Monday, November 16, 2015

Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves - By Ben Norton - SALON

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/


SALON

SUNDAY, NOV 15, 2015 01:18 AM IST

Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves

We must mourn all victims. But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let's stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselvesAn Indian child pays floral tribute at a sand sculpture created in remembrance of victims of Friday's attacks in Paris, in Bhubaneswar, India.(Credit: AP)
Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.
The vast majority of terrorist attacks in these years were motivated by ethno-nationalism or separatism. In 2013, 55 percent of terrorist attacks were ethno-nationalist or separatist in nature; in 2012, more than three-quarters (76 percent) of terrorist attacks were inspired by ethno-nationalism or separatism.
These facts, nonetheless, have never stopped the prejudiced pundits from insisting otherwise.
On Friday the 13th of November, militants massacred at least 127 people in Paris in a series of heinous attacks.
There are many layers of hypocrisy in the public reaction to the tragedy that must be sorted through in order to understand the larger context in which these horrific attacks are situated — and, ultimately, to prevent such attacks from happening in the future.

Right-wing exploitation

As soon as the news of the attacks broke, even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, a Who’s Who of right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
In a disgrace to the victims, a shout chorus of reactionary demagogues exploited the horrific attacks to distract from and even deny domestic problems. They flatly told Black Lives Matter activists fighting for basic civil and human rights, fast-food workers seeking liveable wages and union rights, and students challenging crippling debts that their problems are insignificant because they are not being held hostage at gunpoint.
More insidiously, when evidence began to suggest that extremists were responsible for the attacks, and when ISIS eventually claimed responsibility, the demagogues implied or even downright insisted that Islam — the religion of 1.6 billion people — was to blame, and that the predominately (although not entirely) Muslim refugees entering the West are only going to carry out more of such attacks.

Clampdown on Muslims and refugees

Every time Islamic extremists carry out an attack, the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are expected to collectively apologize; it has become a cold cliché at this point.
Who benefits from such clampdown on Muslims and refugees?
Two primary groups: One, Islamic extremist groups themselves, who use the clampdown as “evidence” that there is supposedly no room for Muslims in the secular West that has declared war on Islam; and two, Europe’s growing far-right, who will use the attacks as “evidence” that there is supposedly no room for Muslims in the secular West that should declare war on Islam.
Although enemies, both groups share a congruence of interests. The far-right wants Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries (even if they are not Muslim) to leave because it sees them as innately violent terrorists. Islamic extremists want Muslim refugees to leave so they can be radicalized and join their caliphate.
More specifically, to name names, ISIS and al-Qaeda will benefit from the clampdown on Muslims and refugees, and Europe’s growing far-right movement will continue to recruit new members with anti-Muslim and anti-refugee propaganda.
ISIS has explicitly stated that its goal is to make extinct what it calls the “grayzone” — that is to say, Western acceptance of Muslims. The “endangerment” of the grayzone “began with the blessed operations of September 11th, as those operations manifested two camps before the world for mankind to choose between, a camp of Islam … and a camp of kufr — the crusader coalition,” wrote ISIS in its own publication.
An excerpt from ISIS' own publication (Credit: Iyad El-Baghdadi)
An excerpt from ISIS’ own publication (Credit: Iyad El-Baghdadi)
Demonstrating how right-wing and Islamic extremist logic intersect, ISIS actually favorably cited the black-and-white worldview shared ironically by both former President George W. Bush and his intractable foe, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. ISIS wrote: “As Shaykh Usamah Ibn Ladin said, ‘The world today is divided into two camps. Bush spoke the truth when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Meaning, either you are with the crusade or you are with Islam.'”
By making ISIS go viral, we are only helping them accomplish their sadistic goals.
In the meantime, France’s extreme right-wing National Front party stands to gain in particular. The party — which was founded by a neo-Nazi and is now led by his estranged daughter Marine Le Pen — constantly rails against Muslims, whom it hypocritically characterizes as Nazi occupiers. In 2014, a Paris court ruled it was fair to call the National Front “fascist.”
Before the Paris attacks, Le Pen’s extreme-right movement was France’s second-largest party. Now it may become the first.

The massacres that are ignored

There are hundreds of terrorist attacks in Europe every year. The ones that immediately fill the headlines of every news outlet, however, are the ones carried out by Muslims — not the ones carried out by ethno-nationalists or far-right extremists, which happen to be much more frequent.
Yet it is not just right-wing pundits and the media that give much more attention to attacks like those in Paris; heads of state frequently do so as well. Minutes after the Paris attacks, Presidents Hollande and Obama addressed the world, publicly lamenting the tragedy. Secretary John Kerry condemned them as “heinous, evil, vile acts.”
Notable was the official silence surrounding another horrific terrorist attack that took place only the day before. Two ISIS suicide bombers killed at least 43 people and wounded more than 230 in attacks on a heavily Shia Muslim community in Beirut on November 12. President Obama did not address the world and condemn the bombings, which comprised the worst attack in Beirut in years.
In fact, the opposite happened; the victims of the ISIS attacks were characterized in the U.S. media as Hezbollah human shields and blamed for their own deaths based on the unfortunate coincidence of their geographical location. Some right-wing pundits even went so far as to justify the ISIS attacks because they were assumed to be aimed at Hezbollah.
Nor did the White House interrupt every news broadcast to publicly condemn the ISIS massacre in Turkey in October that left approximately 128 people dead and 500 injured at a peaceful rally for a pro-Kurdish political party.
More strikingly, where were the heads of state when the Western-backed, Saudi-led coalition bombed a Yemeni wedding on September 28, killing 131 civilians, including 80 women? That massacre didn’t go viral, and Obama and Hollande did not apologize, yet alone barely even acknowledge the tragedy.
Do French lives matter more than Lebanese, Turkish, Kurdish, and Yemeni ones? Were these not, too, “heinous, evil, vile acts”?

Oddly familiar

We have seen this all before; it should be oddly familiar. The reaction to the horrific January 2015 Paris attacks was equally predictable; the knee-jerk Islamophobia ignored the crucial context for the tragic attack — namely the fact that it was was the catastrophic U.S.-led war on Iraq and torture at Abu Ghraib, not Charlie Hebdo cartoons, that radicalized the shooters. Also ignored was the fact that the extremist attackers were sons of émigrés from Algeria, a country that for decades bled profusely under barbarous French colonialism, which only ended after an even bloodier war of independence in 1962 that left hundreds of thousands of Algerians dead.
After the January Paris attacks, leaders from around the world — including officials from Western-backed extremist theocratic tyrannies like Saudi Arabia — gathered in Paris to supposedly participate in a march that turned out to actually be a carefully orchestrated and cynical photo op.
And not only are Muslims collectively blamed for such attacks; they, too, collectively bear the brunt of the backlash.
In just six days after the January attacks, the National Observatory Against Islamophobia documented 60 incidents of Islamophobic attacks and threats in France. TellMAMA, a U.K.-based organization that monitors racist anti-Muslim attacks, also reported 50-60 threats.
Once again, mere days before the January Paris attacks, the global community largely glossed over another horrific tragedy: The slaughter of more than 2,000 Nigerians by Boko Haram. The African victims didn’t get a march; only the Western victims of Islamic extremism did.

Western culpability

A little-discussed yet crucial fact is that the vast, vast majority of the victims of Islamic extremism are themselves Muslim, and live in Muslim-majority countries. A 2012 U.S. National Counterterrorism Center report found that between 82 and 97 percent of the victims of religiously motivated terrorist attacks over the previous five years were Muslims.
The West frequently acts as though it is the principal victim, but the exact contrary is true.
Never interrogated is why exactly are so many refugees fleeing the Middle East and North Africa. It is not like millions of people want to leave their homes and families; they are fleeing violence and chaos — violence and chaos that happens to almost always be the result of Western military intervention.
Western countries, particularly the U.S., are directly responsible for the violence and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen, from which millions of refugees are fleeing:
  • The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of at least one million people, destabilized the entire region, and created extreme conditions in which militant groups like al-Qaeda spread like wildfire, eventually leading to the emergence of ISIS.
  • In Afghanistan, the ongoing U.S.-led war and occupation — which the Obama administration just prolonged for a second time — has led to approximately a quarter of a million deaths and has displaced millions of Afghans.
  • The disastrous U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya destroyed the government, turning the country into a hotbed for extremism and allowing militant groups like ISIS to spread west into North Africa. Thousands of Libyans have been killed, and hundreds of thousands made refugees.
  • In Yemen, the U.S. and other Western nations are arming and backing the Saudi-led coalition that is raining down bombs, including banned cluster munitions, on civilian areas, pulverizing the poorest country in the Middle East. And, once again — the story should now be familiar — thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.
Syria is a bit more complicated. Many refugees in the country, which has been torn apart by almost five years of bitter war, are fleeing the brutal repression of the Assad government. Western countries and their allies, however, share some of the blame. Allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey have greatly inflamed the conflict bysupporting extremist groups like al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra.
And it should go without saying that millions of Syrian refugees are fleeing the very same terror at the hands of ISIS that the group allegedly unleashed upon Paris. By suppressing Syrian and Iraqi refugees fleeing the ruthlessly violent extremist group, France and other Western countries will only be further adding to the already shocking number of its victims.

Dislocating the blame

When the U.S. and its allies bomb weddings and hospitals in Yemen and Afghanistan, killing hundreds of civilians, “Americans” doesn’t trend globally on Twitter. Yet when Parisians are allegedly killed by Islamic extremists, “Muslims” does.
The imperialist West always try to dislocate the blame. It’s always the foreigner’s, the non-Westerner’s, the Other’s fault; it’s never the fault of the enlightened West.
Islam is the new scapegoat. Western imperial policies of ravaging entire nations, propping up repressive dictators, and supporting extremist groups are conveniently forgotten.
The West is incapable of addressing its own imperial violence. Instead, it points its blood-stained finger accusingly at the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims and tells them they are the inherently violent ones.
Unfortunately, tragedies like the one we see in Paris are daily events in much of the Middle East, no thanks to the policies of the governments of France, the U.S., the U.K., and more. The horrific and unjustifiable yet rare terrorist attacks we in the West experience are the quotidian reality endured by those living in the region our governments brutalize.
This does not mean we should not mourn the Paris attacks; they are abominable, and the victims should and must be mourned. But we should likewise ensure that the victims of our governments’ crimes are mourned as well.
If we truly believe that all lives are equally valuable, if we truly believe that French lives matter no more than any others, we must mourn all deaths equally.

The dangers of habit

We know the responses to attacks like these. Great danger lies in them continuing on the same way.
Governments are going to call for more Western military intervention in the Middle East, more bombs, and more guns. Hard-line right-wing Senator Ted Cruz immediately demanded airstrikes with more “tolerance for civilian casualties.” Naturally, the proposed “solution” to individual acts of terror is to ramp up campaigns of state terror.
At home, they will call for more fences, more police, and more surveillance. Immediately after the Paris attacks, France closed its borders. In the U.S., as soon as the attacks were reported, the NYPD began militarizing parts of New York City.
The hegemonic “solution” is always more militarization, both abroad and here at home. Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.
At the time of the atrocious 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda was a relatively small and isolated group. It was the U.S.-led war in and occupation of Iraq that created the conditions of extreme violence, desperation, and sectarianism in which al-Qaeda metastasized, spreading worldwide. The West, in its addiction to militarism, played into the hands of the extremists, and today we see the rotten fruit borne of that rotten addiction: ISIS is the Frankenstein’s monster of Western imperialism.
Moreover, Western countries’ propping up of their oil-rich allies in the Gulf, extremist theocratic monarchies like Saudi Arabia, is a principal factor in the spread of Sunni extremism. The Obama administration did more than $100 billion of arms deals with the Saudi monarchy in the past five years, and France has increasingly signed enormous military contracts with theocratic autocracies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
If these are the strategies our governments continue to pursue, attacks like those in Paris will only be more frequent.
The far-right will continue to grow. Neo-fascism, the most dangerous development in the world today, will gain traction. People will radicalize.
The incidence of attacks inspired by ethno-nationalism or far-right extremism, already the leading cause of European and American terror, will increase even further.
The pundits will boost anti-Muslim bigotry and feed the anti-refugee fervor. In doing so, they will only make matters worse.
The Paris attacks, as horrific as they are, could be a moment to think critically about what our governments are doing both abroad and here at home. If we do not think critically, if we act capriciously, and violently, the wounds will only continue to fester. The bloodletting will ultimately accelerate.
In short, those who promote militarist policies and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee bigotries in response to the Paris attacks are only going to further propagate violence and hatred.
If the political cycle is not changed, the cycle of violence will continue.
Watch President Obama’s remarks on the situation in Paris
 
Inline image 1Inline image 3Inline image 2Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at@BenjaminNorton.
MORE BEN NORTON.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

On France's 'terror attacks' - my comments posted on The New York Times and THE HINDU

My comments posted on NY TIMES and THE HINDU: (Both remain unpublished)

Worldwide billions of dollars are spent by governments on intelligence gathering. It is therefore surprising that a modern European well-developed country like France should suffer such abominable calamity, while its intelligence community had no role to play in safeguarding its security, safety and integrity. Even worldwide community of intelligence agencies that are thick as thieves between them in passing and acting on intelligence gathered has been such a disaster in performing its supposed role. France's staunch friend, Israel which has extensive networking around the globe, should have been able to pick up some thread to warn the French authorities. All failed. This then appears to be a conspiracy of silence to let the event happen with a overarching objective of unleashing another Islamophobic wave of hate and revenge.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Night in Paris: Hostage situation, dozens dead in gunfire, suicide blasts

Night in Paris: Hostage situation, dozens dead in gunfire, suicide blasts

Monday, November 9, 2015

A Rebuke to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi - By THE EDITORIAL BOARD - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/opinion/a-rebuke-to-indias-prime-minister-narendra-modi.html?_r=0


The New York Times

The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

A Rebuke to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi

By NOV. 9, 2015
Photo
Nitish Kumar, chief minister of Bihar, greeted supporters after victory in state elections on Sunday.CreditAftab Alam Siddiqui/Associated Press
Advertisement

During a national election in India last year, Narendra Modi promisedDuring a national election in India last year, Narendra Modi promised “development for all.” As prime minister, he has yet to deliver big economic improvements, but in the meantime, members of his government and political party have shredded his promise of inclusion by inflaming sectarian tensions. Now, voters in the country’s third most populous state have sent Mr. Modi a message: Put an end to the hatemongering.
Poisoning politics with religious hatred is bound to squander the country’s economic potential at a time when India should be playing a bigger and more constructive role in South Asia and the world. India’s history is filled with examples of religious and caste-based violence that set the country back. Those conflicts subsided during India’s rapid economic growth, but many Indians now fear a resurgence.
On Sunday, Mr. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party lost a legislative election in the northern state of Bihar, which has a population of more than 100 million. A “grand alliance” of secular parties united by their antipathy to the Hindu nationalist B.J.P. won 178 constituencies in the 243-member legislative assembly to the B.J.P.’s 53. Many political analysts see the loss as a repudiation of Mr. Modi because he and his top aides campaigned vigorously in the state and many ads carried his image, rather than photos of local politicians.



In the months leading up to the Bihar election, hard-liners in the B.J.P. and organizations affiliated with the party stoked India’s long-simmering sectarian tensions. The party’s lawmakers pushed for beef bans around the country ostensibly to protect the cow, which many Hindus consider holy, but really as a ploy to divide Hindus and Muslims, some of whom eat beef.
Mobs riled by the anti-beef crusade have killed four Muslims suspected of slaughtering, stealing or smuggling cows in the last seven weeks. And in August, unidentified attackers shot and killed Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi, a scholar and vocal critic of Hindu idolatry. Hundreds of writers, filmmakers and academics have protested the growing intolerance by returning awards they received from the government-supported bodies.
Mr. Modi has not forcefully condemned the beef-related killings, despite pleas by Muslims and other minorities. He has tolerated hateful and insensitive remarks by his ministers and by B.J.P. officials.
Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

Thomas Zaslavsky

 2 hours ago
Prediction for the Times' editors (and commenter Arun Gupta): Modi cannot and will not stop playing the sectarian card because his party...

Arun Gupta

 3 hours ago
Right, vanquished by a casteist alliance, the Prime Minister is divisive. Would the NYT Editors wake up and stop believing their own...

Nancy

 4 hours ago
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1xYYAugust 4, 2014Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, India, United States and...
  • SEE ALL COMMENTS
  •  
  • WRITE A COMMENT
During a campaign stop in Bihar, Mr. Modi tried to exploit sectarian divisions by telling voters that the secular alliance would reduce affirmative action benefits for lower-caste Hindus and tribes in favor of “a particular community” — an apparent reference to Muslims. And the president of the B.J.P., Amit Shah, one of Mr. Modi’s closest advisers, told voters that a victory for the alliance would be celebrated in Pakistan, the Muslim-majority neighbor that has fought several wars with India since 1947.
Voters in Bihar saw through the B.J.P.’s attempts to divide them. They, like most Indians, are looking for leaders who will improve their standard of living. Bihar is one of the poorest states in India but has grown fast in the last 10 years under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who is credited for cracking down on crime, building roads and increasing the enrollment of girls in schools.
Mr. Modi and the B.J.P. secured a majority in the lower house of Parliament last year with promises of economic reforms. Now, to push through those reforms, the party needs to win the control of the upper house, which is elected by state assemblies. It won’t win those elections unless Mr. Modi gets rid of the officials in his government and party who are fueling sectarian culture wars.
Meanwhile, there are things Mr. Modi could do administratively to improve the economy, like investing in education and health care and building infrastructure. Voters in Bihar have sent the B.J.P. a clear message. Mr. Modi should heed it.
---

Friday, November 6, 2015

Muslims can't be booked for polygamy: HC - Indian Express, Mumbai

A court judgement that is so diametrically different treated by English media. Indian Express focuses on the final verdict, where court expresses its inability to punish the defendant for 'bigamy' as the Muslim is allowed polygamy by Muslim Personal Law. Other English media has gone to town harping that this is discrimination and sooner Muslims are brought under Uniform Civil Code, the better. How can Muslims be denied their constitutional right of freedom of religion. They have full right to abide by their religion, both in law and in spirit. The state law has no jurisdiction in their religious affairs. Period.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Readwhere <noreply@readwhere.com>
Date: 2015-11-06 18:30 GMT+05:30
Subject: Ghulam Muhammed shared a clipping of Mumbai
clip

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

RAJAN-DAWOOD RIVALRY: THE PAST AND THE FURIOUS - By S. Hussain Zaidi, Mumbai Mirror


HOW INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES COURT, SUPPORT AND PROTECT CRIMINALS AS IF THESE CRIMINALS ARE PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND THEREFORE LEGIT




Inline image 1

RAJAN-DAWOOD RIVALRY: THE PAST AND THE FURIOUS

 

 

By S Hussain Zaidi, Mumbai Mirror | Oct 27, 2015, 12.21 AM IST

Inline image 2
After falling out with Dawood Ibrahim, Rajan carefully cultivated image of 'patriotic gangster' for survival.

Chhota Rajan is a survivor. From being nearly bumped off at a yacht party that he was invited to in 1993 by Chhota Shakeel to the brazen attempt on his life in September 2000 in Bangkok, the gangster from Chembur knows how to get out of a sticky situation. It is this survival instinct, rather than any newfound love for India, that made Rajan get into a strategic deal with the authorities.

Till early nineties, Dawood Ibrahim and Rajan were thick as thieves. Rajan worshipped Dawood. He had risen from being a black-marketer of tickets at Chembur's Sahakar cinema in the late eighties to Dawood's right-hand man. And none of Dawood's lieutenants liked the proximity and trust that the two shared.

Cracks began to appear between the two in July 1992 with the daylight murder of Ibrahim Parkar in Nagpada by Arun Gawli's men. Ibrahim was Dawood's brother-in-law; husband to Haseena Parkar, the sister that Dawood used to dote on. Dawood had a sprawling empire, unmatched muscle and fire power; yet the hit on Parkar was not avenged. Rajan was the eyes and ears of Dawood at the time, but he did nothing - instead of planning a counter hit, Rajan was enjoying life with wine, women and song. The seeds of mistrust between Dawood and Rajan had been sown.

Dawood's trusted lieutenants, Chhota Shakeel and Sunil Sawant, smelled blood. They tried to convince Dawood that they could take out Gawli's men and avenge his brother-in-law's death. In the process, they would discredit Rajan as well. An elaborate plan was drawn up.

Taking out his enemies while they were under police protection was a fetish of sorts for Dawood. In order to avenge his brother Sabir Kaskar's murder, Dawood had ordered a hit on Amirzada in the sessions court in 1983.

September 6, 1992, witnessed the most daring operation in Mumbai gangland's history. Sawant and his men stormed into JJ Hospital to finish of Gawli's men, Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere. The two were under police protection but the posse of constables could do nothing. While Haldankar died, Shere escaped. Three policemen were also killed in the operation. Dawood had sent out the first in a series of messages.

With the hit, Dawood had managed to prove a point to his rivals, placated his sister and sought solace in the fact that at least his brother-in-law's killers were eliminated. Rajan had forgotten the age old adage in the Mumbai mafia: 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. Dawood promoted Shakeel and Sawant as his number two and three. The alienation of Rajan had begun.

One fine evening in 1993, Rajan was on his way to the yacht party organized by Shakeel. Chhota Shakeel and his cronies had plotted to kill him and dump the body in the sea. Just in the nick of time, Rajan got an alert about the impending attack and changed his plans. He also realized that Shakeel could have never taken the decision to bump him off unilaterally. The plan had to have Dawood's blessings.

Rajan then reportedly fell on Dawood's feet and asked for forgiveness. Dawood agreed to give him one last chance to prove his loyalty.

The opportunity came soon after. After the blasts of 1993, Dawood was getting a lot of bad press. The carefully cultivated image, thanks to the generous portrayals in Bollywood, had taken a massive beating.

The man at the forefront of whipping Dawood was then Shiv Sena supremo, the late Bal Thackeray, who was lashing out at him through the party mouthpiece, Saamna. The tide was turning against Dawood and his men. Rajan realized that if he wanted to save himself, he should his boss's image. Audaciously, and unexpectedly, Rajan stooped to the level of a telephone operator and began calling and shooting faxes to various newspaper offices. Through their offices, he asked Thackeray to mind his political business and also told him that Dawood did not need a certificate of patriotism from the Sena chief.
And it worked.

In those days, nobody had the guts to take on Thackeray. Rajan's temerity earned him brownie points with Dawood. Perhaps this also managed to ward off the proverbial Damocles' sword hanging over his neck. Dawood might have given him a second chance but his lieutenants were in no mood to forgive and forget.

Rajan had tried his best to appease Dawood and reclaim his position as his Man Friday, but in vain. By 1994, he realized he could be bumped off in Dubai. The only recourse left for him was to escape and save his life.

Rajan sought help from the Indian Embassy. Since Rajan's passport was in the custody of a kafeel (local sponsor), he got another passport made in a jiffy and in the process sold his loyalty to the intelligence agencies. The association was to prove mutually beneficial in the time to come.

Once Rajan survived, he decided to get back at Dawood. However, Rajan's main objective was to destroy Shakeel's stronghold on the gang and show the men who was boss. With confusion in the ranks, most hitmen in Mumbai and Bengaluru could be easily made to switch their allegiance to Rajan as he was leading the pack until recently and the transfer of oath of fealty seemed easier.

So with some of his trusted aides like Sadhu Shetty, Avdhoot Bonde and Vilas Mane, Rajan launched a violent assault on Shakeel's men in Mumbai. And a parallel assault on Dawood's empire in Dubai. This resulted in Dawood relocating to Karachi from Dubai.

Due to his proximity to Dawood, Rajan knew most of his loyalists in Bollywood, construction czars and other businessmen. Rajan systematically began targeting them.

Rajan had seen the power of public opinion once; and he wanted to capitalize on it. Overnight, he became a self-proclaimed patriotic don and started floating stories that Dawood was a traitor and anti-India as he had orchestrated the serial blasts of 1993. For some, this worked and caused a vertical split in the gang and its sympathizers.

To drive his point home, Rajan started picking out serial blasts accused who had been granted bail by the TADA court. The message was loud and clear - people who had committed a crime against the country would not be spared.

In fact, 1998 turned out to be Mumbai's most violent year, when over 100 shootouts were reported in the city.

The animosity between Dawood and Rajan had scaled such heights that Dawood's other rivalries -- with the Pathan syndicate or with Arun Gawli --paled in comparison.

Rajan could have successfully continued and may have even succeeded in his quest until he got almost killed on September 15, 2000, in an assault on him in Bangkok by Shakeel's men.