Batting for terror accused

Chindu has slammed the BJP for speaking against the legal aid offered by Jamia Islamia to those accused of a role in the recent Delhi blasts. For a good part of the editorial, it appeared as if the BJP demanded that nobody provide any legal help to the accused. The BJP has only said that the university - that is centrally funded- has no business defending a terror accused. Chindu puts up a passionate argument in support of Mushirul Hasan, Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia.

Embedded in the idea of providing accused with the means of defending themselves competently is a jurisprudential principle that forms the bedrock of modern law — the presumption of innocence unless the person is proved guilty

Does Chindu follow this principle with respect to Modi? Modi has not been found guilty by any court of law so far, but article after article slams him for his "alleged" role in the riots. Whenever the VHPs and the Bajrang Dals go on the offensive, does Chindu invoke this principle?What is all this talk of presumed innocence until proved guilty when it is only selectively invoked?

If these two students are convicted, will Chindu conclude that these guys are indeed terrorists and not innocent? Absolutely not. Afzal Guru is a case in point.With an inept government at the centre, even a conviction is not enough to prove a terrorist's role in a carnage. Afzal Guru, convicted for his role in the Parliament attack case, is still "presumed to be innocent". Even after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, the UPA government and the entire battery of pseudo secular media is against proceeding with his execution. If indeed these two Jamia students are found guilty, the entire investigation will be questioned and the intellectuals will wonder whether they were given a fair trial.

Against this backdrop, when will terrorists get the treatment they deserve? If the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians does not necessitate an iron handed response from the state I wonder what will awake the government from its deep slumber. Looks like the PM will lose sleep only over Mohammed Haneef and not on terror victims.And the Human rights activists are bothered only about the rights of brutal terrorists and not of their innocent victims.In the time we explain these "intellectuals" that terrorists are terrorists and not humans and hence do not deserve the sympathy reserved for humans, the nation would have lost a few more lives.

The argument put forth by Chindu is plain stupid, to put it mildly. If I work for Microsoft and I am nabbed for a murder, is it logical for me to expect MS to defend me or pay for my legal expenses? Why should Jamia do this to two of its students? The question is not about denying the accused access to legal help. It's a question of whether the university should do this and send out a wrong signal. The move also raises serious doubts about the intention of the VC. By batting for the accused he is sending out the message that the Muslim suspects cannot get adequate legal help without the intervention of the university.The decision of the university is shocking , condemnable and sets a dangerous precedent. It has the potential to stoke communal unrest.

Countering Islamic terrorism - II

This post is a continuation of the earlier post Countering Islamic terrorism.
As my fellow blogger rightly said,

Khare must be the face of Chindu's journalistic stupidity.

There are several instances in this article alone where Khare exhibits: journalistic ignorance, blatant majority baiting, lack of common sense and a big ego, to overcompensate for a lack of some other muscle, to write his thoughts in an ignorant passage he calls, a coherent anti-terror framework
Reading his tenets, exposes his lack of understanding of what terrorism is and a feeble mind incapable of putting forth ideas to tackle them.
Lets review a few samples,

First, the state is supreme and it can and will make equal demands on all citizens

Or,

That means no group is entitled to claim a right to redress through violent means perceived grievances or injustices

Or this nugget,

Once a consensus is forged on the elements of fight against terror, the citizens, across communities and faiths, will learn to see through the politician’s designs, and only then will we be able to discover ways and means of escaping the small politician’s smallness

small politician’s smallness

Now who really is paying you to write such ignorant crap?
The entire tenets are too generic, totally irrelevant to the problem (other than showing a secular agenda) and have no roadmap or any actions either from the state or the public to handle the terrorists and their agenda.
While you and your secular friends are walking the court houses demanding justice from the terrorists, hundreds of thousands will be blown up in their neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, places of worship etc.

Relevancy of title to the article

The creation of a title to an written article is an art. The writer is forced to summarize what he has written in a few words to convey the overall theme but also interest the audience to bite. In a pure metaphorical sense it is the bait to reel in the fish (something this writer strugges with). The Chindu does a reasonably good picking its titles, mostly safe and bland but gives the reader a reasonable sense of what is contained within.
However a recent article had an interesting title, War for the soul of Islam in India by Praveen Swami. The summary beneath the title detailed that Islamic leaders have rejected terrorism and the terrorist remain outside the fringe.

Deoband’s rejection of the jihad will do nothing to persuade violent Islamists to end their campaign. It has made clear, though, that jihadists enjoy no support except at the polar fringes of Islam in India.

While this seems a logical extension to Khare's earlier rant, this article meanders into historical anecdotes of how the Deoband was created to the history of mushrooming of madrassas in Pakistan and finally
meanders into a discussion on Islam and modernity. The article does not present any cogent arguments or evidence on how the jihadists remain on the fringes but rather delves into irrelevant history.
The disturbing information presented in this article is the repeat of a statement by Maulana Khalid Rasheed on the challenges to Indian muslims,

India’s Muslims have faced three critical challenges. The first was Partition itself, which communalists leveraged to coerce those Muslims who chose to live in India. Second came the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which represented a full-blown assault on the economic and political future of our community.” “Now,” says Mr. Rasheed, “terrorism poses a third make-or-break threat”.

This makes little sense.
After the partition if the communalists were so powerful how come the Congress ran the Central and most of the state governments for about 40+ years?
Why is that Babri Masjid destruction blamed for every issue?
Why does Chindu take everything said by these so called Islamic leaders at face value, but question any word said by people of certain other sections of society?
The poor summarization by Chindu coupled with such illogical articles often does not help put forward any useful thoughts towards the resolution. Praveen Swami has proved that he's the political irrelevant equal of Judge Iyer.

Counter terror with nothing

Mukul Sharma is a "jhollawalla" who often gets disproportionate amount of space on Chindu's Opinion page, which he uses to write liberal nonsense.

Take the example below. Mukul Sharma opens by saying terrorism is an assault on fundamental rights. Obviously, the suicide bombers are assaulting the fundamental rights of us. But Mukul Sharma says the only way we can protect ourselves is to protect the fundamental rights of these suicide bombers. Nice! So you all now know that if you walk up to Mukul Sharma and slap him hard on his face or kick him in his butt, he will not retaliate because he believes in fundamental rights.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Counter terror with justice

Terrorism is an assault on people’s fundamental human rights.

The only way people can be protected — from both governments and suicide bombers — is to treat every single human being as possessing fundamental rights that no government, group or individual may ever justifiably take away.

And then, there is the usual talk about Muslims, human rights etc. This terror apologist has made his career out of this stuff. Nothing that can stand scrutiny; just liberal platitudes and no concrete recommendations on how to tackle terrorism.

N.Ram on Jaipur blasts

I am enraged after reading this editorial on Jaipur blasts. It is obviously not about N.Ram's incompetence but about his blind hatred towards Indians. And I am shocked to see him politicize a serious issue instead of provoking a balanced discussion.

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Challenges from Jaipur

In the minds of their perpetrators, the bombings that have scarred many Indian cities have been acts of vengeance against communal violence directed at Muslims — but also catalysts for an apocalyptic communal war.

He begins by telling us about what the terrorists think. Why dont you tell us what the citizens of India think. Have a look at the letters(1, 2, 3) to editor. Why dont you for once talk about how the victims feel and sympathize with them.

The link between Jaipur terror attacks and muslim reaction to communal violence is only in N.Ram's mind. Why does N.Ram not question muslims for this never-ending rage? Are the marginalized lower castes, who, Chindu says, are oppressed by caste Hindus also going around bombing people?

Inevitably, some jihadist operations have succeeded — and will succeed in future.

N.Ram is telling Indians that we are destined to die in a jihadi attack and should not take it seriously.

Ordinary people have shown that one way to neutralise these ‘successes’ is to maintain communal peace and harmony.

As we Hindus are destined to die in Jihadi attacks, take it easy. Buy "The Hindu", sip coffee and relax while the Jihadis do their job.

Ever since 2001-2002, New Delhi counted on President Pervez Musharraf to rein in jihadist groups operating from Pakistan’s soil.

Notice how N.Ram jumps the gun here. He links Jaipur terror attacks to Pakistan and talks about how India must depend on Pakistani internal policies to negate terrorism.

Last year, however, jihadists exploited his waning authority to escalate the tempo and intensity of attacks against both India and Pakistan.

You see, it is not just India but also Pakistan which is affected by terrorism. Ignore the fact that India has more terror attacks than the rest of the world put together. It is just a statistic.

In consequence, jihadist groups are likely to have more freedom than in the recent past to operate against India.

Is this not a greater threat to Indians. Logically, the next sentence should talk about how India must step up its fight against terrorism, considering the increasing threat. Look where he goes.

The Bharatiya Janata Party appears to be preparing the ground for a communal campaign ahead of the November round of Assembly elections by blaming the Jaipur carnage on the United Progressive Alliance government’s allegedly ‘soft approach’ towards terrorism. Such tactics might help win votes — but will not serve the cause of combating terrorism.

Blame it on the BJP, ofcourse. In fact, N.Ram is forestalling any proper discussion about terrorism. He is deliberately trying to hijack the discussion by bringing in the usual slogans on "discrimination against muslims", "communal campaign", "Hindus are not the only victims", "Indians are not the only victims", etc. This is even before the body count of victims has been completed.
What does N.Ram have to say to the Center on combating terrorism? What recommendations does he give to avoid future such occurrences? What purpose does this editorial serve apart from justifying the terrorist attack?

Where is the outrage?

Often we hear about human rights protesting about minority issues within India. Often you hear about the Chindu protesting about the inhuman conditions of minorities in places like Gaza Strip and Palestine.
But what about lives of Hindus living abroad? Do they not have rights, will NGO's not complain if an incident were to happen where Hindus were affected? Read this article in The Chindu,
http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/03/stories/2008050352561100.htm
Recently in Pakistan, a worked Jagadeesh was lynched to death by a mob for alleged blasphemy.

the 20-year-old Hindu youth was simply lynched by his co-workers in the factory where he was employed for allegedly making blasphemous remarks against Prophet Muhammad.

Apparently there were policemen protecting him, but the mob simply overpowered them and killed him. I remember a few years ago a mob killed a missionary in Orissa and a few people were convicted and one person was given the death sentence. This raised a huge hullaballoo about minority rights.
Now a Hindu person has been killed without reason without sentencing in a court of law in a Muslim country. Where is the outrage about value for human life? Where is the freedom of speech?
When the issue was discussed with a key Pakistan official, he coolly admits that this was the current state of affairs and would take a long time to change.

Mr. Rehman said it would take Pakistan “a long time” to rectify the situation because no government was prepared to antagonise conservative elements in the country.

Thanks for the prompt action, Officer. The Chindu and the writer Nirupama Subramanian deserves some credit for keeping the public informed about the happening of minorities in the neighboring country.
However the article takes a matter of fact approach towards the incident and does not question the inherent intolerance amongst Muslims in Pakistan (as evidenced by more than 4000 such known killings in the last few years) nor does it condemn the violence towards minorities in Pakistan and it does not question the obvious ignorance in creating such a law.

Zardari plays Doom

The Kashmir problem has been a thorn in the minuscule India-Pak relations. The recent democratic elections in Pak with the election of a new Government has been proclaimed by Chindu as a new chapter. Looks to me though that Mr.Zardari is playing Doom.
In an article by Ms. Nirupama Subramanian, the important discussion between Zardari and Mehbooba Mufti(Yup the same terrorist loving traitor), is detailed here:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/29/stories/2008032958940100.htm
Ms.Nirupama, being a benign journo does not cast any doubt on the statements of Mr.Zardari. The entire episode reeks with backdoor politics. Ms.Mehbooba is attending a conference on regional stability. Why was Pranab Mukherjee too busy relaxing after his trip to the US? Besides Mehbooba (for who's release many hardcore terrorists were released in an incident many years ago) does not have an official post and for her to discuss the Kashmir relations makes little sense.

The article is filled with contradictions, illogical statements and pie in the sky statements. Lets say the average Pakistani politician plays a game of Doom.
Each statement can be used to predict the lifespan of the player or political term.
Statement #1:

“If boys in Kashmir are to be given pens instead of guns, if they are given jobs, if they are allowed to meet their relatives in Pakistan, if we allow our Kashmiris to meet their Kashmiri brothers across the border, I think it will go a long way,”

Whoa Mr.Zardari, are you saying that the ISI should stop arming the terrorists?
Lifespan: If implemented, Zardari would be the next high profile target. Chances of implementing this are between 0 and negative infinity.
Statement #2:

“We are totally involved with Kashmir, and we intend to solve the Kashmir problem and not just shadow-box on it,”

What is this are you having Harish Khare write your speeches? A bold statement with nothing to back it up and one for TV sound bytes.
Lifespan: Zardari's is firing blanks here. Your core supporters would not be too happy if you somehow killed the goose laying
the golden eggs.

An outrageous defense of a murderous attack

Chindu is stooping to new lows. The paper came up with an outrageous editorial on the naxal attack in Jharkhand that killed 18. Far from the acerbic tone it adopts when clobbering the BJP-RSS-VHP trio, the tone was (not) surprisingly mild. Now , let's hear what the Madras Moaoists had to say about their Jharkhand counterparts.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/29/stories/2007102956051000.htm

The conditions at a cultural programme organised in Chilkhadia village in Jharkhand on Friday night seemed ideal for the Maoists to strike

As pointed out earlier, blame the conditions. Had it not been conducive for an attack, the Moaists wouldn't have attacked. Damn the conditions. The conditions killed 18.The people had no business gathering at 1.00 AM on a Saturday night. They have to pay the price for their mistake.

Apparently, the target was Mr. Marandi’s brother Nunulal, but he managed to escape.

Does it really matter who the intended target was? It is a merciless massacre of the innocent.Is Ram suggesting that Anup was killed by mistake? Would the editorial have been any different had the Maoists succeeded in hitting their target? If Nunulal was the target, why did 18 others perish? When Israel carries out targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders, Ram raises the roof. How is this attack any different?He is trying to defend the indefensible.And, does Chindu regret that the target escaped?

The group of Maoists is reported to have resorted to indiscriminate firing

This is an outrageous remark that smacks of a blatant bias. Ram still gives the benefit of doubt to the murderers by saying 'reported to have resorted'. Is he saying that they may not have actually fired and that only the reports say so?. When DMK goons attacked the BJP office in Chennai, Chindu published a photograph of DMK men pelting stones. However, the report said the DMK men 'allegedly' attacked the BJP office. However, such a luxury is strictly reserved for Ram's friends.

Over a dozen Maoist strikes have been reported this year in the corridor

Again, it is only a report. Not a matter of fact.

Given the situation on the ground in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Bihar — which have emerged as the most vulnerable States in the naxalite corridor that extends from Andhra Pradesh to West Bengal — organising such events well into the night may be an invitation to the naxalites to strike.

Ahhh!! Now, having blamed the 'conditions', implicate the organizers. Ram has a point. If the organizers had not organized, the Maoists couldn't have attacked and innocent lives could have been saved. Jail the organizers.

Though the police were supposed to have provided security for the function, top police officers have been quoted as saying that many of the policemen on duty had left the scene

Now, drag the police into the mess. Give them their share of the blame.

Despite the regular reviews and meetings both at the Central and State levels, the security forces and the State police have not been able to contain the problem

Do not spare the governments and security forces either. They failed to contain the attackers.Why blame the poor Maoists?

..the Centre and the affected States must evolve a joint strategy to bring the Maoist groups to the negotiating table and address the serious socio-economic problems of the people, especially the tribals

Pin the blame on the socio-economic condition as well. The editorial seeks to 'identify' why the attack took place and the paper has made a mockery of itself with its foolish observations.

A group that unleashes terror on innocent civilians has no place in civil society. Doesn't this sound straight out of a Chindu editorial? Perhaps, yes. Chindu may make such vitriolic remarks when "serious incidents" - like MF Hussain's paintings getting vandalised or MS university barring Chandramohan from displaying his 'art' -take place . But when Maoists gun down 18 in cold blood, 'invite' them for talks, plead them to join the political mainstream and address socio-economic problems.

If there is a limit to absurdity, this is it and Chindu has breached it with characteristic ease. Groups like the Maoists must be liquidated. The state and central governments must come down on them with an iron hand. People who support them-overtly and covertly- must be severely punished. Chances are Ram himself might face the heat.The punishments should serve as a deterrent . What happened when the Burmese army cracked down on militants? The Centre must go all out and the Maoists will disintegrate unable to withstand the onslaught.

It is a shame that people with perverted mindset are allowed to influence public opinion . It is a disgrace that such people run a paper that not only shies away from calling a spade a spade, but also extends tacit support to such anti-national elements. The right to free speech does not give Mr Ram and his cohorts the right to spread misinformation and sex up stories.