RSS

Mon, Oct 12th 2009, 11:48

Member deleted

While one does agree with Justice Markandey Katju's prescription: that is the basic function of the state anyway. Just getting to fly a flag that flutters in the breeze and criminals that assume to fight for "Satya Mev Jayate" as patriotism - barely translates well in India's favour even as a civilization, let alone a state.

The other dimension - of the failures of the Indian state - being kept aside, the pointed factor that goes against India's fight against terrorism and crime is the very composition of its population and their socializations. That easily translates into the crime-political-terror nexus. One sometimes wonders if the Chinese strategist's ideas that India should be broken apart into many different states (to isolate the problem of this nexus and socialization) while allowing other segments of its populace not so socialized in the "normalcy" of such a network and its existences to exist and prosper and thus pose a lesser threat to certain normative values that are considered esential for humanity - is not a very well meant advice for the Indian state and its populace !?

A single question is: can the indian state fight its crime-terror-political nexus? It is an internal problem and the problem of mal-socialization is tied up with it and to it. The challenges are obvious. Worse when the same nexus shows uncalled for enthusiasm in caretllization and the privatization of the state - and also in responding to such responses as these!

Perhaps Justice Katju would be better accepted in his views if he could change the colour of his skin to white. Works better for those whom the indian state pays: ostensibly the above nexus that has servants via the privatization of the state as police or even army personnel - as usual at their lowest levels! He would be more appreciated than what his views presently would elicit. That is the indian reality - and works much more within the above nexus - including their concerns over who works or talks over issues as terrorism and then he or she marries whom and/or why. One sure hopes that Justice Katju is already married and with children. The others who draw from the Indian tax-payers' money their livelihood would otherwise ensure his silence in permanence! Or he preferably should be a christian fanatic! The markers for respect in India!?

Mon, Oct 12th 2009, 18:19

Jai Singh, NA, (7)

Justice Katju is to be commended, at least from the perspective of this commenter, regarding the stance taken on individual liberty and freedom. As Benjamin Franklin noted:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

However, the commentary regarding poverty and unemployment - the purported sources that give support to terrorism, should be considered be considered with the proverbial grain of salt. The failure to mention the ideological underpinning of the individuals that carried out the Mumbai attacks is a rather grievous error of omission at best and yet another attempt to shoehorn religiously derived acts that are considered as terrorism by external observers at worst. There are clear differences in the ideological drivers of terrorism based on socioeconomic considerations and based on religious considerations [1]. To eschew the realities of the latter, regardless of the degree of consternation caused to some, for the former will only lead to a failed counterterrorism strategy. The Sinjar records [2] as well as Sageman's analysis of the global Salafi jihad movement [3] should give sufficient enough pause when it comes to attempts to shoehorn the subject context into poverty and unemployment. The root causes that drive individuals and organizations to use terrorism as a method are multifaceted and complex. When the perpetrators of such acts specifically ascribe to religion as a source and basis for their actions then one must provide the appropriate weight to such statements.

Coupled with this, is the failure to give adequate consideration, in this particular context, to the issue of state sponsorship. The Mumbai attackers did not arm and train themselves in a vacuum. The Indian approach to dealing with its terrorism as well as insurgency problem(s) must be multifaceted with all factors given their appropriate and objective weight (regardless of whom it is that chooses to be offended). While mitigating the effects of poverty and unemployment are part of the solution, they do not represent a panacea. Security measures such as enhanced border security, port security and internal security are a requirement. The Indian domestic and foreign intelligence services, particularly as they relate to counterterrorism, must be critically evaluated and shortcoming removed with all alacrity. While there does exist a fine line between security and freedom, the line does exist and methods and mechanisms exist to ensure that those that choose to live in civil society can do so with their liberties intact while those that refuse to do so can be removed.

Footnotes:

1. Fine,Jonathan. 'Contrasting Secular and Religious Terrorism.' Middle Eastern Quarterly 15, no. 1, Winter, 2008.

2. Felter, Joseph and Brian Fishman. 'The Demographics of Recruitment, Finances and Suicide.' In Bombers, Bank Accounts and Bleedout. Al-Qaida's Road in and Out of Iraq (West Point, New York, USA: Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 2008).

3. Sageman, Marc. Understanding Terror Networks (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 94-96.