AFSPA controversy

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA) has come under sharp focus, thanks to the J&K Chief Minister Oma Abdullah's clearly unwise and potentially dangerous insistence to withdraw it from certain areas in the Valley which, in his view, have returned to peace and normalcy. However, the Indian Army and the Defence Ministry strongly oppose the proposal on security and strategic considerations. Hence, the Central govt. has not given the green signal to the State govt.

Omar Abdullah's logic for the Act's revocation seems primarily motivated by Kashmiri separatists' long-held antipathy and hostility to the central forces, including the Indian army's presence in the State for its safety and security. Strangely, the CM appears to overlook the fact that Kashmir is enjoying peace owing to the sacrifices and good work of the Indian army and the central para-military forces. How can he ignore intelligence inputs that Pakistan's terror infrastructure is still intact and active; 2000-2500 terrorists are under training in these camps; 700-850 militants are waiting to cross over. Nearly 70 terrorists-infiltrators have been killed in the last two years. By proclaiming certain areas in the Valley as safe havens, free from terrorists, is the CM not inviting these killers and bombers to shift to these peaceful zones to plan their heinous operations?

The Indian army is in J&K since 1947 when Pakistani invaders attacked the State to illegally annex it to the newly-created Muslim State-Pakistan. Having failed in its evil attempt, Pakistan engineered cross-border infiltration and terrorism with the help of separatist elements in the Valley. The security forces, including the army, had to be strengthened to counter the aggressive designs of the anti-Indian forces, aided and abetted by our hostile neighbour. The army had to operate under a protective, enabling legal framework. Hence, the AFSPA. It was not a licence to kill innocent people.Any excesses and aberrations were promptly looked into and action taken. The army was primarily there to come to the help of the civilian authority whenever required. It was not an army of free-booters and marauders.

Hence, it was ridiculous for a former Central Information Commissioner and one of the three centrally-appointed J&K interlocutors, to support the revocation of the AFPSA on the plea that it was a "draconian law" to "suppress people's voice". He wrote this in an article in the Indian Express of November 22, 2011. How can a J&K interlocutor who had visited the State several times on behalf of the Union govt., overlook the bitter reality of the cross-border infiltration and terrorism and Pakistani involvement in this criminal activity? Misgovernance and alienation of some sections of Kashmiris should be attributed to local leaders who have always been heading the State govt.

Indian Express Editor advises getting out of Afghanistan for Pak sake

Shekhar Gupta, the chief editor of the Indian Express, in his latest Saturday commentary(November 19), entitled:"Get out, leave Af to Pak", has championed our neighbour's cause, urging the govt of India to "get out" of Afghanistan along with the scheduled exit of Americans, to enable Pakistan to achieve its dream of geographical and strategic depth. Is it'nt a most appalling, bizarre, cynically argued piece of advice, coming from a leading Indian editor who should know that India has only a benign presence in that country, and that too on the invitation of the Afghan govt and its people? We are not a colonial  or an expansionist power. On the other hand, Pakistan had always wanted Afghanistan as its ward and tried its hand  to attain its objective through the Taliban, a radical, Islamist band of students(Taliban) spawned in Pakistani madrasas. With the US and Pakistani help, the Taliban captured power in Kabul and imposed a ruthless and tyrannical form of sharia regime there. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist assault on the US, the American armed forces intervened and ousted the Taliban govt. The US govt. called upon the Pakistani military ruler Gen Musharraf to choose between the Taliban and the US and he had no choice but to fall in the US line.

Since the Pakistan govt became the US ally against terrorism, it was hoping that once the US forces quit the scene, it would give them the opportunity to cash in. In 2014, the US forces are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan and the way will open for Pakistanis to fill the power vacuum to dominate a conflict-ridden, war-torn nation with the help of their Afghan Taliban allies. In this situation, Pakistanis are hostile to any Indian presence in Afghanistan. The whole world knows that we are not a colonial power but a soft one which is more interested in helping a poor neighbour with infrastructure projects like building roads, hospitals, schools, etc., as well as offering training facilities to Afghans. Our historic ties with the country go back to ancient times. Since our friendly assistance is widely popular with the Afghan people, the Pakistanis are deeply worried.

In this backdrop, it is incredible that a major Indian newspaper is batting for our adversary and asking us to leave that unfortunate country to the mercy and ravages of a military-dominated regime, making us more vulnerable to its conspiracies alongwith its great and reliable patron, China, who, in any case, hates our emergence as a rival Asian power.       

Prime Minister Singh calls Pak PM "man of peace"

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gives a deceptive appearance of being a man who loves his silence more than the usual verbosity of politicians. One will presume that such a taciturn person will weigh his words more carefully when he speaks on major issues of vital concern to the nation. On this account, Dr Singh's record is quite dismal, particularly when dealing with Pakistan and its leaders, irrespective of the fact whether they are military dictators or civilians. His thinking process seems to take a break, his tongue strangely loosens and he announces decisions that are not only incredibly bizarre, these take a sudden U-turn on established, consensual national policies.

This happened first time within a couple of years of Manmohan Singh's prime-ministership in 2004, when he atteneded the Non-aligned Summit in Havana,Cuba where the Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf  was also present. In a joint statement with the Pakistani military ruler, Prime Minister Singh proclaimed that both India and Pakistan were equal victims of terrorism! He totally disregarded India's long-time charge against its neighbour, based on voluminous details, that Pakistan was the primary aider, abettor and perpetrator of cross-border terrorism against India, specially in J&K. And in a total flip-flop, the Indian PM, thoughtlessly put the victim of terrorism and its promoter and mastermind  on the equal footing! This utterly senseless action stirred a huge uproar in the country which forced him to keep the Havana agreement to fight terrorism jointly at the backburner.

However, Prime Minister Singh's pro-Pakistan itch resurfaced at the Sharm El-Sheikh(Egypt) where the former met his Pakistani counterpart. Forgetting his strong rhetoric in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai massacre perpetrated by Pakistani terrorists under the guidance of the ISI, that no dialogue with Pakistan would take place until our unprincipled, untrustworthy, neighbour took action against the State and non-state criminals involved in the mayhem, Manmohan Singh agreed to delink bilateral talks with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Again, history repeated itself and in the face of tremendous furore in the country, Dr Singh reversed his position.

As if the pitcher of the Prime Minister's faux pas and stupidities in domestic and foreign affairs was not yet full, he, once again, indulged in his romantic view of Pakistan, the place of his birth, by giving an undeserved certificate to his counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani as "a man of peace", at the Maldive SAARC summit recently. He even trusted the Pakistan Prime Minister's assurance that the Pakistan Army was on board with the civilian leadership on the issue of restoring friendship and normalcy between the two neighbours. But, again, following the pattern of national reaction against his indiscreet and needlessly sugary sentiments, the PM stepped back, qualifying his remarks that he has not abandoned his approach of "trust but verify" theory. No wonder, a senior, retired Indian diplomat, Satish Chandra, former Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, and the National Deputy Security  Adviser, in an article in a national daily, sharply attacked Dr Singh for "appeasing" Pakistan in the hope that it will lead to a "thaw" in bilateral relations and lend him the stature of a "statesman"! He accused him of offering Pakistan "far too many concessions" at the cost of India's "national interests".         

Anna Hazare to reconstitute core committee

According to press reports, Anna Hazare wants representatives of  tribals, Dalits, minorities and youth in his next core committee. On the face of it, the anti-corruption crusader's idea to make his executive group broad-based, including all sections of the Indian society,  seems sensible and necessary. However, when one examines the issue closely, it appears an over-reaction to a politically motivated, malicious campaign mounted  by a small group of Dalit and Muslim fanatics like Udit Rajs, Kancha Illiah, Farooqis, etc. Even at the peak of the anti-corruption movement in its Ramlila Ground phase, when a vast number of Anna supporters assembled there day after day and night after night, representing all classes, castes and age groups, this anti-national bunch started insinuating that all this tamasha was an upper caste affair; Dalits and minorities are not there even when the elaborate TV coverage visibly refuted their malafide claim. They did not give any credit to Anna Hazare and his group of social activists belonging to all sections of the nation, including poor, lower, middle and upper classes of different communities. If there was Kumar Vishwas, there was also Shazia Ilmi. Then, why this calculated attempt to give a parochial, vote-bank-type of colour to a nation-wide crusade? Thus, the evil motive is to damn and divide it on communal and caste basis.

But, the question is: Why an apolitical Gandhian with no axe to grind, who is fully focussed on the passage of a strong Jan Lokpal legislation to fight and eradicate corruption as much as possible and as effectively as possible, should be cowed down by engineered noises of notoriously vicious anti-national and disruptive elements? Shouldn't he choose members of his new enlarged core committee on the basis of the appointees' merit, dedication, commitment, selflessness and their capacity for team work, instead of looking at their religious and caste affiliation, to make it "inclusive and representative"? How could Anna decide the membership of the committee on some sort of a quota for each group? If these bigoted fellows reject Anna's choice as too little and unrepresentative of their socalled communities, what will he do? Consult them to include their names in the committee? Where will this charade end? Have the implications of such a dubious exercise considered?