Terror: More serious than most know

http://www.kashmirtimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=64521

India is pursuing an initiative to forge consensus on a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. Though terrorism has been in the sights of the international community now for some two decades, the initiative has not got a tail wind yet. Some of this lack of ballast owes to Indian credibility undermined by its own doing. Take for instance recent headlines in India. Surely foreign embassies would be transmitting back to their capitals that the courts have let off Aseemanand - a self-confessed terrorist - for lack of evidence. Worse, they would also be reporting back that over a dozen Muslim men have been released from prisons since the high profile cases against them for terrorism did not fly. If India does not itself - back home - take terrorism quite so seriously as to investigate and prosecute sensibly, why would India's diplomats talking of international terrorism in global forums be taken any more seriously? This begs the question as to how seriously to take India? Taking up a more worrisome and a more important matter may help answer the question: the political use of terrorism and its discourse in internal politics in India. This is self-evident from the turn the UP elections appear to have taken mid course. Unable to shake off the ghost  of demonetization, the BJP appears to have got cold feet. The Muslim card has been hurled back into the reckoning. As if on call, the Khorasan chapter of the ISIS made its appearance. A bomb blast led to  investigations in a neighbouring BJP-ruled state that in turn prompted a day-long gun battle in a city in the  state going to the polls against a holed up Muslim 'terrorist'. Mere reference to Nepal based Pakistan aided Muslim 'terrorists' responsible for an earlier train derailment as part of campaigning was not thought enough. More hands-on, visible, in-your-face-terrorism, needed conjuring. Even the ISIS Khorasan chapter could not have thought up such an India debut. It did not have to. Those that keep  watch on it in India appear to have stepped in on its behalf, providing it the free oxygen of publicity. The timeliness of the framing of the news brooks no other explanation. This is of a piece with the over-a-decade long pattern of bomb blasts. Muslims get picked up as suspects; are prosecuted while being denied bail; are incarcerated; and if lucky, left off a decade on; and if unlucky, killed while  escaping, such as most recently the unfortunate eight under trials in BJP-ruled Bhopal. The script won the BJP the national elections. It collapses the 'internal Other', India's Muslims, with the 'external  Other', Pakistan. Creating the connection was doubly useful. It showed up an India under threat that the minority-appeasing Congress-led UPA could not possibly counter. Security needed a strong-on-security, BJP, and a strong leader, Modi. Though upfront, the BJP had development as its plank, it was one handed to it in the period of paralysis of the UPA II.  The security plank was the one that was in-the-works over the decade prior. The spate of terror attacks since the  mid-2000s were attributed to Muslim perpetrators, inspired by revenge for the Gujarat pogrom. Modi was depicted as a key target, saved by the daring exploits of the likes of IGP Vanzara. Targeting of Akshardham temple placed Gujarat at the frontline. Muslim perpetrators of terror were allegedly assisted by Pakistan that had taken to keeping Kashmir quiescent but had expanded its shadow over the Indian hinterland. This helped Mr. Modi acquire a larger-than-life image carrying him victory in the hustings. Since the strategy is now tried and tested, the BJP has naturally fallen back on it to ensure like result at what are seen as a forerunner  to the next national elections. While it is a commonplace that it is not possible to fool all the people all the time, this has not stopped the BJP from trying. Perhaps the IB has alerted its political master that these are desperate times. The curious fact is this. Since many Muslims have been let off for terror they did not commit, who has committed those crimes? Hindutva inspired terrorists - such as Aseemanand, Pragya Thakur and their ilk - come in the cross hairs. This means that many of the terrorist acts attributed in the popular imagination to Muslims have the  finger prints of Hindutva votaries behind them. However, the NIA is known to have asked prosecutors, such as Rohini Salian, to 'go soft' on such terrorists and the courts are proceeding to give the benefit of the doubt to the likes of Aseemanand, with Pragya Thakur and Maj. Purohit also reportedly lined up for similar kid-glove treatment. This indicates either of two things: that saffron-inspired terrorists being of the same persuasion as the ruling dispensation are let off owing to ideological affinity, or, more troublingly, they were put to it and having done their bit are being let off. Though the former possibility is comparatively mild, it puts paid to India's international position that there are no  'good terrorists' and 'bad terrorists'. It makes clear that India - just as other countries including its bête noire Pakistan - has its own set of 'good terrorists'. The latter - that Hindutva perpetrated terror has political antecedents - deserves pause on two counts. The first is the effect this had on the national discourse. It made out that the nation was under threat, enabling consolidation  behind the Hindutva political formations and their champion, Modi. The second is who were behind the manipulation of the Hindutva working hands. Were they acting independently to  substitute the intolerable UPA? To what extent was their handiwork known to those so benefiting? And, finally,  who were they? How did the intelligence establishment under UPA miss out on them altogether? The last question points to a degree of culpability of the intelligence and policing apparatus. They were complicit in painting a false image of India being subject to Muslim perpetrated terror to the benefit of the right wing of the political establishment. Not only did they not collect the necessary evidence to nail actual perpetrators but falsified the narrative to implicate Muslims. This is subversion of more than mere justice. The current day episode only deepens this understanding of the terror narrative in India. The sudden advent of the Khorasan chapter - almost at a centralized will and to the very timely benefit of the Hindutva political formations - suggests nothing else. If in the UPA period the rule of law apparatus was - as seen - out of governmental control, under the current regime it is on the contrary completely under control. Not only can it, in full view, kill under trials, but orchestrate terror acts, manipulate the media and, thereby, influence polls. This is potential subversion of democracy. 'Potential' is used advisedly. The UP results are awaited. It cannot be that the Indian voter cannot see through this patently false narrative. Even polarization cannot blind so completely. While she may not vote for those who stand to  benefit by manipulation of the terror narrative on this count - for such manipulation - but by rejecting them, she makes  such attempts futile. Democracy can triumph yet. It cannot afford not to.

The military musical chairs

http://indiatogether.org/military-musical-chairs-op-ed

With the Bihar elections hogging all the attention in the news, an interesting development noted by military watchers is liable to be missed. A former military secretary informs that an unprecedented number of army appointments are currently vacant, including two very sensitive posts - Director General Military Operations, and Military Secretary.

What does this imply?

A positive answer to this could be that the government may be looking to create the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or permanent Chairman of the Chiefs’ of Staff Committee (COSC), as the case may be. This could entail a wider reshuffle and this may be holding up the filling in of vacancies.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE - http://indiatogether.org/military-musical-chairs-op-ed

In addition to the joint commands, Andaman and Nicobar Command and the Strategic Forces Command, and the HQs Integrated Defence Staff, there are a host of joint commands in the offing that would require single-point oversight: special operations command, cyber and space commands etc.

This government is reportedly mulling the creation of a CDS. Implementing this may require elevating one of the chiefs or deeper selection. If from the army, then this opens up the possibility of a wider shake up. The possibility of this puts a positive spin on the deliberateness seemingly accompanying the current holdup.

However, if this was the plausible reason there would likely have been a corroborating media report or leak to this effect. The converse is also possible that such news would have attracted the usual fight back by political parties not interested in the military acquiring such salience, and by the bureaucracy that has been dead set against such a move. This might explain why the move, if impending, is under wraps.

This column has consistently pointed to the risk of politicization of the military under an ideological regime. It is not in the form as usually assumed and well studied, of a politicized military out to seize power spurred by its institutional interests. Instead, it is the reverse, a neutralization of the military as a politically significant actor so that the ideological agenda of the regime is furthered without checks and balances.

The pre-WWII German government, for example, neutered the General Staff of the military as part of their totalitarian scheme. The tactics included implicating one leading general for marrying a prostitute and another for homosexuality.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE -http://indiatogether.org/military-musical-chairs-op-ed

It is well recognized that the appointment of the Chief is a political one, not only procedurally so with the Appointments Committee clearing it, but also substantively. While the senior most in line between the vice chiefs and the army commanders is usually made the Chief designate, allegations of the proverbial ‘line of succession’ being manipulated have often attended such successions, particularly in the more recent past.

The most infamous one was brought to fore by General V K Singh’s insinuations that  General J J Singh, the first Chief of Sikh faith, worked the succession line up to favour the chances of V K Singh’s successor, Bikram Singh, another Sikh, to take over. That VK Singh employed considerable energy and invested his reputation to undo this was evident from his ‘date of birth’ controversy.

V K Singh however hit himself in the foot when it emerged that his attempt at deflecting Bikram Singh from his destiny, may have been to ensure that Bikram Singh’s successor was not the current Chief Gen Dalbir Singh, but another general, Lt Gen Ashok Singh, who is the father-in-law of his daughter! Ashok Singh had organized the troop movementin the vicinity of Delhi when V K Singh’s court hearing had come up in January 2012.

What this look-back suggests is that higher echelon appointments have a political angle. However, since the professionalism of the various candidates is seldom in doubt, this has not been very controversial thus far. So why should it be different this time round?

Firstly, this government, unlike previous governments, has not stopped after reshuffling gubernatorial appointments in its first foray into an ideological takeover of institutions. It has moved into education and culture. This suggests the military cannot expect to remain unscathed; some anticipatory concern is warranted.

Secondly, the Director General Military Operations (DGMO) and Military Secretary (MS) posts are critical for keeping a check on and control of the military. The criticality of the DGMO post is obvious from V K Singh’s moving of military formations in the vicinity of New Delhi, without the then DGMO being in the loop.

FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE -http://indiatogether.org/military-musical-chairs-op-ed

The MS post is even more critical from an ideological regime’s point of view. The MS is in charge of promotions and postings of the officer corps. The apprehension is that the ongoing saffronisation of India will engulf the military leadership eventually. Having a known entity controlling this process, in the form of a hand-picked MS perhaps sharing its world view, would be better from such a government’s perspective.

Hopefully, the cautionary word here will be proven false, and officers with impeccable spoken reputations for professionalism and integrity are appointed to the coveted posts. The continuing spate of divisiveness in the country’s politics, however, is bad enough that such apprehensions must be plausibly raised.