America as a Shining Drone Upon a Hill - By Tom Engelhardt - Information Clearing House

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31312.htm

 

America as a Shining Drone Upon a Hill

On Staring Death in the Face and Not Noticing

By Tom Engelhardt

May 14, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- Here’s the essence of it: you can trust America’s crème de la crème, the most elevated, responsible people, no matter what weapons, what powers, you put in their hands.  No need to constantly look over their shoulders.

Placed in the hands of evildoers, those weapons and powers could create a living nightmare; controlled by the best of people, they lead to measured, thoughtful, precise decisions in which bad things are (with rare and understandable exceptions) done only to truly terrible types.  In the process, you simply couldn’t be better protected.

And in case you were wondering, there is no question who among us are the best, most lawful, moral, ethical, considerate, and judicious people: the officials of our national security state.  Trust them implicitly.  They will never give you a bum steer.

You may be paying a fortune to maintain their world -- the 30,000 people hired to listen in on conversations and other communications in this country, the 230,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security, the 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, the 4.2 million with security clearances of one sort or another, the $2 billion, one-million-square-foot data center that the National Security Agency is constructing in Utah, the gigantic $1.8 billion headquarters the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency recently built for its 16,000 employees in the Washington area -- but there’s a good reason.  That’s what’s needed to make truly elevated, surgically precise decisions about life and death in the service of protecting American interests on this dangerous globe of ours.

And in case you wondered just how we know all this, we have it on the best authority: the people who are doing it -- the only ones, given the obvious need for secrecy, capable of judging just how moral, elevated, and remarkable their own work is.  They deserve our congratulations, but if we’re too distracted to give it to them, they are quite capable of high-fiving themselves.

We’re talking, in particular, about the use by the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) of a growing armada of remotely piloted planes, a.k.a. drones, grimly labeled Predators and Reapers, to fight a nameless, almost planet-wide war (formerly known as the Global War on Terror).  Its purpose: to destroy al-Qaeda-in-wherever and all its wannabes and look-alikes, the Taliban, and anyone affiliated or associated with any of the above, or just about anyone else we believe might imminently endanger our “interests.”

In the service of this war, in the midst of a perpetual state of war and of wartime, every act committed by these leaders is, it turns out, absolutely, totally, and completely legal.  We have their say-so for that, and they have the documents to prove it, largely because the best and most elevated legal minds among them have produced that documentation in secret. (Of course, they dare not show it to the rest of us, lest lives be endangered.)

By their own account, they have, in fact, been covertly exceptional, moral, and legal for more than a decade (minus, of course, the odd black site and torture chamber) -- so covertly exceptional, in fact, that they haven’t quite gotten the credit they deserve.  Now, they would like to make the latest version of their exceptional mission to the world known to the rest of us.  It is finally in our interest, it seems, to be a good deal better informed about America’s covert wars in a year in which the widely announced “covert” killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is a major selling point in the president’s reelection campaign.

No one should be surprised.  There was always an “overt” lurking in the “covert” of what now passes for “covert war.”  The CIA’s global drone assassination campaign has long been a bragging point in Washington, even if it couldn’t officially be discussed directly before, say, Congress.  The covertness of our drone wars in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere really turns out to have less to do with secrecy -- just about every covert drone strike is reported, sooner or later, in the media -- than assuring two administrations that they could pursue their drone wars without accountability to anyone.

A Classic of Self-Congratulation

Recently, top administration officials seem to be fanning out to offer rare peeks into what’s truly on-target and exceptional about America’s drone wars. In many ways, these days, American exceptionalism is about as unexceptional as apple pie.  It has, for one thing, become the everyday language of the presidential campaign trail.  And that shouldn’t surprise us either.  After all, great powers and their leaders tend to think well of themselves.  The French had their “mission civilisatrice,” the Chinese had the “mandate of heaven,” and like all imperial powers they inevitably thought they were doing the best for themselves and others, sadly benighted, in this best of all possible worlds.

Sometimes, though, the American version of this does seem... I hate to use the word, but exceptional.  If you want to get a taste of just what this means, consider as Exhibit One a recent speech by the president’s counterterrorism “tsar,” John Brennan, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  According to his own account, he was dispatched to the center by President Obama to provide greater openness when it comes to the administration’s secret drone wars, to respond to critics of the drones and their legality, and undoubtedly to put a smiley face on drone operations generally.

Ever since the Puritan minister John Winthrop first used the phrase in a sermon on shipboard on the way to North America, “a city upon a hill” has caught something of at least one American-style dream -- a sense that this country’s fate was to be a blessed paragon for the rest of the world, an exception to every norm.  In the last century, it became “a shining city upon a hill” and was regularly cited in presidential addresses.

Whatever that “city,” that dream, was once imagined to be, it has undergone a largely unnoticed metamorphosis in the twenty-first century.  It has become -- even in our dreams -- an up-armored garrison encampment, just as Washington itself has become the heavily fortified bureaucratic heartland of a war state.  So when Brennan spoke, what he offered was a new version of American exceptionalism: the first “shining drone upon a hill” speech, which also qualifies as an instant classic of self-congratulation.

Never, according to him, has a country with such an advanced weapon system as the drone used it quite so judiciously, quite so -- if not peacefully -- at least with the sagacity and skill usually reserved for the gods.  American drone strikes, he assured his listeners, are “ethical and just," "wise," and "surgically precise” -- exactly what you’d expect from a country he refers to, quoting the president, as the preeminent “standard bearer in the conduct of war.”

Those drone strikes, he assured his listeners, are based on staggeringly “rigorous standards” involving the individual identification of human targets. Even when visited on American citizens outside declared war zones, they are invariably “within the bounds of the law,” as you would expect of the preeminent “nation of laws.” 

The strikes are never motivated by vengeance, always target someone known to us as the worst of the worst, and almost invariably avoid anyone who is even the most mediocre of the mediocre.  (Forget the fact that, as Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported, the CIA has recently received permission from the president to launch drone strikes in Yemen based only on the observed “patterns of suspicious behavior” of groups of unidentified individuals, as was already true in the Pakistani tribal borderlands.)

Yes, in such circumstances innocents do unfortunately die, even if unbelievably rarely -- and for that we couldn’t be more regretful.  Such deaths, however, are in some sense salutary, since they lead to the most rigorous reviews and reassessments of, and so improvements in, our actions. “This too,” Brennan assured his audience, “is a reflection of our values as Americans.”

“I would note,” he added, “that these standards, for identifying a target and avoiding... the loss of lives of innocent civilians, exceed what is required as a matter of international law on a typical battlefield.  That’s another example of the high standards to which we hold ourselves.”

And that’s just a taste of the tone and substance of the speech given by the president’s leading counterterrorism expert, and in it he’s no outlier.  It catches something about an American sense of self at this moment.  Yes, Americans may be ever more down on the Afghan war, but like their leaders, they are high on drones.  In a February Washington Post/ABC News poll, 83% of respondents supported the administration’s use of drones.  Perhaps that’s not surprising either, since the drones are generally presented here as the coolest of machines, as well as cheap alternatives (in money and lives) to sending more armies onto the Eurasian mainland.

Predator Nation

In these last years, this country has pioneered the development of the most advanced killing machines on the planet for which the national security state has plans decades into the future.  Conceptually speaking, our leaders have also established their “right” to send these robot assassins into any airspace, no matter the local claims of national sovereignty, to take out those we define as evil or simply to protect American interests.  On this, Brennan couldn’t be clearer.  In the process, we have turned much of the rest of the planet into what can only be considered an American free-fire zone.

We have, in short, established a remarkably expansive set of drone-war rules for the global future.  Naturally, we trust ourselves with such rules, but there is a fly in the ointment, even as the droniacs see it.  Others far less sagacious, kindly, lawful, and good than we are do exist on this planet and they may soon have their own fleets of drones.  About 50 countries are today buying or developing such robotic aircraft, including Russia, China, and Iran, not to speak of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  And who knows what terror groups are looking into suicide drones?

As the Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it in a column about Brennan’s speech: “What if the Chinese deployed drones to protect their workers in southern Sudan against rebels who have killed them in past attacks? What if Iran used them against Kurdish separatists they regard as terrorists? What if Russia used them over Chechnya? What position would the United States take, and wouldn’t it be hypocritical if it opposed drone attacks by other nations that face ‘imminent’ or ‘significant’ threats?”

This is Washington’s global drone conundrum as seen from inside the Beltway.  These are the nightmarish scenarios even our leaders can imagine others producing with their own drones and our rules.  A deeply embedded sense of American exceptionalism, a powerful belief in their own special, self-evident goodness, however, conveniently blinds them to what they are doing right now.  Looking in the mirror, they are incapable of seeing a mask of death.  And yet our proudest export at present, other than Hollywood superhero films, may be a stone-cold robotic killer with a name straight out of a horror movie.

Consider this as well: those “shining drones” launched on campaigns of assassination and slaughter are increasingly the “face” that we choose to present to the world.  And yet it’s beyond us why it might not shine for others.

In reality, it’s not so hard to imagine what we increasingly look like to those others: a Predator nation.  And not just to the parents and relatives of the more than 160 children the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented as having died in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.  After all, war is now the only game in town.  Peace?  For the managers of our national security state, it’s neither a word worth mentioning, nor an imaginable condition.

In truth, our leaders should be in mourning for whatever peaceful dreams we ever had.  But mention drones and they light up.  They’re having a love affair with those machines.  They just can’t get enough of them or imagine their world or ours without them.

What they can’t see in the haze of exceptional self-congratulation is this: they are transforming the promise of America into a promise of death. And death, visited from the skies, isn’t precise. It isn’t glorious. It isn’t judicious. It certainly isn’t a shining vision.  It’s hell.  And it’s a global future for which, someday, no one will thank us.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s as well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

This article was first published at TomDispatch

Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt

Code Pink’s Next Battle - Drone warfare - By Jacob Silverman - The Tablet Magazine

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/99000/code-pinks-next-battle?all=1

United States

Code Pink’s Next Battle

Can the women’s antiwar group, active in the anti-Israel BDS effort, turn people against drone warfare?

By Jacob Silverman|May 8, 2012 7:00 AM|9comments

Print Email

 

Replica Reaper drone. An actual drone is five times this size. (Noreen Nasir)

“Jeremy, is President Obama a serial murderer?” Ralph Nader asked.

Nader directed this question to Jeremy Scahill, the journalist for The Nation who’s been working on a documentary about targeted killing, at Mount Vernon Place United Methodist church in Washington D.C., on a recent Saturday night. Scahill had just finished delivering a blistering 40-minute speech attacking Obama’s foreign policy, which he said doesn’t differ in any significant way from George W. Bush’s and, in fact, has only expanded on some of its worst aspects. Nader stood in front of his seat, waiting expectantly for Scahill’s response.

Scahill hedged for a minute before offering his answer: “It comes with the office title.”

Scahill’s remark—and Nader’s question—typified the outrage at what was arguably the world’s first Drone Summit. Held on April 28 and 29 in Washington, D.C., the event was sponsored by Code Pink, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the British legal organization Reprieve, which lobbies against the death penalty and represents inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Scahill—who received a boisterous standing ovation from the crowd—had unleashed a fusillade of zingers in his speech, including: “President Obama is the one operating secret death panels”; “We have set an agenda that terrorists need to die. And we have some hammers, so let’s go find some nails”; and: “We have become a nation of assassins.”

Those gathered at the conference count themselves among a lonely minority, for the program, perhaps the country’s worst-kept secret, is actually immensely popular among the American public. In a February Washington Post/ABC News poll, 83 percent of respondents approved of the U.S. drone program; 63 percent approved of using drones to kill suspected American terrorists overseas. That may not be a surprise, given that drones are credited with breaking the back of al-Qaida in Pakistan. But critics of drone warfare, including the 250 participants at last week’s conference, contend that the U.S. program is illegal, a boon to jihadist recruitment, a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, and far less precise than the U.S. government claims, particularly with the use of “signature strikes,” in which targets are plucked out based on a “pattern of life.” (The methodology behind signature strikes remains secret, but it is believed to involve tracking movements, looking for the transport of weapons, and building a dossier of other incriminating behavior.)
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which participated in the conference, claims that at least 2,429 people have been killed in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, and that at least 479 of them were civilians. But with drones now finding their way stateside—the Border Patrol uses unarmed Predators at both borders, and the Federal Aviation Administration has begun drawing up rules for domestic drone use by law enforcement and private operators—anti-drone activists believe that the public can be turned against drones, especially if they believe that their own privacy and civil liberties are at risk.

Which is why, though drone warfare appears entrenched as a counter-terrorism strategy, Code Pink hopes that it’s not too late to raise the alarm about growing domestic drone use, which may, in turn, raise concern about secret wars and civilian casualties overseas. The conference was the brainchild of Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, who is also the author of a new book on the subject, Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. Benjamin, along with the event’s co-sponsors, aims to catalyze a nascent anti-drone campaign that includes constitutional scholars, aging Vietnam War activists, Pakistani lawyers, Yemeni journalists, and Occupy protesters concerned about domestic surveillance.

“Unless we shine a light on it, we’re going to turn around and say, ‘Wait, how’d we get involved in all these wars without knowing about it?’ ” Benjamin told me. “We’re going to turn around and say: ‘How do we suddenly have drones watching us here at home without us knowing about it?’ I think this is a movement in some ways behind its time when it comes to the use of drones for lethal killing and ahead of its time when it comes to drones for spying here at home.”

***

Here’s what that guild of doves is up against: powerful military contractors, the intelligence community, a 55-member Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, and the president himself. Benjamin’s campaign also comes at a nadir for the antiwar left. The election of Barack Obama sapped the energy from her organization, which had thrived as much on theatrical gestures of pique toward George W. Bush as it did on opposition to that administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Code Pink is much smaller than we were during the Bush years,” Benjamin admitted. “We find that though the core members of Code Pink are just as angry at Obama as we were at Bush, a lot of the people who supported Code Pink became quiet when Obama got elected.” (In its 2010 IRS filing, the organization reported $317,380 in assets—or about 7 percent of the cost of one Predator drone.)

But Benjamin and her fellow activists see an opportunity in the momentum of the still inchoate Occupy movement—and view drones as a way to capitalize on activists’ frustration with U.S. militarism. They hope to harness Occupy’s energy and organizational skills, as well as its popularity with young people, and in turn to teach Occupiers how the use of drones here and abroad is, in fact, related to their economic concerns. Anti-drone activists draw a connection between outsized military spending and drone warfare, which they believe provides a convenient and low-risk method of perpetuating existing conflicts while encouraging the military and CIA to expand or open new, costly campaigns in places like Yemen and Somalia. What’s more, they argue, drones could soon be deployed by police departments to monitor protesters and even to shoot them with nonlethal weapons. They predict that communities will be under perpetual surveillance, spied upon by drones equipped with powerful cameras and facial-recognition technology. (Drone manufacturers have begun vigorously marketing their products to U.S. police departments, several of which already own drones.)

While Code Pink is known for flamboyant displays like holding “kiss-ins” outside of recruiting centers (“Make out, not war!” their signs read), Benjamin doesn’t seem interested in coloring this campaign pink. (Her book, though, was on prominent display at the conference.) It may be something she’s learned from Occupy’s leaderless structure or is simply an unfortunate exigency of an attenuated antiwar movement.

“Now we have the Occupy movement, so it doesn’t have to be Code Pink,” Benjamin said. “It feels really good when you know that some war criminal is coming to town and you can call up folks in the Occupy movement and they’ll be out there. Or we can join in their actions, for example, on holding the banks accountable.”

Benjamin, who moved a couple years ago from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., has taken part in a number of Occupy actions and speaks glowingly about its mission, and it’s clear that it’s helped to reanimate her organization. But Occupy isn’t the only protest movement that Code Pink hopes to harness. In our interview, Benjamin emphasized that drone opponents could learn something from their peers engaged in BDS—the boycott, divestment, and sanctions aimed at Israel.

“This is an opportunity to make links with the Israeli peace movement, with the Palestinian social justice movement, to use some of the strategies by the BDS to look at getting divestment from drone industries here at home, getting students involved and seeing what drone research is being done on their campuses, and trying to separate their campuses from the development of drones,” she told me. “So, I think there’s a lot of overlap and a lot of lessons that we can learn from the BDS movement.”

In my conversations with anti-drone activists, it quickly became clear that they consider the BDS campaign an important model for their work, despite its lack of tangible successes. The two causes have much in common. Both can draw on narratives of powerful militaries subjugating disempowered Muslim populations. And with Israel having essentially invented the modern military drone, as well as being the No. 1 exporter of drones, the links are more than thematic. Israel pioneered targeted killing by drones and now deploys them extensively in Gaza. The Predator drone—the most recognizable and popular umanned aerial vehicle in the American arsenal—is based on an earlier design by Abraham Karem, an Israeli. For many activists, then, drones are another arena in which the United States and Israel are deeply connected—and deserving of censure. These close military partners, activists argue, both rely on similar technology to break international law.

***

Allegiances at the drone summit were declared by way of T-shirts, pins, and free pamphlets. One summit volunteer wore a T-shirt in support of Mohammad Mossadegh. Veterans for Peace garb was ubiquitous; BDS or Gaza Flotilla gear popped up periodically. A couple men wore black shirts bearing the pleading but tongue-in-cheek text, “unarmed civilian.” (They’re part of an organization called Know Drones, which tours the country with drone models and educational materials as a way of stirring up anti-drone activism.)

The archetypal summit attendee was Jimmy Johnson, a 34-year-old Midwesterner. Wearing faded blue overalls and standing well over 6 feet tall, with a small paunch, scruffy cheeks, and a buzzed head, Johnson at first has the look of a farmer far from home. But his tattoos give him away: Across one set of knuckles is the word shalom; tzedek decorates the other hand. And in a curved line on his back, just below his neck, are the words “tzedek, tzedek tirdof lemaan tichyeh.” (Justice, justice you shall pursue so that you may live, a verse from Deuteronomy.)

Johnson, who is Jewish, is a one-man advocacy organization, operating under the name Neged Neshek, meaning “Against Arms.” He researches and tracks Israeli weapons development and the export of these technologies. “In a way you’re kind of following the Occupation out into the world,” he told me.

Johnson lives in Detroit, where he also grew up. In the 1990s, he served in the Army as part of a fuel-hauling unit working in support of the No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. “It was planes that were going back and forth and bombing once, twice a week for the whole decade,” he said. “That was my role.”

After a year-and-a-half, he deserted, earning himself a dishonorable discharge. I asked him why he left: “Maybe I got a little conscious of activism and then I forgot why I was helping to kill Iraqis. It didn’t make any sense to me.”

A relationship later took him to Israel. He wasn’t a Zionist then, he said, and isn’t one now. But he remained in Israel for 10 years and became disturbed by the demolition of Palestinian homes.

Two years ago, he moved back to Detroit to take care of his brother, who would soon die of an illness. Johnson is trained as a mechanic, but the city has few jobs, so he’s devoted to his work with Neged Neshek, which in turn has brought him into contact with a number of European and Israeli groups concerned with the arms trade and Palestinian rights. He’s also active in the Detroit Occupy movement, and he’s the author of an unpublished 47-page pamphlet, “Fragments of the Pacification Industry: Exporting the Tools of Inequality Management From Palestine/Israel.”

Whatever one might think of his beliefs, Johnson is, like many of those I encountered at the drone summit, deeply versed in the issues. He participated in a panel at the summit (“Ethical/Political Issues of Drone Use & Targeted Killings”) and gave a brief presentation about Israeli drones, where he called the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon “a turning point” for the technology.

Johnson is also, like many other attendees, essentially a lone operator while also being a relentless networker. I spotted him speaking with panelists and activists throughout the weekend, often waiting patiently nearby as a scientist or lawyer packed up his presentation materials. In some ways, the structure of this young movement mirrors the drone program itself, which is dispersed among dozens of military bases around the United States and sites abroad and is supplied by military contractors throughout the country. It is a distributed network relying on close communication and sharing of data.

***

On the second day of the conference, attendance had slipped from the first day, but energy levels were high. That morning, a CIA drone had struck in Miramshah, a frequent target in North Waziristan, a district in Pakistan’s FATA region. I sat in on a discussion group of a dozen or so activists, and on a whiteboard someone had written the town’s name, underlined it, and drawn an arrow pointing to text that read, “4 girls killed this a.m. by CIA drone strikes / BOO! HISS!!” (News reports said that four unnamed militants were killed. They were apparently holed up in an abandoned girls school.)

One group was focused on domestic drones; another, which included a group of Stanford law students, was discussing legal policy. Mine was tasked with brainstorming direct action, education, and organizational strategies. The conversation was free-flowing and generally cordial but suffused with the antic passions endemic to political meetings. Activists took turns speaking and sometimes fluttered their fingers in the air to show agreement.

There was wide support among the group for the use of dramatic visual aids and of gory imagery. One man proposed distributing stickers with graphic photos after drone strikes. “That way they have to confront it,” he said. Another suggested using mural art to depict events in Afghanistan. “We want people to know what it looks like,” said a man from Know Drones, the touring educational organization, who identified himself simply as Jeff.

A man with a Veterans for Peace shirt and pin, his thin white hair matched by a white beard, worried that base protests, while a popular idea, weren’t that useful. “The thing is you’re not educating anybody,” he noted.

Another Veterans for Peace man, this one in a Free Bradley Manning shirt, said, “Don’t forget economics”—that is, emphasizing the cost of the drone program. (A Reaper drone, for example, costs about $30 million of taxpayer money, and Hellfire missiles go for about $70,000 each.)

The man launched into a short disquisition on his background. He almost became a Catholic monk but now attends a synagogue, he told us, before name-checking Rabbi Michael Lerner, a Bay Area-based rabbi known for his social activism.

A National Day Against Drones was discussed several times before the group agreed that it was one of their most promising ideas. When someone raised the issue of protesting other weapons systems, like cruise missiles and AC-130 gunships, both of which have been used to strike militants in Somalia, a man emphasized the particular visual power of drones: “This is our new image. It’s a good image that we can use.”

A middle-aged, dreadlocked man, wearing sunglasses and sitting outside the circle, offered a slight critique. “I’m still not focused on what the endgame is,” he said. “At the end of the day, what needs to be done so that everybody can go home?”

After a few seconds, someone else spoke up, returning to an old standby: “Right now, I think a really good model is the BDS movement.” He emphasized that it has a “specific ask”—i.e., boycott Israel—and that the anti-drone movement should as well.

A woman who identified herself as Barbara Wien, an academic involved in the Peace & Justice Studies Association, added, “Israel is the largest exporter of drones, so that’s a connection between our anti-drones [campaign] and BDS work.”

“How many people are on Facebook?”

Some hands went up.

“So is the government,” a woman said, sourly.

A man in a cutoff T-shirt proposed that Columbia’s journalism school “would be a great place to do some street theater, before they all become flunkies for AP and UPI.”

The Lockheed Martin union was mentioned as problematic (too in thrall to management), but Lockheed, which manufactures the Hellfire missile and is the country’s largest military contractor, was named as an important protest target.

Jeff returned to the notion of reaching out to interfaith groups, before an elderly woman, whose black T-shirt read “We Will Not Be Silent” in Arabic, Hebrew, and English, remarked that she doesn’t like the use of the word “terrorism,” even in regard to Pakistani Taliban attacks on Pakistani civilians. “We have no business being there or telling people what to do,” she said. Another woman had trouble with “acknowledging that there’s even a problem with terror,” saying it feeds into militarism.

Later, the groups reconvened to share what they’d settled on. The group I observed agreed on distributing educational materials, using public art and street theater, and organizing a National Day Against Drones. A statement was read aloud; some slight amendments were suggested and ratified, including one, put forth by a roboticist, noting that certain nonmilitary uses of drones are acceptable.

Medea Benjamin, standing in front of a blowup of her book cover, raised the possibility of leading a delegation to Pakistan to meet with activists, lawmakers, and victims’ families. She asked Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer, if they would be welcomed in his country.

“Yes, yes. We have plenty of jail cells,” he cracked.

***

The day after the summit ended, John Brennan, the president’s chief counterterrorism adviser, gave a speech defending the drone war. It was a rare on-the-record comment about the secretive program, though it offered no revelations about targeting procedures or other such matters. Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Brennan was interrupted by a protester, who yelled at him about the deaths of innocent people and the sanctity of the Constitution. Few people in that room likely knew that the woman disrupting Brennan was Medea Benjamin. The woman whose group had been the colorful vanguard of antiwar protest under the Bush Administration went unrecognized. ABC News reported that “a well-dressed blonde woman” had to be carried out of the auditorium.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

 
Jacob Silverman is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and book critic. He is also a contributing editor for the Virginia Quarterly Review

How the bastrdisation of Keynes is still haunting us. - DNA, English Daily, Mumbai, India

Open letter to Mr. Vivek Kaul, re: his article: How the bastrdisation of Keynes is still haunting us. - DNA, English Daily, Mumbai, India

Monday, May 14, 2012

Dear Mr. Vivek Kaul, Salaams

Re: Your DNA article - How the bastardisation of Keynes is still haunting us.

You wrote:

"On the subject of money, I was reading somewhere about some Western economists recommending negative interest rates, she said.

"The idea is to charge people who let their money lying idle in a bank account." I explained.

Unquote

Since you are apparently open minded about reading 'somewhere', about the negative interest rate and placing the idea with Western economists; I may venture to present the case of Islam's Zakat concept, imposed over 14 centuries ago, of charging 2 1/2 % on all accumulated wealth, that remains with the individual for full one year and is turned over to Baitul Maal for the benefit of the needy among other state expenditures.

The second idea of -- saving money during the good times to be spent during the bad times, --- attributed to Keynes, is as old as Prophet Yusuf, who interpreted Pharaoh's dream  and  advised about saving crops during 7 years' good times to be used for the next 7 years of drought and famine. This is very explicit in Quran.

Regretfully, we are so besotted to West, that we refuse to acknowledge that in the world of ideas, West is not always original. It is a good packager. But once we know its sources of ideas, any competitor will try to find out Western sources, so that it may find out if there are more ideas from whence one particular idea has probably come out.

Muslim have been inviting the world to Islamic ideas and now particularly the no-interest banking idea. But I can only quote Ghalib at this juncture:

Main bulata tu  hoon usko magar a jazba-e dil
Oos pe ban jaye kuchh aisi ke bin aaye na bane
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

-------------

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_how-the-bastardisation-of-keynes-is-still-haunting-us_1688370

How the bastardisation of Keynes is still haunting us Vivek Kaul | Monday, May 14, 2012

Comments  |  Post a comment  |   Share this article  |   Print  |   Email

“So how does it feel to be an educated unemployed?” she asked. “Shikshit berozgar sounds much better,” I retorted. “Plus you are making a pot load of money anyway.” “Ah. Where has the male ego gone?”   “Well, as long as you keep the money coming, ego can take a backseat.”   “On the subject of money, I was reading somewhere about some Western economists recommending negative interest rates,” she said. “The idea is to charge people who let their money lying idle in a bank account,” I explained. “Charge?” “Yes. Say if you keep $1,000 in your bank account and the negative interest rate is 2%, then at the end of the year, your account will have $980 ($1,000 - 2% of $1,000).” “Oh. But why?” “So that instead of letting the money lay idle in the bank account people take it out and spend it.” “And how will that help?” “Well, when people spend the money, the demand for goods and services will go up. This, in turn, will mean more profits for businesses, which, in turn, may recruit more people and decrease unemployment.” “Interesting. Where does this idea come from?” “It comes from the concept of paradox of thrift which was first explained by John Maynard Keynes, an economist whose thinking had the most influence on economists and politicians of the twentieth century.” “But why call it a paradox? Isn’t being thrifty or saving money a good thing?” “Keynes thought that when it comes to saving, what makes sense for an individual may not work for the economy. If an individual saves more, he cuts down on his expenditure. If one person does this, it makes sense for him because he saves more money. But more people doing it creates a problem.” “What problem?” “What is expenditure for one person is income for someone else. When you buy your fancy makeup, a lot of people earn money. The shop you buy it from. The company that makes the brand you buy and so on. When you don’t, the entire chain earns lesser.” “Ah. Never thought about it that way.” “So, as everybody spends less, businesses see a fall in revenue. To stay competitive, they start firing people, which leads to a further cut in spending. The unemployed obviously spend less.But so do others in the fear that they might be fired as well.” “And all this is not good for the economy,” she said.  “But how is it linked to negative interest rates?” “Since the financial crisis started in 2008, people in Europe, America and even Japan, are not spending money. Hence the idea of negative interest rates has been put forward. People would rather spend the money than see its value go down.” “But is that what Keynes suggested?” “No. What Keynes had said was that consumers and firms would be unwilling to spend money in an environment where jobs are falling and demand is falling or is flat or growing at a very slow rate. So, the government should become the ‘spender of the last resort’ by coming up with a stimulus package.” “Hmmm.” “Keynes also said that during recessions, the government should not be trying to balance its budget. That is to say, match its income with expenditure. The logic being that taxes collected would anyway fall during a recession. If the government tried to match this with a cut in expenditure, it would squeeze the economy even more.” “So Keynes advocated that governments run fiscal deficits,” she concluded. “Not at all. Keynes believed that on an average, the government budget should be balanced. This meant that during years of prosperity, the governments should run budget surpluses. That is, earn more than what they spend. But when the economy wasn’t doing well, governments should spend more than what they earn and hence run a fiscal deficit.” “Okay. So the money saved during the good time could be spent during the bad times.” “Yes. Keynes came up with this theory in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. This book had ideas based on the study of the Great Depression. During those days, it was not fashionable for governments to run fiscal deficits as it is today. As Franklin Roosevelt, the then President of America, put it: ‘Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.’ But then attitudes changed.” “How was that?” “As governments got ready to fight World War II, they spent a lot of money in getting ready for it, which meant they ended with fiscal deficits.Economies around the world which were still in the doldrums because of the Great Depression, suddenly started rebounding,” I explained. “And so the star of Keynes shone?” “Yes. But the politicians over the decades just took one part of Keynes’s advice and ran with it. The belief in running deficits in bad times became permanently etched in their minds. Meantime, they forgot that Keynes had also wanted them to be running surpluses during good times. So, they ran deficits in good times and bigger deficits in bad times. This meant more and more borrowing. And that’s how the Western world ended up with all the debt which has brought the world to the brink of economic disaster.” “But what about negative interest rates?” she asked. “Will they help?” “Not really.” “Why?” “See, the thing is, other than government debts increasing in the Western world, the debt of individuals has also gone up over the years. So, right now, they, by not spending, are saving money so that they can repay their debts.” “Hmmm. But do you see negative interest rates coming in?” “On the face of it I don’t think that will happen,” I replied. “But then you never know. Politicians have bastardised Keynes in the past. They can do it again.” “How sure are you of this?” she asked. “Let me answer your question with a couplet written by Javed Akhtar.  Main khud bhi sochta hoon ye kya mera haal hai/ Jiska jawab chahiye wo kya sawaal hai.” Vivek Kaul is a writer and can be reached at   vivek.kaul@gmail.com

3Share

PATELS HAVE LET DOWN VALLABHBHAI - By Aakar Patel - Livemint.com - Lounge

Mint Lounge has blocked the identification of its website on this article, probably under pressure. The following text is typed from the print edition of Lounge, Mint, Mumbai.

http://www.livemint.com/2012/05/10200053/Patels-have-let-down-Vallabhbh.html

PATELS HAVE LET DOWN VALLABHBHAI

As Gujaratis are finally being convicted for their barbarism, a remarkable fact has emerged. We can observe this fact in the name of those convicted. The latest judgement came on 4 May, when those who murdered Ayesha Vohra, Nuri Vohra and Kader Vohra during the 2002 riots were convicted. The convicts are: Harish V. Patel, Vasant P. Patel, Nilesh M. Patel, Mahesh G. Patel, Minesh P. Patel, Ritesh A. Patel, Ashok D. Patel, Kirit M. Patel and Bhavesh P. Patel.

On 9 April came convictions for the murder of 23 Muslims in Odh village. The killers are: Vinu B. Patel, Atul D. Patel, Vijay R. Patel, Devang H. Patel, Girish H. Patel, Parkash J. Patel, Dilip V. Patel, Harish S. Patel, Dilip S. Patel, Jayendra S. Patel, Suresh B. Patel, Arvind R. Patel, Hemant S. Patel,  Sanat S. Patel, Manu J. Patel, Dilip R. Patel, Poonam L. Patel, Dharmesh N. Patel, Vinu S. Patel, Natu M. Patel and Praveen M. Patel.

On 9 November, 31 Hindu men were convicted of murdering 11 Children, 17 women and five men in Sardarpura village of Mehsana district. The Muslims were labourers who worked on the fields of those who killed them. The 31 murderers are: Ramesh K. Patel, Chatur V. Patel, Jayanti M . Patel, Amrat S. Patel, Jaga D. Patel, Kachara T. Patel, Mangal M. Patel, Bhika J. Patel, Mathur R. Patel, Suresh  R. Patel, Tulsi G. Patel, Raman J. Patel, Rajesh K. Patel, Ramesh K. Patel, Matha V. Patel, Suresh B. Patel,  Vishnu P. Patel, Rajendra P. Patel, Prahlad J. Patel, Ramesh R. Patel, Parshottambhai M. Patel, Ashwin J. Patel, Ambalal M. Patel, Ramesh G. Patel, Jayanti A. Patel, Kanu J. Patel, Raman G. Prajapati, Dahya K. Patel, Mathur T. Patel, Dahya V. Patel and Kala B. Patel. This fact of killers knowing their victims runs common through the Gujarat riots, and t is one reason why the survivors were able to accurately pick out the Patels who abused them.

Last month on 16 April, the trial of 85 men was completed in the massacre of 11 Muslims, including five children, in Dipda Darwaja area of Visnagar. The accused include former Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Prahlad Patel, who led the mob, and the police officer who investigated the case shoddily, M. K. Patel. A mob of 200 men, all of them Patels, murdered and then cut the bodies of their neighbours to pieces. At a “peace” meeting three days later, the Patel refused to hand over the remains to the surviving members of that family, Murad Khan. Three women are accused of handling petrol and kerosene to the men to burn the corpses. The women are Gita Patel, Madhu Patel and Manjula Patel.

Patels, also called Patidar or Kanbis, are the dominant peasant community of Gujarat, and the same caste as Kurmis in Bihar and the Kunbi Patils in Maharashtra. Writer Ratilal Nayak in Atako Kevi Rite Padi? (How Did Our Surnames Come to Be) claims that Patel is an Arabic word. This cannot be, for there is no letter “P” in Arabic.

In my Lounge article of 10 April 2010 (“We still cling to ‘Manusmriti’”), I wrote this about Patels: “The Patel has butchered his daughters so efficiently that now other caste must supply brides. There is evidence he is marrying eastern Gujarat’s tribals, bringing them into Hindu culture. The Patel is an instance of the Gujarati becoming inclusive through violence. The Patel is the sword-arm of Gujarat’s Hindutva movement (Pravin Togadia is Patel). Like all peasants, he is intellectually primitive and easily roused by symbols. He’s also familiar because he handles cattle.” Three months ago, on 7 February, The Times of India reported the wedding of seven Patel men to tribal girls. The report “Now, Kadva Patels welcome tribal bahus”, said the sex ratio of Patels had fallen to 700 girls for 1000 boys.

The Patel is seen by his fellow Gujaratis as kind-hearted but quick to violence. The Kehvatkosh, which has sayings about communities and situations, tells us this: “Patelnee vaat Patel Jane, haath ma dando ane ghanti tane (Only the Patel, his staff in hand, understands his obstinate self).”

H.M. Dhruv the men who defended the men who murdered 11 children in Sardarpura, told the court the Patels were “influenced by conditions’. The Patels’ other defence lawyer, B. C. Barot, told the courts the men’s bahaviour was a “reaction to an action”.  I disagree.

Murdering people you know as vengeance for the murder of the people you did not know by other people you did not know is not reaction.

After they were found guilty, The Indian Express reported many of the Patels exited the court smiling.

Writer Achyut Yagnik (a Brahmin married to a Patel) and I have often discussed our state and why it is the way it is. Yagnik explains the Patel’s violence against Muslims sociologically.

“Traditionally their social status was low,” he says,  “Their rise only came in the 19^th century when the British brought the ryotwari system, replacing zamindari.” The Patel, who was the ryot on the field, rose in stature.

“He became ‘upper’ caste. Till then he was ‘middle’ caste,”says Yagnik. His enthusiasm to belong to the upper castes of Hinduism shows in his violence against Muslims. The Gujarati Kshatriyas did not feel this contempt for the Muslims,Yagnik says, because they share his non-vegetarianism.

Further, unlike Gujarat Baniyas and Brahmins, Patels don’t have a caste council, so there is no internal moderation. There is no assessment of actions, and no review.

The most feared men in Gujarat, the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s Jaideep Patel and the frightening Babu ‘Bajrangi’ (who told Tehelka he felt like Maharana Pratap after slaughtering Muslims) are Patels.

The Patels line up solidly behind the BJP and four of Narendra Modi’s nine cabinet ministers are Patels. To that extent that they have a leader, it is Keshubhai, the 81-year-old former Chief Minister.

As Patels begin to be convicted, Keshavbhai said, on 12 February, that Patels “ were living in fear”. When asked what he meant, Keshubhai said: “You have to understand by this comment”, according to PTI. He repeated this statement on 17 April, after the judgement at Odh. And again on 7 May, at the gathering of Patels in Veraval, according to a report in Dainik Bhaskar. Keshavbhai invoked his community’s mascot, telling Patels: “We are Vallabhbhai’s descendents and inheritors. Don’t be afraid.” This then is the sentiments of Patels as they are exposed.

What can be said of such a people who don’t accept responsibility, and feel not guilt, not regret and certainly not shame?

They feel only a fear of justice. It isn’t possible for such people to reform. The outside world must come and straighten them out.

In mutilating little Muslim girls and boys, Patels think they’re honouring their hero Vallabhbhai.

The truth is, of course, that he would be ashamed of them, and of belong to their community.

Aakar Patel is a writer and columnist.

Send your feedback to: replytoall@livemint.com

http://twocircles.net/2012may07/where_cbi_enquiry_vattoli_massacre_victims_ask_govt_muslim_leadership.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Twocirclesnet-IndianMuslim+%28TwoCircles.net+-+Indian+Muslim+News%29

Where is CBI enquiry? Vattoli massacre victims ask govt, Muslim leadership

Submitted by admin7 on 7 May 2012 - 4:48pm

• Indian Muslim

Part One
By Mohd. Ismail Khan, TwoCircles.net,
Hyderabad: It has been nearly 3 ½ years since the deadly riots in Bhainsa town in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, in which four Muslims were killed and in Vattoli village of the same district a whole Muslim family of 6 persons including three children were burned alive. The horrific and brutal incident shocked the state and the nation.
When the news about the burning of a Muslim family appeared in media, the state government, in damage control effort, said the family was burned by shock circuit in the house. But later when the bodies were found in decapitated state, like Mahbub Khan, head of the family, whose leg was cut down and found in some other room, her wife’s bones were fractured and clothes were found stuffed in her daughter’s mouth, it was clear they were first murdered then burned alive.

The Muslim leadership in the state got up against the Congress government of AP along with the relatives of the victims, they demanded fair and free enquiry from CBI because they felt the local police is biased. Even the National Commission for Minorities, after investigating the incident, recommended in its report to the then Chief Minster late Y.S. Rajshekar Reddy for an impartial CBI enquiry. Fearing electoral consequences, state home minister K. Jana Reddy and chief minster announced CBI enquiry into that horrendous case, and for that same purpose a G.O.Ms.NO.211 on 16-10-2008 was issued.
But 3 years and 7 months have since passed CBI enquiry has not started in this case. What the victims got is probe from local police in the name of CB CID. The discrepancies in the probe of CB CID are visible from the fact that the district court in which this case is going on rejected the charge sheet filed by CB CID as it was full of errors. It took them more than two years to file fresh charge sheet in the court which gave ample opportunity to all the arrested members of Hindu Vahini to get out on bail. The relatives of the deceased persons are also alleging that CB CID has prepared their case in such a way that all the accused will get benefit of doubt in the court.
We want justice, not compensation
Mumtaz Khan, brother of deceased Mahbub Khan told TCN that he lost faith in Indian institutions. “First of all investigation is going in wrong directions, CB CID is not arresting real culprits and conspirators, they have just arrested petty criminals, CB CID is conducting a lousy investigation, almost all the police officers in the investigative team are locals, they are working under pressure to build up a case to let the accused go scot free. Even those arrested persons are now walking free as they got bail in 90 days as CB CID failed to submit charge sheet within that period,” he said.

Sharing his deep pain Mumtaz Khan said: “me and my family who is fighting for justice is feeling alone, why no human rights organization is raising our issue. Will the response of human rights groups will be same if dalit or Hindu family is burned alive. I was an activist of STU, a leftist teacher organization. Vattoli village is a bastion of CPIML (new democracy) but they still deserted us, I strongly feel we have been left alone just because we are Muslims.”
He then added “I remember when I went to meet the then DGP S.P Yadav along with a Muslim MP, I told the DGP we want fair enquiry by CBI, as we want culprits behind bars. The DGP replied to me on my face that ‘what will you get by CBI enquiry? Accept what government is giving you, take compensation and the govt job; don’t get sensitive’. Government is trying to shut our mouth by providing compensation and job, but we are not going to sit down, we want justice.”
He even takes dig at Muslim leadership. “Muslim leaders at the time of incident used our victimhood to gain votes, now they have compromised with Congress, they have sold themselves,” says Khan.
Anwar Khan, son of Mahbub Khan lost all his family in the wave of hatred -- his mother, father, sister and three nephews were tortured, murdered and burned down mercilessly. Anwar is solider in Indo-Tibetan Border Force. When on 12th October 2008 he was protecting the borders of the nation there was no one not even the government to protect his loved ones back home.
Anwar Khan was protecting borders when his family was burnt alive
Anwar spoke to TCN on phone from Arunachal Pradesh where he is currently posted. He said, “CB CID is not taking many crucial evidence into consideration, like my sister’s cell phone and my father’s cell phone were never found on the site, neither the investigative agency tried to trace them. My whole family was first murdered brutally and then burned alive as my father’s leg was found in another place, my mother’s bones were found fractured, my sister’s hands were tied and clothes were stuffed into her mouth, all the dead bodies were found in one room and all the items of the house were put on their dead bodies. But CB CID is not taking any of these things into consideration and working with the theory that the house was torched by miscreants from outside by pouring kerosene oil on the door.”
He added that “CB CID is working under pressure from local right wing Hindu groups, they have not taken proper testimony from neighbors, they are calling crucial witnesses to give testimony in front of all villagers and on the other hand they are calling the accused in hotels to get their statements.”
Muslim leaders forgot the incident
Anwar Khan is also angry with Muslim leaders and terms them responsible for the mess up of their case. “Muslim leadership pledged full support to us at the time of incident, suddenly they changed their policy and deserted us, and they used us and exploited our case for their own electoral gains. Muslim leaders asserted monopoly on our case; when I saw Muslim leaders deserting us, I contacted TDP leaders in Adilabad district to raise the question in assembly and I succeeded. When Chandra Babu Naidu raised the question in the assembly about awful probe in our case Congress was unable to give any answer then MIM leaders disrupted the whole assembly and debate, thus our chance to get answer from government was lost due to some Muslim leaders.”

TCN spoke to MIM president Asaduddin Owaisi about the backtrack of the government on its promise of CBI enquiry. He said, “Three years have passed, what we can do now, we have to accept what government has provided.” On the complaints of victim family members that Muslim leadership has failed he said, “we have done our best, we had done whatever we could do at that time, it was up to the government to fulfill its promise. If Congress is backtracking from its promise of CBI enquiry then they will have to pay electoral consequences.”
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) is an umbrella group of different Muslim political and social organizations of Andhra Pradesh. At the time of massacre it was in the fore front in demanding CBI enquiry and putting pressure on government. TCN spoke to Maulana Abdul Raheem Qureshi, secretary of MMA, who is also general secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. On the matter of government backtrack on the promise of CBI enquiry he said, “The present and even the previous Congress governments are all communal in nature, they are promoting Hindutva and even they are trying to protect them. In these circumstances you cannot expect this government to do justice to Muslims.”
On the allegation of Muslim leaders selling themselves to Congress he replied, “We at the time of incident met chief minister, he sent two Addtl DGPs to pursue the case, and even promised a CBI enquiry. But later when we tried to get contact with him he ignored us and didn’t give us time, and later not only Muslim leadership but whole Muslim community of AP forgot the case. So here every Muslim including Muslim media is to be blamed for the mess.”
Mumtaz Khan said, “We believe in Allah and one day inshaallah he will provide us justice.”
Anwar Khan said, “This nation has deserted me, I as a solider on the cold mountain regions am protecting day and night the boundaries of this country, and for this service in return what I got is murder of my loved ones and no justice in the end.”

'Cops fanning Islamophobia' - By Mohammed Wajihuddin - TNN - The Times of India, Mumbai

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Cops-fanning-Islamophobia/articleshow/13026945.cms

  --- MUMBAI

'Cops fanning Islamophobia'

Mohammed Wajihuddin, TNN | May 7, 2012, 01.08AM IST

MUMBAI: The last time Muslims and Dalits created a joint political platform in Maharashtra was in the 1980s. Led by former smuggler and don Haji Mastan, the Dalit Muslim Suraksha Mahasangh (DMSM) couldn't survive the heat and dust of politics and died a premature death.

Three decades later, that ill-fated, some say incongruous, experiment is being recalled on the launch of yet another Muslim Dalit party in the state. Interestingly, while the last one was headed by a gangster, the new party, called the Awami Vikas Party, is led by former police officer Shamsher Khan Pathan. Sceptics wonder, however, if that makes any difference-and, more importantly, whether the party itself will make any difference to its constituents.

Poor and under-represented in public and private institutions, both Dalits and Muslims feel deeply deprived under the current Congress-NCP rule. Betrayed by their leaders, both groups desperately want an alternative. "There is a vacuum in the political leadership of both Muslims and Dalits which AVP will fill," claims senior Urdu journalist Sarfraz Arzoo. Arzoo is the only member in AVP's core committee who was also among the founders of DMSM.

The dissimilarities between the two parties are many. Mastan, apart from being a kingpin of smuggling, was a Tamil migrant who spoke a smattering of Urdu but no Marathi. Pathan, hailing from Nasik, was a tough cop and speaks Marathi fluently. DMSM's Dalit face, Jogendra Kanware, taught at a college in Nagpur, and would turn out shabbily in kurta-pyjama with a shawl slung over his shoulder. Kanware had made the renaming of MarathwadaUniversity after B R Ambedkar his life's mission which he finally accomplished. Contrarily, the Dalit face of Pathan's party, Baban Kamble, edits the Marathi daily Samrat, dons smart suits and claims a "considerable" following among Dalits.

Even the circumstances under which the two parties were born were different. "The 1984 Bhiwandi riots had deeply angered Muslims. We wanted a party that would counter the Shiv Sena. We thought Haji Mastan would be a match for Bal Thackeray and our cadre for the Shiv Sainiks," recalls Khalil Zahid, another Urdu journalist who even fought the 1984 Lok Sabha elections from Aurangabad on a DMSM ticket. The AVP came into existence last week, far from the shadow of any kind of communal strife. What then was the compulsion for its launch?

Pathan, who retired on April 30 and launched the party the very next day, says he had been planning it for quite some time after seeing the wave of Islamophobia being fanned by senior police and intelligence officers. "All the intelligence alerts we received were about threats of attacks from Muslim terrorists. There were never any alerts that Hindu terrorists could attack though they were involved in several terrorist attacks as in the cases of Malegaon and Samjhauta Express. When I analysed this, I found that only a changed political set-up could change the situation. It will make a lot of difference if we are in power or share power with other parties."

Kamble too believes that despite reservations for SCs and STs, Dalits have little say at the policy-making level. "Brahminical hegemony deprives Dalits of their due share at all levels. This will change if we form our government," he says.

Despite its claims of being the true representative of Muslims and Dalits, AVP suffers from a significant lacuna. None of its core committee members, except Arzoo (he fought the last assembly election on a Samajwadi Party ticket from Byculla and was mauled), are political creatures. "They are activists and NGO workers. They cannot win even panchayat polls. Electoral politics is a different game," says former Congress MLA Yusuf Abrahni.

At its launch, the AVP showcased kids dressed as Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, a Dalit and a Muslim girl. It remains to be seen if it can do anything beyond this display of tokenism.