a
| Islam,Terrorism and Jihad | |
| 02 Aug 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| THE RIGHT VIEW: This war involves us all | |
|
By Tarun Vijay Posted: 01 Aug 2008
Rahul's Shashikala has got the headlines and her share of glory. Now is the time to focus on India. Beyond party lines and boundaries. He is young, charming and holds a position that makes a mark wherever he goes. Why can't he take up the fight against terror, which is bleeding India? If L K Advani can go to Sonia for a book presentation and still remain in the party, why can't Sonia come to Advani for a collective fight against terrorism? Is India smaller than the personal and political egos and fortunes?
When the ISI or HuJI or Lashkar were planning attacks on Indians, we were counting notes in sacks and fighting each other. Isn't it time to at least have Sonia, Advani, Rajnath, Manmohan, Mulayam and Mayawati along with Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi to put their heads together and strategize a time-bound "eliminate terror" programme? For power sharing they come together – sworn enemies of yesterday become born twins on political platforms. To liberate India from the dreaded scourge of jihad and all other kinds of terror we feel shy and instead keep ourselves busy in attacking each other, facilitating the country's enemies.
We are Indians first and stop blaming mussalmans and others for terror. I have a large number of Muslim friends and I know Muslim society in India is uniquely different and as patriotic as any other Indian. And they don't need any certificate from any one. But at the same time we must not hesitate to recognize that terrorism in India is pronounced essentially Islamic in its character and the aim is to have a so called Nizam-e-Mustafa wreaking revenge against Hindus. The Deoband's denouncement of terror is not enough. Their dictates must show an impact on Islamic terror outfits, otherwise its papers and faxes would remain nothing more than a crude PR exercise. It's the bounden duty of Muslim leaders to make it sure and visible that those involved in jihadi barbaric attacks are condemned as un-Islamic and are practically declared non-Muslims like they have done with regard to many others in the past.
A nation's collective will is the biggest weapon against fissiparous tendencies. The US and China have shown that. They too faced Islamic terror, but handled it with a resolve that got united support by the people and all shades of political colours. Indians can fight each other on a hundred issues of political programming or power grab. But on the question of our sovereignty and security we must stand united, as one – and it must be visible too. After all, where would all these leaders take their money and enjoy it if India doesn't survive? Even to enjoy the loot they must have a station to leisure and be free of threats. To say this is too rude and crude, yet, seeing the Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmadabad blasts, what can a citizen pray for? Security and a collective will to converge on national interest.
And for God's sake if you can't remove this home minister, appoint another capable minister for internal security with independent charge. It serves the interests of the UPA and Congress too. He is just incapable of holding that crucial position. It's against national interest to keep such a non-performing person in North Block who becomes a source of demoralisation and incompetence to security agencies and law enforcers.
Intelligence must be strengthened and the present colonial structure of intelligence gathering has to be completely overhauled with a structure on the patterns of the FBI. Gujarat's new law on terror is awaiting the Centre's nod for the last four years. Why? Is tackling terror a partisan matter?
Israel is willing to help and now that the burden of the Left is removed, the govt must begin a long-term association with Israel to restructure our intelligence network against Pakistan and their hired goons masquerading as Islamists and befriending gullible locals to provide them basic support and shelter.
The terrorist can't work in a vacuum. Hence the police and security network must ruthlessly deal with the local bases of the terror outfits without caring for the human rightists or the defeatist seculars lobbying for the terrorists. Like Punjab in Gill's time, a group of daredevil police and army officers must be assigned to handle terrorism and given an autonomous status with powers to strike independently without awaiting a nod from the political masters. Let them tackle terror and leaders of all parties and ideologies can do the mass awakening campaign – instilling confidence in the general public and making them an active instrument in helping security forces to crack on terror network.
Let's forget every other matter, temple or Setu or masjid or Church. Convergence to remove terror network should be our foremost offering to the gods and that should be our religious agenda too. If Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad fought against injustice and against the forces of dark evils, let all those who follow Mohammad's teaching come together to defeat inhuman cowards killing Indians in the name of some jihad. This may prove to be the biggest opportunity for a genuine Hindu-Muslim solidarity and can be followed with greater ideas. Being a Hindu I can request all the priests and Mahants and spiritual leaders who go to different parts of the globe for world peace and human happiness, to include in their puja "eliminate terror" preachings and make their followers a part of the terror-busting programme. This is the greatest yoga – call it Rashtra Yoga, yoga of the nation.
If there is a war in our courtyard we do not go to temples worshipping deities as the biggest deity is our nation and her people. Jihad is a Kargil in our precincts. Let the ashrams and the other high-class facilities for nirvana be converged on rousing the morale of the faithful against demons and Ravanas of today.
Vijaya Dashmi is not far – and let this year's festival be celebrated together with all communities coming to show solidarity with the Indian people rising above religious boundaries to kill the demon of darkness. We are all descendants of Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji and have produced Rani Laxmi Bai and Bahadur Shah Zafar and Begum Hazrat Mahal and Abdul Hameed. It's the power of togetherness that wins a nation ultimately.
It's time that cricketers and film actors join hands to create a national mood of solidarity. They owe it to their motherland. They are born Indians and have not come here just to make money and earn fame from some other planet. Once an Amitabh, a Shah Rukh, an Aamir, John and Sachin share a dais and say no to communal, divisive elements and urge all Indians to merge their divergences in one Tricolour, it will have a tremendous impact on the nation's confidence and all governments will get a big power push to act decisively.
When people are dying like cattle, it's disgusting to see media houses deeply engaged in thumka jhumka vulgarity and issues that do not represent the nation facing a terror war. They know we can win it, finally and without losing time. But the atmosphere has to be created for that and who can do it better than the media? Indian media has proved it wonderfully during Kargil; it's no different now.
If this terrorism has been exported to our land, we have a responsibility to bury it finally with our hands. Victory shall be ours, without doubt. Let the Spirit de India rise and strike.
Is it all daydreaming? A naive, emotional outburst expecting unachievable goals? Doesn't India belong to us all?
(The author is the director of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, a think tank of Hindu nationalist school of thought.) |
Islam and the West 02 Aug 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com Will Bush Bully Maliki Into Backing Off a Withdrawal Timeline -- Again?
By Gareth Porter, IPS News.
Posted July 31, 2008.
Now is not the first time the Iraqi Prime Minister sought a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Tools
WASHINGTON, Jul 28 (IPS) -- Many official and unofficial proponents of a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq are dismissing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand for a U.S. timeline for withdrawal as political posturing, assuming that he will abandon it under pressure.
But that demand was foreshadowed by an episode in June 2006 in which al-Maliki circulated a draft policy calling for negotiation of just such a withdrawal timetable and the George W. Bush administration had to intervene to force the prime minister to drop it.
The context of al-Maliki's earlier advocacy of a timetable for withdrawal was the serious Iraqi effort to negotiate an agreement with seven major Sunni armed groups that had begun under his predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari in early 2006. The main Sunni demand in those talks had been for a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Under the spur of those negotiations, al-Jaafari and Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaei had developed a plan for taking over security in all 18 provinces of Iraq from the United States by the end of 2007. During his first week as prime minister in late May, al-Maliki referred twice publicly to that plan.
At the same time al-Maliki began working on a draft "national reconciliation plan", which was in effect a road map to final agreement with the Sunni armed groups. The Sunday Times of London, which obtained a copy of the draft, reported Jun. 23, 2006 that it included the following language:
"We must agree on a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security, and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision."
That formula, linking a withdrawal timetable with the build-up of Iraqi forces, was consistent with the position taken by Sunni armed groups in their previous talks with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, which was that the timetable for withdrawal would be "linked to the timescale necessary to rebuild Iraq's armed forces and security services". One of the Sunni commanders who had negotiated with Khalilzad described the resistance position in those words to the London-based Arabic-language Alsharq al Awsat in May 2006.
The Iraqi government draft was already completed when Bush arrived in Baghdad June 13 without any previous consultation with al-Maliki, giving the Iraqi leader five minutes' notice that Bush would be meeting him in person rather than by videoconference.
The al-Maliki cabinet sought to persuade Bush to go along with the withdrawal provision of the document. In his press conference upon returning, Bush conceded that Iraqi cabinet members in the meeting had repeatedly brought up the issue of reconciliation with the Sunni insurgents.
In fact, after Bush had left, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, said he had asked Bush to agree to a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign forces. Then President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, released a statement of support for that request.
Nevertheless, Bush signalled his rejection of the Iraqi initiative in his June 14 press conference, deceitfully attributing his own rejection of a timetable to the Iraqi government. "And the willingness of some to say that if we're in power we'll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq," Bush declared.
When the final version of the plan was released to the public June 25, the offending withdrawal timetable provision had disappeared. Bush was insisting that the al-Maliki government embrace the idea of a "conditions-based" U.S. troop withdrawal. Khalilzad gave an interview with Newsweek the week the final reconciliation plan was made public in which he referred to a "conditions-driven roadmap".
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius further revealed in a June 28 column that Khalilzad had told him that Gen. George Casey, then commander of the Multi-National Force -- Iraq, was going to meet with al-Maliki about the formation of a "joint U.S.-Iraqi committee" to decide on "the conditions related to a road map for an ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Thus al-Maliki was being forced to agree to a negotiating body that symbolized a humiliating dictation by the occupying power to a client government.
The heavy pressure that had obviously been applied to al-Maliki on the issue during and after the Bush visit was resented by al-Maliki and al-Rubaie. The Iraqi rancor over that pressure was evident in the op-ed piece by al-Rubaei published in the Washington Post a week after Bush's visit.
Although the article did not refer directly to al-Maliki's reconciliation plan and its offer to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal, the very first line implied that the issue was uppermost in the Iraqi prime minister's mind. "There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq," wrote al-Rubaie, "but no defined timeline has yet been set."
Al-Rubaei declared "Iraq's ambition to have full control of the country by the end of 2008". Although few readers understood the import of that statement, it was an indication that the al-Maliki regime was prepared to negotiate complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2008.
Then the national security adviser indicated that the government already had its own targets for the first two phases of foreign troop withdrawal: withdrawal of more than 30,000 troops to under 100,000 foreign troops by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of "most of the remaining troops" -- i.e., to less than 50,000 troops -- by end of the 2007.
The author explained why the "removal" of foreign troops was so important to the Iraqi government: it would "remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the resistance in the first place"; it would also "allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbours that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance …" Finally, al-Rubaie asserted, it would "legitimize the Iraqi government in the eyes of its own people."
He also took a carefully-worded shot at the Bush administration's actions in overruling the centrepiece of Iraq's reconciliation policy. "While Iraq is trying to gain independence from the United States," he wrote, "some influential foreign figures" were still "trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions."
The 2006 episode left a lasting imprint on both the Bush and al-Maliki regimes, which is still very much in evidence in the present conflict over a withdrawal timetable. The Bush White House continues to act as though it is confident that al-Maliki can be pressured to back down as he was forced to do before. And at least some of al-Maliki's determination to stand up to Bush in 2008 is related to the bitterness that he and al-Rubaie, among others, still feel over the way Bush humiliated them in 2006.
It appears that Bush is making the usual dominant power mistake in relations to al-Maliki. He may have been a pushover in mid-2006, but the circumstances have changed, in Iraq, in the U.S.-Iraq-Iran relations and in the United States. The al-Maliki regime now has much greater purchase to defy Bush than it had two years ago.
--
Asadullah Syed
9:03 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment