
6.In 1987, these two wings were re-named as the Anti-Corruption Division and the Special Crimes Division. Under its first two Directors--- D.P.Kohli and F.V.Arul—the CBI enjoyed a reputation as a politically neutral agency known for its professionalism. Before the advent of the CBI, the SPE enjoyed a similar reputation between 1947 and 1963.Neither Jawaharlal Nehru nor Lal Bahadur Shastri tried to influence the investigations of the SPE and the CBI. They let them function without political interference.
7. The politicisation of the CBI started under Indira Gandhi and all Prime Ministers from Indira Gandhi onwards tried to influence the investigation of corruption cases by the CBI either to cover up cases involving the ruling party or to implicate political opponents. Many instances of alleged attempts to implicate and harass political opponents were reported during the Emergency (1975-77) under Indira Gandhi. Under Rajiv Gandhi, there were alleged attempts to cover up the investigation of the Bofors case. There have been other instances involving the politicisation of the investigation process under other Prime Ministers too. No Prime Minister after Shastri had refrained from politicising the investigation process in some case or the other.
8. The politicisation of the CBI and its investigation process was made possible by the lack of resistance from successive CBI Directors to political interference. Some of the Directors sought to curry favour with their political masters by colluding with them either for covering up serious instances of corruption or for harassing political opponents. It was alleged that during the Emergency the CBI acted on the instructions of Sanjay Gandhi for harassing those opposed to the Emergency and Indira Gandhi.
9.Since independence, there have been two enquiries into the functioning of the anti-corruption architecture. The first was by the K.Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption in 1966-68 and the second was by the L.P.Singh Committee which was set up by the Morarji Desai Government (1977-79) to enquire into the misuse of the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency.
10. While the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee, which suggested, inter alia, the strengthening of the Vigilance architecture were implemented, those of the L.P.Singh Committee were ignored by Indira Gandhi when she returned to power in 1980.
11. Some of the important recommendations of the L.P.Singh Committee for ensuring the political neutrality of the CBI were:
(a). There should be a separate oversight committee set up by the Parliament to supervise the working of the CBI.
(b). The practice of having only an officer of the Indian Police Service as its head should be discontinued and it should have as its head the best person for the job from whichever walk of life. The committee reportedly felt that IPS officers, who developed close contacts with political leaders during their career, lend themselves to easy manipulation by the political class.
12. The National Police Commission, set up by the Morarji Desai Government under the former Cabinet Secretary, and Governor of West Bengal, Dharam Vira, recommended the formation of a National Security Commission entrusted, inter alia, with the task of supervising the functioning of the CBI. Its recommendations too were not implemented by Indira Gandhi and her successors as Prime Minister.
13. Thus the recommendations of the L.P.Singh Committee for a CBI Oversight Committee to be set up by the Parliament and of the National Police Commission for an independent National Security Commission to supervise the working of the CBI were ignored by successive Governments. So too the recommendation of the L.P.Singh Committee that the practice of appointing an IPS officer as the head of the CBI should be discontinued.
14. An investigation agency performs three kinds of functions---administrative, budgetary and investigative. In the US, the FBI comes under the joint control of the President and the Senate in respect of its administrative and budgetary functions. All appointments of the Director of the FBI have to be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds a detailed enquiry by its staff into the background of the candidate suggested by the President, including an enquiry into the financial background of the person under consideration for appointment as the FBI Director. Many of the Directors chosen by the President and the Senate Judiciary Committee came from the community of distinguished attorneys.
15. The FBI Director has a tenure of 10 years, which is not extendable. This reduces the possibility of the incumbent currying favour with the Executive or the Senate in order to get an extension. Even though the President’s power to remove an FBI Director for valid reasons before he completes his term are not subject to confirmation by the Senate, this power has not been exercised arbitrarily by any President after the Nixon Administration because the Presidents know that if they exercised this power arbitrarily, the Senate could block the appointment of the successor.
16. In India, the CBI Director has a tenure of two years which is extendable. This enabled the Prime Minister of the day to dangle the carrot of possible extension before an incumbent in order to make him carry out his wishes. There is no parliamentary Oversight Committee on the CBI. In the past, the Director of the CBI was chosen by the Prime Minister of the day from amongst IPS officers whom he or she thought would be pliable.
17. In 2003, it was laid down that the Director should be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of (i) the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, (ii) Vigilance Commissioners as Members, (iii) Home Secretary and (iv) Secretary Coordination and Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat. No incumbent can be removed during his tenure or no extension can be granted without the concurrence of this committee.
18. While the Central Vigilance Commissioner has thus been given a role in the selection and removal of the Director, who still has to come from the IPS, the Parliament has not been given a role so far. Under the changes proposed by the Government in the Lokpal Bill, the Leader of the Opposition and the Lokpal are to be given a role in the selection and removal of Director, CBI. While this would be an improvement from the earlier practice, this would not be totally satisfactory since we now have a multi-party and not a two-party system which is likely to continue for many years. It is, therefore, important to set up a Lok Sabha CBI Oversight Committee and give it carefully defined powers to confirm the appointment and removal of the Director and to go into the administrative and budgetary aspects of the functioning of the CBI.
19.So far as the investigation process is concerned, all over the world the investigation agency is accountable to the law of the land and the judiciary. Neither the Executive nor the legislature is supposed to have a role in this matter. De jure, this is so even in India. But, de facto, the Executive interferes in the process of investigation and tries to politically influence it. If the CBI Director has no qualms about letting the investigation process be influenced by the political leadership, how to prevent it?
20. One possible way of doing so is to give the Lokpal powers of superintendence over the investigation process of the CBI or by separating the investigation and prosecution wing of the CBI in corruption cases and place it under the control of the Lokpal. If this is done, the residual CBI will become a federal law enforcement agency with powers of investigation and prosecution in important cases other than those involving bribery and corruption. The Lokpal would have no control over this residual law enforcement agency which should be placed under the shared control of the Executive and the Lok Sabha.
21. The new agency for the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases should function under the superintendence of Lokpal. How to prevent the Lokpal from misusing his or her powers to distort the investigation and prosecution process? A multi-member Lokpal, like the multi-member Election Commission, could provide the necessary corrective.
22. Thus, the new architecture could consist of the following:
(a). A multi-member Lokpal with a constitutional status with the procedure for appointment and removal through impeachment carefully laid down.
(b). The bifurcation of the CBI in order to create a new agency for the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases to work under the superintendence of the Lokpal.
( c ). The conversion of the residual CBI after the bifurcation into a federal law enforcement agency to be accountable jointly to the Executive and the Lok Sabha. This residual CBI could be headed by an IPS officer (26-12-11 )
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
(To be read in continuation of my earlier article of August 28,2011, on the Anti-Corruption Crusade at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-anti-corruption-crusade.html )
In 1941, during the Second World War, the British set up an organisation called the Special Police Establishment (SPE) to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in the War & Supply Deptt. Even after the War, the need for a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by Central Government employees was felt. It was decided by the Government of India to continue the SPE and give it a legal cover under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which came into force in 1946. The CBI's powers to investigate cases of bribery and corruption are derived from this Act. This Act was amended by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
2. The Act of 1946 transferred the superintendence of the SPE to the Home Department ( now called the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India) and its functions were expanded to cover all departments of the Govt. of India. The SPE’s territorial jurisdiction was extended to all the Union Territories. It was also laid down that its jurisdiction can be extended also to the States with the consent of the State Government concerned. The DSPE acquired the name the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution dated 1.4.1963.
3. Initially, the CBI’s powers were confined to investigation of cases of bribery and corruption by employees of the Government of India. Subsequently, its powers were extended to cover employees of public sector units, including public sector banks, too.
4. From 1965 onwards, the CBI was also entrusted with the investigation of economic offences other than bribery and corruption such as serious cases of fraud and important conventional crimes such as murders, kidnapping, terrorist crimes, etc., when ordered to do so either by the Government of India either at the request of States or with their concurrence or by courts.
5.The SPE initially had two Wings called the General Offences Wing (GOW) and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The GOW dealt with cases of bribery and corruption while the EOW investigated other offences entrusted to the CBI.
6.In 1987, these two wings were re-named as the Anti-Corruption Division and the Special Crimes Division. Under its first two Directors--- D.P.Kohli and F.V.Arul—the CBI enjoyed a reputation as a politically neutral agency known for its professionalism. Before the advent of the CBI, the SPE enjoyed a similar reputation between 1947 and 1963.Neither Jawaharlal Nehru nor Lal Bahadur Shastri tried to influence the investigations of the SPE and the CBI. They let them function without political interference.
7. The politicisation of the CBI started under Indira Gandhi and all Prime Ministers from Indira Gandhi onwards tried to influence the investigation of corruption cases by the CBI either to cover up cases involving the ruling party or to implicate political opponents. Many instances of alleged attempts to implicate and harass political opponents were reported during the Emergency (1975-77) under Indira Gandhi. Under Rajiv Gandhi, there were alleged attempts to cover up the investigation of the Bofors case. There have been other instances involving the politicisation of the investigation process under other Prime Ministers too. No Prime Minister after Shastri had refrained from politicising the investigation process in some case or the other.
8. The politicisation of the CBI and its investigation process was made possible by the lack of resistance from successive CBI Directors to political interference. Some of the Directors sought to curry favour with their political masters by colluding with them either for covering up serious instances of corruption or for harassing political opponents. It was alleged that during the Emergency the CBI acted on the instructions of Sanjay Gandhi for harassing those opposed to the Emergency and Indira Gandhi.
9.Since independence, there have been two enquiries into the functioning of the anti-corruption architecture. The first was by the K.Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption in 1966-68 and the second was by the L.P.Singh Committee which was set up by the Morarji Desai Government (1977-79) to enquire into the misuse of the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency.
10. While the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee, which suggested, inter alia, the strengthening of the Vigilance architecture were implemented, those of the L.P.Singh Committee were ignored by Indira Gandhi when she returned to power in 1980.
11. Some of the important recommendations of the L.P.Singh Committee for ensuring the political neutrality of the CBI were:
(a). There should be a separate oversight committee set up by the Parliament to supervise the working of the CBI.
(b). The practice of having only an officer of the Indian Police Service as its head should be discontinued and it should have as its head the best person for the job from whichever walk of life. The committee reportedly felt that IPS officers, who developed close contacts with political leaders during their career, lend themselves to easy manipulation by the political class.
12. The National Police Commission, set up by the Morarji Desai Government under the former Cabinet Secretary, and Governor of West Bengal, Dharam Vira, recommended the formation of a National Security Commission entrusted, inter alia, with the task of supervising the functioning of the CBI. Its recommendations too were not implemented by Indira Gandhi and her successors as Prime Minister.
13. Thus the recommendations of the L.P.Singh Committee for a CBI Oversight Committee to be set up by the Parliament and of the National Police Commission for an independent National Security Commission to supervise the working of the CBI were ignored by successive Governments. So too the recommendation of the L.P.Singh Committee that the practice of appointing an IPS officer as the head of the CBI should be discontinued.
14. An investigation agency performs three kinds of functions---administrative, budgetary and investigative. In the US, the FBI comes under the joint control of the President and the Senate in respect of its administrative and budgetary functions. All appointments of the Director of the FBI have to be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds a detailed enquiry by its staff into the background of the candidate suggested by the President, including an enquiry into the financial background of the person under consideration for appointment as the FBI Director. Many of the Directors chosen by the President and the Senate Judiciary Committee came from the community of distinguished attorneys.
15. The FBI Director has a tenure of 10 years, which is not extendable. This reduces the possibility of the incumbent currying favour with the Executive or the Senate in order to get an extension. Even though the President’s power to remove an FBI Director for valid reasons before he completes his term are not subject to confirmation by the Senate, this power has not been exercised arbitrarily by any President after the Nixon Administration because the Presidents know that if they exercised this power arbitrarily, the Senate could block the appointment of the successor.
16. In India, the CBI Director has a tenure of two years which is extendable. This enabled the Prime Minister of the day to dangle the carrot of possible extension before an incumbent in order to make him carry out his wishes. There is no parliamentary Oversight Committee on the CBI. In the past, the Director of the CBI was chosen by the Prime Minister of the day from amongst IPS officers whom he or she thought would be pliable.
17. In 2003, it was laid down that the Director should be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of (i) the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, (ii) Vigilance Commissioners as Members, (iii) Home Secretary and (iv) Secretary Coordination and Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat. No incumbent can be removed during his tenure or no extension can be granted without the concurrence of this committee.
18. While the Central Vigilance Commissioner has thus been given a role in the selection and removal of the Director, who still has to come from the IPS, the Parliament has not been given a role so far. Under the changes proposed by the Government in the Lokpal Bill, the Leader of the Opposition and the Lokpal are to be given a role in the selection and removal of Director, CBI. While this would be an improvement from the earlier practice, this would not be totally satisfactory since we now have a multi-party and not a two-party system which is likely to continue for many years. It is, therefore, important to set up a Lok Sabha CBI Oversight Committee and give it carefully defined powers to confirm the appointment and removal of the Director and to go into the administrative and budgetary aspects of the functioning of the CBI.
19.So far as the investigation process is concerned, all over the world the investigation agency is accountable to the law of the land and the judiciary. Neither the Executive nor the legislature is supposed to have a role in this matter. De jure, this is so even in India. But, de facto, the Executive interferes in the process of investigation and tries to politically influence it. If the CBI Director has no qualms about letting the investigation process be influenced by the political leadership, how to prevent it?
20. One possible way of doing so is to give the Lokpal powers of superintendence over the investigation process of the CBI or by separating the investigation and prosecution wing of the CBI in corruption cases and place it under the control of the Lokpal. If this is done, the residual CBI will become a federal law enforcement agency with powers of investigation and prosecution in important cases other than those involving bribery and corruption. The Lokpal would have no control over this residual law enforcement agency which should be placed under the shared control of the Executive and the Lok Sabha.
21. The new agency for the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases should function under the superintendence of Lokpal. How to prevent the Lokpal from misusing his or her powers to distort the investigation and prosecution process? A multi-member Lokpal, like the multi-member Election Commission, could provide the necessary corrective.
22. Thus, the new architecture could consist of the following:
(a). A multi-member Lokpal with a constitutional status with the procedure for appointment and removal through impeachment carefully laid down.
(b). The bifurcation of the CBI in order to create a new agency for the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases to work under the superintendence of the Lokpal.
( c ). The conversion of the residual CBI after the bifurcation into a federal law enforcement agency to be accountable jointly to the Executive and the Lok Sabha. This residual CBI could be headed by an IPS officer (26-12-11 )
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Sunday, December 25, 2011
WINDS OF RADICAL ISLAM REACH MALDIVES
B.RAMAN
Certain recent events in the Maldives attributed to Islamic hardliners and their opportunistic political supporters need the attention of the Indian authorities. These events indicate support from small sections of the population for an Islamic campaign in favour of an ideology that seems to have been inspired by that of the Taliban of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
2.The number of people supporting this ideological campaign is still small, but the fact that these forces, however small, have established a base for their activities in a country known for its tolerant society should be a matter of concern.
3.The Maldivian authorities have till now succeeded in keeping these forces under control by rallying the tolerant sections of the population, but there is a danger of the anger over the economic difficulties faced by the population being exploited by Islamic hardliners for a religious radicalisation of the population.
4. A wake-up call was sounded during the SAARC summit in November when these elements vandalised and allegedly stole two monuments gifted to the Maldives by President Mahinda Rajapakse of Sri Lanka and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani of Pakistan. They objected to these monuments as anti-Islamic on the ground that they contained idols.
5. It was reported that the monument gifted by Sri Lanka contained a statue of a lion, the national symbol of Sri Lanka, and that the one gifted by Pakistan had a depiction of the Buddha. Following protests by the Islamic hardliners, Pakistan reportedly agreed to re-design the monument in order to remove the depiction of the Buddha, but despite this attempts were allegedly made to set it on fire and it was stolen.
6. The religious Adhaalath Party and the party of former President of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), proclaimed those responsible for vandalising the monument to be “national heroes”.
7. The Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla told the local media that the monument gifted by Pakistan “should not be kept on Maldivian soil for a single day” and “should be removed immediately.” He added: “We believe it conflicts with the constitution of the Maldives, the Religious Unity Act of 1994 and the regulations under the Act because it depicted objects of worship that denied the oneness of God.”
8. A Member of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Ahmed ‘Marz’ Saleem, filed a case with the police against the Maldives Customs Department for allowing ’idols’ to be imported to the Maldives for the SAARC Summit. He accused the Government of attempting “to erase Islam from the country.” He alleged that the Government had dissolved the Quran Department, the Arabiyya School and separate mosques for women.
9. These incidents were followed by two demonstrations on December 23,2011, one in support of the Government and against the Islamic hardliners and the other organised by the Islamic hardliners. The demonstration by the Islamic hardliners reportedly attracted about 5000 people whereas many more responded to the demonstration in support of the Government.
10. The demonstration in support of Islam was spearheaded by a coalition of six parties and some non-Governmental organisations. The demonstrators were wearing T-Shirts reading “Maldivians in defense of Islam”. They carried placards and banners reading as follows: “We stand united for Islam and the nation”, “No idols in this holy land”, “No to the Zionist Murderers”, “No to El Al Airlines” and “We stand for peace” . It has been alleged that to promote tourism the Government has allowed Israel’s El Al Airlines to operate a service to the Maldives.
11. The speakers at a meeting organised by the hardliners denied that they are supporting jihadi terrorism. Till now the indications are that the main aim of this coalition is to use the slogan of danger to Islam as a weapon to win the Presidential elections due in 2013. It should be a matter of concern if their ill-advised exploitation of religious issues to discredit President Nasheed plays into the hands of fundamentalist elements alien to the tolerant culture of the Maldives and creates a mini epi-centre of Islamic fundamentalism to the south of India. ( 25-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Certain recent events in the Maldives attributed to Islamic hardliners and their opportunistic political supporters need the attention of the Indian authorities. These events indicate support from small sections of the population for an Islamic campaign in favour of an ideology that seems to have been inspired by that of the Taliban of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
2.The number of people supporting this ideological campaign is still small, but the fact that these forces, however small, have established a base for their activities in a country known for its tolerant society should be a matter of concern.
3.The Maldivian authorities have till now succeeded in keeping these forces under control by rallying the tolerant sections of the population, but there is a danger of the anger over the economic difficulties faced by the population being exploited by Islamic hardliners for a religious radicalisation of the population.
4. A wake-up call was sounded during the SAARC summit in November when these elements vandalised and allegedly stole two monuments gifted to the Maldives by President Mahinda Rajapakse of Sri Lanka and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani of Pakistan. They objected to these monuments as anti-Islamic on the ground that they contained idols.
5. It was reported that the monument gifted by Sri Lanka contained a statue of a lion, the national symbol of Sri Lanka, and that the one gifted by Pakistan had a depiction of the Buddha. Following protests by the Islamic hardliners, Pakistan reportedly agreed to re-design the monument in order to remove the depiction of the Buddha, but despite this attempts were allegedly made to set it on fire and it was stolen.
6. The religious Adhaalath Party and the party of former President of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), proclaimed those responsible for vandalising the monument to be “national heroes”.
7. The Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla told the local media that the monument gifted by Pakistan “should not be kept on Maldivian soil for a single day” and “should be removed immediately.” He added: “We believe it conflicts with the constitution of the Maldives, the Religious Unity Act of 1994 and the regulations under the Act because it depicted objects of worship that denied the oneness of God.”
8. A Member of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Ahmed ‘Marz’ Saleem, filed a case with the police against the Maldives Customs Department for allowing ’idols’ to be imported to the Maldives for the SAARC Summit. He accused the Government of attempting “to erase Islam from the country.” He alleged that the Government had dissolved the Quran Department, the Arabiyya School and separate mosques for women.
9. These incidents were followed by two demonstrations on December 23,2011, one in support of the Government and against the Islamic hardliners and the other organised by the Islamic hardliners. The demonstration by the Islamic hardliners reportedly attracted about 5000 people whereas many more responded to the demonstration in support of the Government.
10. The demonstration in support of Islam was spearheaded by a coalition of six parties and some non-Governmental organisations. The demonstrators were wearing T-Shirts reading “Maldivians in defense of Islam”. They carried placards and banners reading as follows: “We stand united for Islam and the nation”, “No idols in this holy land”, “No to the Zionist Murderers”, “No to El Al Airlines” and “We stand for peace” . It has been alleged that to promote tourism the Government has allowed Israel’s El Al Airlines to operate a service to the Maldives.
11. The speakers at a meeting organised by the hardliners denied that they are supporting jihadi terrorism. Till now the indications are that the main aim of this coalition is to use the slogan of danger to Islam as a weapon to win the Presidential elections due in 2013. It should be a matter of concern if their ill-advised exploitation of religious issues to discredit President Nasheed plays into the hands of fundamentalist elements alien to the tolerant culture of the Maldives and creates a mini epi-centre of Islamic fundamentalism to the south of India. ( 25-12-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)