Sunday, July 10, 2016

Modi is wrong, terrorism is not our gravest threat today - By Aakar Patel - The Times of India

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/modi-is-wrong-terrorism-is-not-our-gravest-threat-today/


The Times of India

Modi is wrong, terrorism is not our gravest threat today

 in Aakarvani | India | TOI

Author

Aakar PatelAakar Patel
Aakar Patel is a writer and columnist based in Bangalore. Why I Write, Patel’s book translating Saadat Hasan Manto’s non-fiction from Urdu to English was published in 2014. He has also translated the writing of India's prime minister Narendra Modi from Gujarati. Patel's book on India's culture, Low Trust Society, will be published in 2015. He is a former newspaper editor and has worked at publications across India.

What is the gravest threat to the world? The linguist Prof Noam Chomsky says it is two things: climate change and nuclear weapons. Many would agree, particularly with the first. Rising seas and an unpredictable monsoon will be extremely dangerous for us.
As Indians we can add other grave threats confronting us, some of them currently. Above all our poverty, which kills and continually hurts hundreds of millions of us. What else? More than five lakh Indian children die of malnutrition every year, meaning 10,000 each week. Thirty eight per cent of Indian children are stunted at age 2, forever denying them a fulfilling life, intellectually and physically. Then there are other types of grave threat. Full automation of industry under artificial intelligence and the spectre of mass unemployment may just be around the corner. There is no shortage of things for us to worry about.
So what does Prime Minister Narendra Modi think on this subject? ‘Terror gravest threat to world today, says Modi in Mozambique.’ That was the Times of India headline from July 8. Modi has said this often. He told the US Congress last month that ‘globally, terrorism remains the biggest threat’. In that speech he used the word ‘terror’ 10 times and poverty once, showing his priority.
ATM--Poverty
Malnutrition claims lives of five lakh Indian children every year.
Exactly what sort of threat is terrorism? In India, we have three conflict areas: the Northeast, the Adivasi belt and Jammu & Kashmir. Outside these three zones, in the areas where over a billion Indians live, the total number of those killed in terrorist attacks this year so far has been 21, most of those killed being armed combatants. Last year it was 23, in 2014 it was 4, in 2013 it was 25 and in 2012 it was 1. This includes those we have killed as terrorists. Clearly, terrorism is not a ‘grave threat’ and certainly not the ‘biggest threat’ to India. In fact, and this may be hard to swallow, the urban Indian, you and I, is safer than the average European and American when it comes to terrorism.
In Europe, a continent of 750 million, a total of 150 people died in terror attacks in 2015. But in the 1970s, over 400 Europeans a year died for many years, killed by various non-Islamist terror groups, including Irish and Basque separatists. So it would be incorrect to say terrorism is a bigger threat there today. In the US, the number of fatalities from terrorism is in the single digits annually on average. So why is terrorism considered a threat?
The big brand of terrorism today, Islamic State, elicits extremely negative views in all Muslim nations including Pakistan. It is unpopular and has difficulty in expanding. The whole of the IS army in Syria and Iraq numbers a third of the army of Bangladesh. The warriors of IS cannot match any modern army in set position warfare, which is required to hold territory. To assume IS is a threat to the world militarily is to know nothing about war.
If the facts are clear, and they are, why is terrorism such a big deal? The answer is that it is an issue which angers many of us, unlike malnourishment, poverty and illiteracy. I am not surprised when my uncle in Surat bangs his armchair and says we have to ‘fix Pakistan’ and ‘publicly hang these terrorists’. Responding to terrorism requires maturity and perspective that he lacks, and that is fine. He is no different from drawing-room experts elsewhere in the world. But I am worried when our Prime Minister buys into the same bunkum. When Modi chases after the ghost of terrorism, it damages us.
One example: the disproportionate focus the media, particularly the news channels, brings to terrorism becomes legitimised. What is essentially an upper-class anxiety becomes a global threat because it is elevated by Modi’s endorsement.
Our media needs to be weaned away from the silly idea that terrorism is in any way significant as a national issue, leave alone a global one, and focus on more serious things. We are damaged as a nation when our leader sets our global priorities in as wrong-headed a manner as Modi is doing.
Our gravest problem is not terrorism, and that is manifest. It is poverty. It is the inability of the state in India to help its citizens out by improving the quality of literacy and health. When he does not even acknowledge these failings as the priority, as Modi is doing when he goes on about terrorism being our ‘gravest threat’, the Prime Minister fails the majority of Indians.
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
---

Saturday, July 9, 2016

My friend, Union minister MJ Akbar By: Aakar Patel - www.abpliv.in

http://www.abplive.in/blog/my-friend-union-minister-mj-akbar

Inline image 1

My friend, Union minister MJ Akbar

By: Aakar Patel | Last Updated: Saturday, 9 July 2016 3:11 PM
    
1

TOTAL SHARES
My friend, Union minister MJ Akbar
MJ Akbar, who was made a minister on Tuesday, is from a time when English editors were national celebrities. Akbar was in his mid 20s when he became editor of Sunday magazine, published from Calcutta. He was in his 30s when he launched the Telegraph newspaper and in his 40s when he launched his own publication, Asian Age.
All this time, he also had a second career. He was a Lok Sabha MP from Bihar in Rajiv Gandhi’s second election, the one he lost to VP Singh in 1989. Syed Shahbuddin, whom Akbar defeated, said he was physically prevented from filing his nomination. Whether this was true or not it showed how strong was the desire of Akbar to come to power. Unfortunately for him, Akbar was only able to achieve the post of spokesman and after Rajiv Gandhi’s death, he was discarded by Narasimha Rao.
According to a story Akbar told, once he and Rajiv Gandhi were together when Rao entered the room. The old man had a small mishap, I think he tripped over his dhoti, and the two younger men laughed. Rao did not forget and Akbar’s career with Congress was shortlived.
I have known Akbar for over 20 years and believe he was the finest editor of English in India.
Better than Arun Shourie and Vinod Mehta and Pritish Nandy, and he knew it. When Shourie became a minister and Nandy a Rajya Sabha MP in the mid 1990s, Akbar would have felt jealous at seeing people who were his juniors in journalism achieve what he wanted and what he was convinced, he deserved more than they did.
When Sonia Gandhi took charge of the Congress, Akbar was hopeful for some time that he could return to favour but this did not happen. His newspaper also ran into financial trouble and he was fired from his post by the other partners. This began a long spell when he was on the margins and this is when, almost secretly, he began to cultivate Narendra Modi.
To me this is surprising for two reaons. First, because some of the sharpest criticism of Modi has come from Akbar. Attacking Hindutva policies in Gujarat, Akbar wrote an editoral under the headline ‘there must be a difference between a mob and a government’. In his regular column, he wrote “Narendra Modi has done enough by now to win the highest honor that a nation can give. Not our nation. What the chief minister of Gujarat truly deserves is the Nishan-e-Pakistan.”
He said that Modi had “served the interest of Pakistan” by “trying to destroy the idea of India as a nation in which every citizen is equal irrespective of his faith. He has provided the evidence that was once offered only as argument.”
He added: “Till he started his lynch-mob response to the cruel tragedy of Godhra, all the negative focus of South Asia was concentrated on Pakistan.”
The second reason I was surprised was because Akbar is truly secular in a way most of us are not. He keeps dozens of idols of Ganeshji in his office and has belief in the power of that god. He also is a regular, like his namesake the Mughal emperor Akbar, at the dargah of Moinuddin Chisti in Ajmer. He is not the sort of person who would ever subscribe to the RSS idea of India.
He can be described as a Nehruvian and his biography of India’s first prime minister is his most serious work of non fiction. Akbar’s ideology has been transferred to dozens of journalists who worked under him, like Sankarshan Thakur and Manini Chaterjee and Seema Mustafa. All were surprised when suddenly the news came that Akbar was joining the BJP, the party he has written against for decades.
But it is true that today, when he is in his mid 60s he has finally achieved his goal somewhat. I say somewhat because Akbar is not a Cabinet minister, nor a minister of state with independent charge. He is merely one among many ministers of state. He will be reporting to another minister and I am certain Akbar will feel that he is that individual’s intellectual superior.
Many years ago he one day said to me he wanted to be prime minister of India but could not because he was Muslim. At least he has become a minister. And if that has required discarding all the principles and disowning all of his own writing, to him that may not be a big price to pay.
First Published: Saturday, 9 July 2016 3:11 PM

Chilcot Report and Zionist Lobby’s Role in Iraq War – Gilad Atzmon

http://caravandaily.com/portal/chilcot-report-and-zionist-lobbys-role-in-iraq-war-gilad-atzmon/

Inline image 1


Home / COLUMNISTS / Gilad Atzmon / Chilcot Report and Zionist Lobby’s Role in Iraq War – Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli peace activist, writer, poet and popular musician who now lives in London. Hisrecent book, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, is available on Amazon.com




Chilcot Report and Zionist Lobby’s Role in Iraq War – Gilad Atzmon


in Gilad Atzmon, INSIGHT 1 day ago 0 368 Views
israel uk flags
Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centric interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran. So why did the Chilcot Inquiry fail to address this topic? This crucial failure by Chilcot was to be expected. In 2010, highly respected veteran British diplomat Oliver Miles had something to say about the Jewish make-up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Two out of the five members of the inquiry were Jews, pro war and Blair supporters 
GILAD ATZMON | Caravan Daily
It took seven years for Sir Chilcot and his team to reach a set of conclusions that every Brit capable of thought understood back in November, 2013.
The inquiry produced a damning assessment of Blair’s conduct as well as the British military. But the Chilcot Inquiry failed to expose the crucial close ties between Blair’s criminal war, the Jewish Lobby and Israel.
At the time Britain entered the criminal war against Iraq, Blair’s chief funders were Lord ‘cashpoint’ Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). The prime advocates for the immoral interventionist war within the British press were Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. The attorney general that gave the green light for the war was Lord Goldsmith.
In 2008 The Guardian revealed that the “Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial.” Israel was conspicuously engaged in the vast production of WMDs. If Britain and America had any genuine concerns about WMDs, bombing Tel Aviv would have been the way to go.
In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that the Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.
Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centric interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran. So why did the Chilcot Inquiry fail to address this topic?
This crucial failure by Chilcot was to be expected. In 2010, highly respected veteran British diplomat Oliver Miles had something to say about the Jewish make-up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Two out of the five members of the inquiry were Jews, pro war and Blair supporters.
This is what Miles wrote in the Independent:
“Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. 
Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.”
Oliver Miles point was valid, and proved correct. The Chilcot Inquiry wasn’t just destined to fail. It was designed to subvert any scrutiny of Israel and its hawkish pro war lobby.
The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Lobby that was pulling the strings.
---

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

After Attacks on Muslims, Many Ask: Where Is the Outpouring? By ANNE BARNARD - The New York Times, JULY 5, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/world/europe/muslims-baghdad-dhaka-istanbul-terror.html?emc=edit_th_20160706&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=28904237&_r=0


THE NEW YORK TIMES

Photo
Bangladeshis paid tribute on Sunday to the victims killed in the attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery in the diplomatic district of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. CreditAssociated Press
PARIS — In recent days, jihadists killed 41 people at Istanbul’s bustling, shiny airport; 22 at a cafe in Bangladesh; and at least 250 celebrating the final days of Ramadan in Baghdad. Then the Islamic State attacked, again, with bombings in three cities in Saudi Arabia.
By Tuesday, Michel Kilo, a Syrian dissident, was leaning wearily over his coffee at a Left Bank cafe, wondering: Where was the global outrage? Where was the outpouring that came after the same terrorist groups unleashed horror in Brussels and here in Paris? In a supposedly globalized world, do nonwhites, non-Christians and non-Westerners count as fully human?
“All this crazy violence has a goal,” Mr. Kilo, who is Christian, said: to create a backlash against Muslims, divide societies and “make Sunnis feel that no matter what happens, they don’t have any other option.”
This is not the first time that the West seems to have shrugged off massacres in predominantly Muslim countries. But the relative indifference after so many deaths caused by the very groups that have plagued the West is more than a matter of hurt feelings.
One of the primary goals of the Islamic State and other radical Islamist groups is to drive a wedge between Sunni Muslims and the wider world, to fuel alienation as a recruiting tool. And when that world appears to show less empathy for the victims of attacks in Muslim nations, who have borne the brunt of the Islamic State’s massacres and predatory rule, it seems to prove their point.
“Why isn’t #PrayForIraq trending?” Razan Hasan of Baghdad posted on Twitter. “Oh yeah no one cares about us.”
Hira Saeed of Ottawa asked on Twitter why Facebook had not activated itsSafety Check feature after recent attacks as it did for Brussels, Paris andOrlando, Fla., and why social media had not been similarly filled with the flags of Turkey, Bangladesh and Iraq. “The hypocrisy is the western world is strong,” she wrote.
Continue reading the main story
The global mood increasingly feels like one of atavism, of retreat into narrower identities of nation, politics or sect, with Britain voting to leave the European Union and many Americans supporting the nativist presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.
The violence feeds a growing impulse among many in the West to fear Muslims and Arabs, which has already prompted a political crisis over immigration that, in turn, has buttressed extremists’ goals. Europe is convulsing over a movement to reject refugees from Syria and Iraq, who are themselves fleeing violence by jihadists and their own governments.
It is in Syria and Iraq that the Islamic State has established its so-called caliphate, ruling overwhelmingly Muslim populations with the threat of gruesome violence. The group has killed Muslims in those countries by the thousands, by far the largest share of its victims.
When Islamic State militants mowed down cafegoers in Paris in November, people across the world adorned public landmarks and their private Facebook pages with the French flag — not just in Europe and the United States, but also, with an empathy born of experience, in Syria and Iraq.
But over the past week, Facebook activated its Safety Check feature, which allows people in the vicinity of a disaster to mark themselves safe, only after the attack on the Istanbul airport.
The flags of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Bangladesh have not been widely projected on landmarks or adopted as profile pictures. (Photographs on social media showed that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of Europe’s two majority-Muslim countries, the Turkish flag was beamed onto a bridge in Mostar, the scene of sectarian killings in the 1990s.) Some wonder if part of the reason is that three of those flags bear Islamic symbols or slogans.
“More deaths in Iraq in the last week than Paris and Orlando combined but nobody is changing their profile pics, building colours, etc.,” Kareem Rahaman wrote on Twitter.
Photo
Relatives on Monday mourned a victim killed in the attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka.CreditAdnan Abidi/Reuters
There are some understandable reasons for the differing reactions. People typically identify more closely with places and cultures that are familiar to them. With Iraq, there is also a degree of fatigue, and a feeling that a bombing there is less surprising than one in Europe.
Deadly attacks have been a constant in Iraq after years of American occupation, followed by a sectarian war in which Sunni and Shiite militias slaughtered civilians of the opposite sect. Still, while terrorist attacks in Europe may feel more surprising to the West — though they have become all too common there, too — that does not explain the relative indifference to attacks in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh.
“That’s what happens in Iraq,” Sajad Jiyad, a researcher in Iraq who rushed to the scene of the Baghdad bombing and found that one of his friends had died there, wrote on his own blog. “Deaths become just statistics, and the frequency of attacks means the shock doesn’t register as it would elsewhere, or that you have enough time to feel sad or grieve.”
In the Muslim world, the partly sectarian nature of some conflicts shades people’s reactions, producing a kind of internal sympathy gap. People from one sect or political group often discount or excuse casualties from another.
In Iraq, the Islamic State took root within an insurgency against the country’s Shiite-led government, and Shiite militias fighting it have been accused of brutality as well. In Syria, it is just one menace; many more Syrians have been killed by the government’s attacks on areas held by Sunni insurgents, including rebel groups opposed to the Islamic State.
Mr. Jiyad added that the Islamic State was “hoping to incite a reaction and a spiral into endless violence,” and that Iraqis played into that when they mourned more for their own sect than for others.
In the West, though, there is a tendency in certain quarters, legitimized by some politicians, to conflate extremist Islamist militants with the Muslim societies that are often their primary victims, or to dismiss Muslim countries as inherently violent.
“Either Iraqi blood is too cheap or murder is normalized,” Sayed Saleh Qazwini, an Islamic educator in Michigan, wrote on Twitter.
In Paris, a rainbow flag hangs on the Hotel de Ville, memorializing the 49 people gunned down at a gay nightclub in Orlando last month. But in a corner shop on Monday, the woman who served me had no such sympathy for the Middle East.
When she asked where I lived, and I told her Beirut, Lebanon, she exclaimed about the violence in the region. Struggling to explain that there is a lot more than just violence happening there, I said: “Yes, there are a lot of problems. What can one do?”
“Exterminer les islamistes,” she said grimly. Exterminate: a strong word. Islamists: a broad category of people.
Mr. Kilo, who spent years in the prisons of the Syrian government and opposes both it and the Islamic State, said his life in Paris had changed since November. Speaking Arabic is now suspect. He sees fear in French people’s eyes when they see Syrians.
“I’m afraid, too,” he said. “Someone could blow himself up anytime.”
He has written an article that will be published in the newspaper Al Araby Al Jadeed, titled “The Curse of Syria.”
The failure of empathy is broader than the Islamic State, he said; it extends to the international community’s unwillingness or inability to stop the slaughter of the Syrian civil war, which began with protests for political change.
“If we lose all humanity,” Mr. Kilo said, “if you allow the slaughter of a nation for five and a half years, after all the leaders of the international community declared the right of these people to revolt against their government, then expect Islamic State — and many other Islamic States in other forms and shapes.”

Eid Mubarak circa 2008

FROM THE THROBBING CITY OF MUMBAI, THAT DEFIES ADVERSITY AND THROBS FOR HUMANKIND OF ALL COLORS, CASTES, RELIGION, LANGUAGE, REGION AND ETHNICITY

    EID MUBARAK

TO

THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT SHARES ITS SPIRIT OF DEFIANCE AND UNITY IN DIVERSITY

FROM ONE OF ITS PROUD AND HUMBLE CITIZEN


GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI

Circa 2008