My ‘Indianness,’ my own making

Given India’s multicultural diversity, how can one define Indianness? Could it be defined as patriotism and devotion towards one country, or a person’s cultural identity in their society?

I believe that our “Indianness” is most certainly imposed upon us to an extent. Indians are expected to dislike Pakistan and its people. If a person so much as attempts to voice their opinion in favor of Pakistan’s claim that Kashmir belongs to them, he or she is met with strong opposition.

Taking into consideration an issue, or opinion on a subject that has countrywide support, people are expected to go along with popular public opinion. This was clear when Anna Hazare’s crusade against corruption was at its heights, and regardless of what their opinions on the subject were, there weren’t many who were willing to voice their views against his “my way, or the highway” approach to getting what he wanted done.

Also, seldom are girls seen clad in a pair of jeans and short t-shirts when in a temple, mosque or other places of worship. They are expected to dress in “traditional” Indian clothes when in such places.  Even in the 21^st century, women do not have the freedom to wear what they want to.

I was born into a Bengali family, but by nature, I’m as non-Bengali as one can be. My family moved to Chennai in 1997, and having lived there for nine years, I was brought up in an environment that is poles apart from one that we may find in Bengal.

There have been innumerable occasions where people have tried to force me into behaving more like what they believe a Bengali should behave like. They have tried their hardest to force me to respond in Bengali, which, in spite of being my mother tongue, is a language I’m not comfortable conversing in. I detest Bengali food; yet my family never ceases to force it on me. I consider Durga Pooja, the main festival of Bengalis, an extremely noisy celebration—These are certain things that often upset other Bengalis who expect me to speak a certain way or even think a certain way.

M.F. Hussain was exiled for depicting Hindu goddesses in the nude but similar such portrayals can be seen in the famous Khajuraho temples; Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” was banned in the country for hurting Muslim sentiments, but Taslima Nasrin was welcomed even though she was accused of much the same; political parties which are known for pushing their religious beliefs, the Bharatiya Janata Party for instance, which is widely popular for its “Hindutva” (Hinduism), are voted for in a country that claims to be secular—These are just a few instances among countless others which reveal the hypocrisy present among Indians. It makes me wonder if their frequently violent reactions are genuine, or do they merely go along with “accepted” outlooks?

Even though such conformist attitudes continue to exist in India, it all comes down to whether a person is willing to give into this kind of pressure in their everyday lives. An individual’s “Indianness” or Indian identity is something that should come from within, and not one that is forced upon them.  Conducting yourself a certain way because you feel obliged to do so does not make that your own identity. A person may believe that a lot can be accomplished by setting up a farce of an identity, but ultimately, this does nothing but creates another clone of what societies believe is an ideal Indian.

I most certainly will never understand why people assume that it is their duty to attempt to “mend” others’ mannerisms and way of thinking. I’m headstrong by nature (if I may say so myself), and quite stubborn as well, and cannot be easily pressurized into doing anything against my will. With absolutely no patience for people who are oblivious to their own bigotry, I could really care less about what others may have to say about me, as my identity, is of my own making.

Ever loving, never loved

Amidst the vast population of the country are an enormous number of ill-treated, unhealthy and injured street animals, with dogs constituting the majority of them. These street dogs face a great deal of cruelty in the hands of Indians. They are kicked, stoned, abused, run over and often tortured among other forms of brutality.

The ardent dog-lover that I am, loyal, friendly, loving, compassionate, endearing and plain adorable are the first thoughts that cross my mind when I think of dogs. Domestic or stray, they are all the same to me. However, given the way they are treated in the country, they clearly are not as loved as they deserve to be.

These animals face abuse in the hands of children and adults as well. Seen a lot with the uneducated population, we often find that there are those who gain some kind of sick, twisted pleasure by afflicting torture on these animals. There are better ways to achieve such feelings with having to resort to such barbaric means. One can only wonder how such sadism can make anyone feel good about themselves.

Civic bodies no different

Such abuse occurs at the hands of not just the general not-so-animal-friendly public, but from civic bodies as well. We frequently hear news of street dogs being neutered without being given sedatives or anesthetics. These reports are often heart wrenching stories of neutered dogs being left in a bloody mess after they are done being operated on. Such civic bodies are expected to watch over the welfare of these animals but instead, special institutions need to be set up to keep a check on their cold-blooded acts.

Founder of Voice of Stray Dogs and animal rights activist Rakesh Shukla believes that even in developed cities like Bangalore, street dogs are harmed and ill-treated, with civic bodies too, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in this case, indulging in such misdeeds. He believes that the BBMP’s Animal Husbandry Department is especially dedicated to illegal relocation of street dogs.

According to their Animal Birth Control program, which was adopted to maintain the population of street dogs in the city at a manageable number, they need to capture the dogs, neuter them, and once they are operated on, drop them back in the same locality that they were taken from. However, these dogs are more often than not dropped off at an entirely different locality. Given their territorial nature, these dogs fight amongst themselves, and in the process, not only do they injure themselves, but are also termed a nuisance by residents as a result of the entire ruckus they create.

People’s rush, their doom

Being stoned and kicked out of the way are common everyday occurrences in the lives of street dogs. But these are in close competition with them being run over and either getting injured, or losing their lives altogether. These animals go unnoticed and are often ignored by people on the roads who are always in a hurry to get to places. Their negligible regard for their lives is evident with their refusal to slow down even a wee bit.

Does it cause people such a great deal of pain to simply slow down a tad just so these animals can move away from their approaching vehicle? The degree to which people can extend their heartlessness is purely mind boggling.

There is no law against treating street dogs with compassion, nor is there one against feeding them or giving them a place to stay. No matter how many times they are pelted at with stones or harmed in any way, the nature of dogs is such that they would go wagging their tails at the very same people if they are approached with kindness. It pains me to watch them run away at the slightest twitch of a limb from even those who truly care about them, as cruelty is all that they have faced their entire lives.

Their sad plight is being dealt with by several animal rights organizations and NGOs taking up their cause and looking out of their welfare as well. There are institutions which provide them with homes and also battle for their rights in cases of intolerable cruelty.

There isn’t much that I care for as much as I do for these creatures. By no means can I even begin to comprehend how one can bring themselves to being nasty to these dogs. An urgent change in attitude towards them is needed. People need to reach out to their humanity and bring an end to such brutality towards these hapless animals.

Where’s the ‘garden’ in the Garden City?

In April 2008, an anticorruption NGO called on the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to stop hacking down trees in the city under the pretext of development. But nearly four years later, there has been no visible change in the BBMP’s incessant destruction of the city’s greenery, which it seems, is at least partly driven by greed.

In an open letter to then BBMP Commissioner S. Subramanya, the chairman of Transparency International India (TII), M.F. Saldanha, a former Mumbai High Court justice, pointed out that the city’s greenery had been reduced from 15 percent in 2000 to 8 percent in 2008 with the felling of over 19,000 trees. With the large number of road-widening projects that have begun since then, it is obvious that that figure has shrunk considerably.

Timber from each tree that is cut down is worth between Rs. 300,000 and Rs. 500,000, but contractors purchase them for a measly Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000. TII believes that BBMP officials sell the timber and pocket the huge profits, which motivates them to carry on their merciless destruction of the city’s trees.

Though much of this relentless tree-felling ostensibly has been done to widen roads to improve the flow of traffic, little or no difference has been made in that regard, and the city has lost thousands of trees in the process.

The BBMP fails to realize the importance of striking a balance between what it believes is “development” and the ecological requirements of the city. Sacred trees like the peepal, economically  significant trees like sandal, teak and pongamia as well as exotic ones with large canopies that provide shade and help reduce pollution have been chopped down for road-widening projects.

The Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act of 1976 made it mandatory for both local people and civic bodies to get permission from the Karnataka Forest Department before felling trees. But the passage of this act has done little to prevent the large-scale felling of trees. The Forest Department seems to have turned a blind eye toward the BBMP’s war on the city’s trees.

The city is fast turning into a concrete jungle, and the effects of this are unpleasantly evident in the climatic change that Bangalore is experiencing. Commuters need to bear the scorching summer heat without the shade that trees once provided.

In November 2011, in a case that the BBMP won, nearly 5,000 residents in Malleshwaram and Yeshwanthpur protested against the cutting of the last two of the 19 trees on either side of Sankey Tank Road. In this proposed project to widen the traffic corridor to Yeshwanthpur, the BBMP was asked to plant saplings to compensate for the trees that will be lost in the process. But there reportedly are no records of where the saplings that the Forest Department is adamant it gave to the BBMP have been planted.

Road-widening projects have faced strong opposition from the citizens of Bangalore, who have protested loudly against such unthinking destruction of trees across the city.

In spite of promises to restore the city’s greenery, with the current state of affairs and the BBMP’s indifference toward the issue, it seems certain that urban deforestation will continue apace.

Originally published in The SoftCopy

The end of al-Qaida, or just another beginning?

On May 2nd, 2011, al-Qaida lost its only commander for 22 years, Osama bin Laden. Though his death had been celebrated by people world over, it was a day of great loss for al-Qaida itself.

The assassination of bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, has triggered several questions regarding the safety of the world which feared retaliation by loyal and enraged members of al-Qaida. The most pressing matter of them all has been: With the death of its commander-in-chief, is it the end of the al-Qaida?

Even though it was believed that bin Laden’s authority over the activities of the terrorist group was gradually diminishing the Obama administration continued with its efforts to end his “reign” and his ability to attract violent jihadists. These efforts were based on the belief that al-Qaida relied, to a great extent, on the guidance of their former leader.

Juan Zarate, a top counterterrorism official under former American president George W. Bush said: “Clearly, this doesn’t end the threat from al-Qaida and its affiliates. But it deprives it of its core leader and ideological cohesion that bin Laden maintains.”

Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy was declared the new leader of the terrorist organization though according to a report in the New York Times, the delay in this announcement, which was made known in June, 2011, “led some counterterrorism analysts to see signs of a power struggle at the top of al-Qaida.”

Other reports in the New York Times state that in spite of being was second in command to bin Laden and also the organizational brains of the Islamist group, al-Zawahri has “little of the iconic stature of bin Laden.” They also say that he is not an uninspiring model for young militants and describe his mannerisms as “abrasive” and his speeches, “pedantic.”

Such reports lead us to believe that al-Qaida may not have a very bright future without a leader strong enough to guide them along.

As with every story, this too has its own opposing side. In the largely ungoverned terrains of Pakistan’s tribal borders, the al-Qaida set up terrorist training camps and other such groups where it continued to train militants in the “art” of explosives and automatic weapons. An instance of this would be the young Moroccan man, named Abdeladim K. by The Telegraph, who, along with two other supporters, was accused of “taking his orders from a higher official in the terror network based on the Afghan-Pakistan border.”


The decline of al-Qaida’s influence can also be seen in the Arab Spring, which indicates a change in their attitude towards democracy and freedom. These revolutions seen in the Middle East have shown the world that the “change” that the al-Qaida believe in can be achieved peacefully (with the exception of Libya). Though the group had tried to gain from the commitment that could be seen in the protests, their efforts were largely ignored as they believed that violence and destruction were unnecessary means to achieve their ends.

In another New York Times article, Juan Zarate, commenting on al-Qaida and the Arab Spring, said: “al-Qaida has been struggling on the sidelines of the Arab revolution. Its popularity in Arab and Muslim countries has been declining and there are internal divisions about the direction of the movement.

In the same report, the same outlook was echoed by a senior Obama administration official: “Although al-Qaida may not fragment immediately, the loss of Bin Laden puts the group on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse.”

Even though the most plausible conclusion would be to believe that with Osama bin Laden’s death, it is indeed the end of the road for al-Qaida, but the world still needs to be on alert in case al-Qaida supporters feel the need to avenge bin Laden’s death and make themselves and their continuing movement known.

India and its artistic intolerance

“ The best way to avoid getting offended is to shut a book… The worst thing is that artists are soft targets… We don’t have armies protecting us.” – Salman Rushdie

In yet another occasion of artistic intolerance in India, organizers of the Jaipur Literature Festival were “persuaded” by the Rajasthan state government to call off Salman Rushdie’s visit to the event.

The author had been scheduled to speak on the opening day of the event, but all plans had abruptly changed when intelligence sources had received information about paid assassins en route to Jaipur to kill him. Rushdie withdrew from the festival after Muslim organizations threatened his life if he did indeed make an appearance.

In 1988, Salman Rushdie ignited a furor among Muslims world over for the “blasphemous” verses in his his book “The Satanic Verses.” Following this, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein, issued a fatwa calling for his death which was backed by the Iranian government till 1998.

It has been two decades since Rushdie had to go underground for the controversy his book created, but Muslims continue to harbor ill feelings towards him. This is made evident with them opposing his participation in the Jaipur Literature Festival.

Many deem it a disgrace that the Indian government failed to provide Rushdie with protection when rumor was first heard. This leads us to believe that there could be possible political motivations behind keeping him away from the festival.

Critics claim that in the wake of the upcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh next month, no political party has stepped forward to curb the Muslim opposition in the fear of losing out on their votes.

“That Rushdie might need protection in India reflects poorly - not on him, but on India," writes Soutik Biswas, Delhi correspondent for the BBC.

Extending an invitation to Rushdie, the artist activist group, Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust, believes that it was the state’s “cowardly unwillingness” to stand up against communal forces.

After the fatwa was issued against Rushdie, many Islamic authors had been targeted for their works: Farag Foda for speaking out against censorship in Egypt, Taslima Nasrin for her book Lajja, Naguib Mahfouz for the controversy surrounding his novel Children of Gebelawi, etc.

A similar such case of narrow-mindedness was also seen in India when the late artist M. F. Husain was literally driven out of India in 2006 by Hindu dogmatists. They sabotaged his artwork and also attacked his home in Mumbai for painting Hindu deities in the nude.

Such intolerance towards artistic expression raises several questions concerning literary freedom in India. Works of fiction too are not free from opposition.

With reports pouring in about officials in Rajasthan objecting to what was decided would be a video address by Rushdie, the nation’s image of a progressive democracy has once again been tainted.

It seems as though the more India progresses economically, the more intolerant it becomes towards art. The Jaipur Literature Festival is one that the country should be proud to host, but instead, as with everything else, it has been turned into a political soup. 

Can the LTTE re-emerge in Sri Lanka?

Founded in May 1976 by Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was considered a separatist militant organization. It was recognized as a terrorist organization by many countries for its horrifying acts of violence.

With a strong foothold in the Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka, LTTE’s primary demand was a separate state for the Tamils of Sri Lanka. To achieve its purpose, it committed severe atrocities, which included massacring hundreds of civilians, and waged a civil war against the Sri Lankan army from 1983 till 2009. With the demise of its leader Prabhakaran in 2009, LTTE finally admitted defeat and handed the regions that it had control over to the Sri Lankan government.

As the country finally breathed a sigh of relief after its fall and is now moving ahead with attempts to recover from the wounds left behind by the LTTE-inspired struggles, a major question looms over the permanency of this defeat. Having held a position of control in the country for over three decades, one could ponder over the possibility of such a strong organization resurfacing in the region once again. This could have numerous arguments.

N. Manoharan writes in the Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies that the idea of LTTE rising again is unrealistic, seeing that its top leaders as well as most of its troops have been “wiped out.” He is skeptical about the chances LTTE might have of advancing its goals forward without a strong leadership.

Manoharan also says that there are small groups of surviving LTTE soldiers, scattered across the jungles of Sri Lanka, who may want to “rekindle their armed struggle” using guns buried in these jungles. Setting up a headquarters at an undisclosed location as well as forming an executive committee are a few steps, he believes, has been taken by them to “vigorously” carry the cause of their struggle forward.

Moreover , with the Tamils in the region tired of what probably feels like a never-ending conflict in their country, the possibility of them lending their support to LTTE seems unlikely. The initial support that they did receive was, for the most part, out of fear of LTTE’s military machinery. Instead of reviving violence in their regions, the Tamils of the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka would rather revive themselves economically and socially.

Besides, there have been improvements in the relationship between the Tamils and the armed forces as well as the establishment of a strong and firm security in these areas of the country, opines D.B.S. Jeyaraj. Also, after decades of armed conflicts in their country, the Sri Lankan people are opposed to the “resumption of violence” in any form which further lessens LTTE’s chances of resurgence in these regions.

There have been debates among the Sri Lankan Diaspora over the final demand of the LTTE and the means used to achieve it. They have conflicting views over this core issue and reaching an agreement over it is a major necessity if LTTE wishes to re-emerge again.

Naveen Kumar, an M. Phil student at JNU, believes that the LTTE lost its power in the first place as factors which once enabled it to hold its power gradually disappeared. Post 9/11, the international community launched an all-out “War on Terror” which helps keep an eye out for any hints of LTTE making an appearance again.

We can conclude by saying that there will always be a possibility of fragmented LTTE militants attempting to resurrect its organization. But with no strong leaders, war-opposed Tamils who wish for no more civilian casualties and also, a central military which now seems more lethal, it appears improbable that the LTTE could gain power in the country once again.

Combating corruption: an insurmountable challenge

Corruption can be described as the misuse of power entrusted to an individual for their own personal gain. This attribute can be seen in abundance in its various forms in the Indian government; be it bribery, fraud, theft or money laundering.

With the number of scams that became public in 2011, leading to the year being described as one of scams, Indians have finally had enough and are now speaking up against dishonest officials within the government and their malpractices.

The 2G spectrum scam, misappropriation of funds meant for the commonwealth games, the various land and mining scams as well as the cash-for-votes scam have all together been an eye-opener for the citizens of India who now see the need for greater transparency in the functioning of their government.

People’s greed and desire for more money than they would need in one lifetime leads them to unethical means.

It is shameful that a country that claims to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world has the largest number of people living below poverty line. This is a direct result of the billions of assets—in the form of money, property, food grains, etc.—meant for their uplift, being illegally pocketed by those whose want for more seem endless.

What our country needs is greater transparency. A strong public forum to level out peoples’ grievances in the form of a Lokpal or a similar such body is the foremost requirement.

 Also, excessively complicated rules and regulations laid down by the country are too complex for the simple Indian mind. Undemanding and straightforward acts and laws in layman’s terms must be specified if they are expected to be followed by the common man.

Public involvement

The large number of corrupt practices seen in the country today is not restricted to politicians alone. Its effects have trickled down to the common people who have also been dragged into the web of this dishonest system.

In the existing framework of the country, corruption and bribery cannot be tackled by the government alone. It is the duty of every citizen to do their bit. All they have to do is say “no” to the temptation of being hauled into the snare of employing such practices as an easier means to their end. They must be motivated to strive towards honesty and a sense of social responsibility must be implanted in their minds.

Without the involvement of the citizens themselves, the country cannot expect any change in this fight against corruption or at the least, find it extremely challenging.

The true face of democracy?

In operation, the idea of democracy in India has been disappointing. Democracy, with its “for the people, by the people and of the people,” description, has been disappointing in India, with people across the country distressed by the ineffectiveness and incompetence of institutions like the police, courts and the administrative machinery.

The “protectors” of our basic human rights, as well as our constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, misuse their power to suit their individual interests. In carrying out their duties, they often forget an individual’s right to live freely and fairly, and also their right to constitutional remedies, thereby violating their human rights.

There have been numerous instances where Indians have been denied their fundamental rights, a classic example of which would be when the Emergency was declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975. Police were given unwarranted power and the press was gagged, with its right to freedom of speech and expression taken away. This period changed the entire perception of democracy in the minds of people.


Severe laws like the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) have given such institutions unimpeded power which have resulted in repeated acts of human rights violations.

In 1958, then President of India Rajendra Prasad gave his assent to the notorious Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act(AFSPA). This act deemed the states of North-East India “disturbed areas,” and vested the armed forces with powers to destroy structures on suspicion, enter and search premises and also arrest persons without warrant, detain and interrogate them, and use force even to the extent of causing death on mere suspicion. Moreover, no legal action can be taken up against these forces without prior sanction from the Union government.

A democracy is one in which the judiciary is the supreme power, but this law negates the entire idea by allowing the armed forces to be their own judge. The provisions of this act establish the executive’s lack of faith in the judiciary, and mar its power.

Initially sanctioned to combat terrorism, actions in accordance with this act now compromise on human life and dignity. If law enforcement forces resort to such violation of human rights, to fight which had been the central reason for its enactment, it would leave no difference between them and the terrorists.

The extensive misuse of the act calls for something more humane. For the repeal of this law, Irom Sharmilla has been on an 11-year-long hunger strike in the state of Manipur for which she was detained and force-fed. Though she has gained recognition and awards for her sacrifice and determination, it is the likes of Anna Hazare who receive utmost media attention. In spite of such atrocities being committed in the North-East, the country remains oblivious to these undemocratic practices.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, was enacted at a time when the economic capital of India saw an outbreak of organized crime and became the centre of criminal activities like the murder of business tycoons, extortion and abduction. Although it was then believed that the act provided sufficient provisions to prevent its misuse, they clearly are not enough any longer. The MCOCA is now misused by the police for their own personal gain. False cases are registered and the pleas of those accused are turned a deaf ear to.

When we think about the police, we think about security and maintenance of law and order in our societies. A force which once served as a source of moral strength has now deteriorated in standard and quality of work. Today, corruption plagues the police administration. Under political pressure or following their own judgments, policemen use their positions of power to benefit their own selves. They take a considerable amount of time in disposing cases, though here, the slow pace of the judiciary shares the blame as well. Such is the state of the police administration in our democracy that we rarely see cases being cleared without money exchanging hands.

Forces such as the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), established under the Central Reserve Police Force Act of 1949, and the Border Security Force (BSF) play a vital role in the Indian context of democracy. The CRPF are deployable throughout the country, serving as a backup for the state police forces for when situations get out of control. They assist the state and/or union territories in maintaining law and order and contain insurgency. BSF guards the borders with a commitment to promote a sense of security among the public and prevent transborder crimes. It has diversified its role in order to contain insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast.

In the course of performing their duties, these forces often resort to immoral and barbaric means. While trying to maintain order in Kashmir, the CRPF has been brutal in carrying out its tasks which involve firing at civilians and the youth. Also, in a recent video, BSF personnel were seen calmly torturing a cattle herder as they believed that he was illegally trying to cross over the India-Bangladesh border. In spite of evidence being produced, such violations are often denied by these forces and the perpetrators of such coldblooded crimes go scot-free.

The involvement of our security forces in such cases of fake encounters, random firing at civilians, rape and assault cases makes one wonder how democratic the world’s largest democracy genuinely is. What hope does it leave the citizens with if the upholders of our rights are the ones violating them?

Originally published in The SoftCopy

Indian students aren’t the only targets

In a world where it is believed that education from foreign universities will help obtain better employment and even better salaries, the question of students’ safety away from their homes is one that commonly arises.

The recent murder of Anuj Bidve has once again raised this nagging issue of the safety of Indian students abroad. Such violence against Indians, students in particular, is often said to be directly related to racism, a term commonly used in this context.

But is the use of such a strong term justified?

Racism is the belief that people’s characteristics and abilities are based simply on their race and ethnicity and though some of the attacks reported against Indian students were racially motivated, one cannot generalize them all under this category as such attacks are not restricted to the Indian student community alone.
 
These attacks were generally opportunistic and had nothing to do with race or Indian students in particular. Many of these crimes have been taken out of context and sensationalized to a great extent by the media, which tend to get carried away with their attempts at touching human emotions, as was seen in the Bidve case.

A common idea among people is that such attacks on Indians are often provoked by the locals’ insecurity about jobs and opportunities that they believe are meant for them, but are being offered to Indians instead. Indians outperform the locals academically and come as cheap labor, which lands them great jobs, leaving the local youth unemployed. This builds a feeling of hostility against Indians which leads to cases of crime, or so it is believed.

When a person travels to another country, he or she needs to have an open mind. One is more than likely to face racist remarks no matter where they are. This trend isn’t exclusively seen in Australia or Britain, the two countries currently on the radar, and is most definitely not directed toward Indians alone.

Cases of racism are a common phenomenon world over. Discrimination occurs against almost all minority groups. This was clear all through the “war on terror” post 9/11, during which Muslims across the globe were extensively discriminated against and were often victims of violence.

India, too, is no exception to cases. As an example, though many may not agree, South Indians are often made fun of in the North Indian states and are stereotyped and vice versa.

Also, one cannot easily forget the orthodox beliefs of the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, which is incapable of hearing a word against their state or its people and also unleashed violent attacks on those who migrated to Mumbai for economic reasons.

Though the attacks in Australia seem racially driven and more than just crimes of opportunity, similar neighborhood crimes are a common occurrence in India as well. Cases of drunken murders and rapes make frequent news in the country.


A report released by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2009 indicates that “international students are less likely or as likely to be victims of physical assault and other theft” as the general population of the country. This theory can be applied to any country as most of these robberies and assault cases are petty thefts and opportunistic in nature.


While in foreign countries, people in general, especially those working night shifts, are advised to steer clear of dark alleys and deserted streets to avoid being exposed to incidents of crime, the situation is no different in India. Here too people, women in particular, are warned against the same for their own safety.


With racial discrimination and related crimes prevalent everywhere, why should one focus primarily on the safety of Indian students alone? Students world over need to be reassured about their safety in a foreign country.
 
Originally published in The SoftCopy

Taliban: A perpetual threat in Afghanistan?

With the United States withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, the one major question which emerges is: “Will the Taliban rise again and seize control of the country?”

This leads to further questions like the extent to which the Taliban might control the country this time around and also the kind of chances that the United States supported government has of surviving. Though these questions might remain unanswered for years to come, they are issues that need to be kept an eye out for.

In the backdrop of growing number of cases of violence, murder, looting and extortion, the Taliban came to power in 1996 after the withdrawal of Soviet Union in 1992 and also the fall of the then President Najibullah’s government. It ruled till the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Pakistan. Despite of being overthrown, the Taliban continued to maintain influence in most parts of the country.

There are several reasons, as have been identified that heped the Taliban gain control over much of the country. They are:

• The downfall of the government left behind after the Soviets left Kabul
• Dissatisfaction of the people with Najibullah’s government
• Pushtun resentment of the government that it felt was majorly non-Pushtun
• External assistance the Taliban received, especially from Pakistan
• Lack of resistance against them

Pakistan’s involvement with the Taliban played a chief role in bringing the Taliban to power. The Taliban was backed by the Pakistan Interim Ministry, Pakistani Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), and the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI), a Pakistani Islamist group. They supplied the Taliban with weapons, tanks, artillery and even aircrafts. They also received support in the form of training.

Because of the extensive support the Taliban received, and also due to the lack of an opposing army, the Taliban could take over large parts of Afghanistan.

When one looks at the reasons for Taliban’s rise to power, the failure of a government to stand up against the forces sticks out. In spite of its unpopularity, Najibullah’s government could survive for three years largely due to the support it still had from the Soviet military. Their abrupt withdrawal of support led to its downfall. This downfall was not immediately followed by the rise of the Taliban. So it can be presumed that after the U.S. and Coalition forces withdraw completely, their presence might still be felt in the Afghan government which might keep the Taliban at bay, at least for a while. History has shown that Afghanistan needs external support to help control situations that the Taliban is known to create.

The failure of a single leader to gain the support of a majority of the citizens of Afghanistan has been a key reason for Taliban’s power in the country. Unless someone can gain such trust and support to lead the country, it can nearly be guaranteed that Taliban influence in the region will continue.

The opposition posed by the non-Pushtun groups of Afghanistan did not succeed in making much difference as the groups have a penchant of fighting amongst themselves. There is a possibility of the Taliban taking advantage of such discord between the groups, as it did before, to take back control of Afghanistan.

All these factors support the chances of Taliban’s rise to power again in Afghanistan. One prime factor, which was unavailable in 1996 when they came to power, is that Afghanistan might get more external assistance to resist the Taliban now than they did 15 years back. After the withdrawal of the U.S. and Coalition forces completes in 2014, these countries should continue to provide Afghanistan with military support. This may keep the Taliban in control from gaining power again.

Another move that might help keep the Taliban at bay is the presence of a strong government, irrespective who it is being led by. Being able to rightly utilize the external support from other countries will also be a contributing factor.

Once the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan grasped this chance to gain some influence over Afghanistan. This resulted in them providing support to the Taliban, which people then believed could fight against the growing discontent and corruption in the country.

It is a known fact that the Taliban was financed by agents from Pakistan. What might aid in ensuring that the Taliban’s power is kept in control is severing these ties between Pakistan and the Taliban. Pressure from other countries and imposing sanctions on Pakistan to do so can be of help.

The chances of the Taliban trying to take control over Kabul are more likely than not. Countries combating this strong opponent must remain vigilant and ensure that they put in effect the different factors that can impede this move by the Taliban so history does not repeat itself.

Is death penalty justified?

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a person’s right to life and personal liberty. It states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

So what does this say about sentencing a person to death?

The death penalty is often considered the ultimate denial of human rights. It is punishment in the form of premeditated killing of a human being by the state, done in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed both in the Constitution of India as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For decades, there have been ongoing arguments over the abolition of the death penalty. The principal reason for its existence is the premeditated killing of a person. But how does the sentence differentiate it from the very same thing?

The entire idea behind executing murderers is that it is believed that it would deter others from perpetrating the same or similar acts. People’s fear of death would come in the way and this form of punishment would threaten them, thereby reducing the number of potential murders.

The lives of victims should be valued more than the lives of these murderers, their acts of crime diminish the worth of their lives, and therefore, death penalty is justified.

Or so is believed.

Apart from ending a person’s life, the death penalty is no more of deterrence to such people than a sentence of life in prison. The society brutalized by the use of death penalty. It violates a person’s basic right to live and in some cases, may also increase the likelihood of more murder.

Death penalty does not really deter those who commit murders as these people do not expect to be caught in the first place. Differences between a possible execution and life in prison are weighed by these people before they commit such acts.

Rather than executing a person, sentencing them to a life in prison is a more humane way to punish such criminals. Once in prison, such people become less of a threat to the society. So executing them is redundant.

Life sentences without parole ensure that such criminals are never out of prison. This ensures the safety of the society and makes the act of execution useless.

The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who plan their crime and expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditate

If some severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

Rajiv Gandhi’s three killers have received a temporary reprieve from the Madras High Court on the grounds that it has been painful enough to wait 11 years in prison to await the decision on their death penalty. Mass demonstrations erupted across Tamil Nadu to get the trio a reprieve.

The mercy petition filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force who has been sentenced to death for masterminding a terror attack in New Delhi in 1993, was rejected by the president after an eight-year-long wait. Former Chief Minister Amarinder Singh joined the chorus for reducing the convict’s death sentence to a life term.

Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri convicted of conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in 2004. He is still awaiting a decision on his mercy plea. The Jammu & Kashmir government wants to pass a resolution staying his capital punishment.

All these convicts have been in prison long enough to know that this is where they will be spending the rest of their lives, however short that is. Staying in prison, they are not a threat to the society anymore.

But this also does not mean that absurd amounts should be spent on guarding such high-profile prisoners as is the case with Ajmal Kasab. A whopping 11 crore rupees had been spent on guarding Kasab at the Arthur Road jail between March 2009 and September 2010, which is simply ridiculous.

Admittedly, murder, terrorism, treason, and the like are extremely serious offences. But that does not give the state the right to take a person’s life away.