Monday, December 15, 2008

 

Mumbai Media, the Indian Elite and the Naxalite - By A. Cruz

Add to Technorati Favorites

Mumbai Media, the Indian Elite and the Naxalite

 

 

 

By A Cruz

 

 

 

The attacks in Mumbai at the end of November have led to every kind of analysis, especially geopolitical. One must remember that the strategic alliance between India and Israel has much to do with the recent surge in Islamist movements in India. Without doubt the interests of the United States, Britain and Israel are in play, for example, in the attempt to "balkanize" the region, particularly Pakistan.

 

 

 

This country is the key to the region, since it has frontiers with Iran, Afghanistan, India and China as well as being located close to the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, rich in energy, especially in gas. Afghanistan, like Iraq and, despite the war and the Taliban surge, is sufficiently de-structured as to present no problem as regards energy matters. Only Iran and Pakistan remain. They are the long term targets of the imperialist-zionist axis. Of those two countries Pakistan is the weakest

                 

 

 

However, few analyses, perhaps none, have dealt with the internal front in India. And here, too, one has to pay special attention. The Mumbai attacks have been a blow to the symbols of the Indian economic élite. For the first time this privileged sector has been put in fear directly. In a country where 80% of people live on less than US$2 a day it is not surprising that when the essence of the Indian oligarchy has been touched, all hell has broken loose.

 

 

 

Political violence in India

 

 

 

Much the contrary has happened on other occasions. In the same city of Mumbai in 1993, two massive indiscriminate attacks killed 257 people in poor districts of the city. In 2006 a series of coordinated attacks against the rail network caused 186 deaths in the same city. Neither the Press nor the political elite showed any concern at all. In the end, these deaths were of the others, the ones who always die, the poor. If they are not killed in attacks like those, they will die in the end from hunger, so it makes little difference, they thought.

 

 

 

Very few voices have managed to break the class barrier set up around the Mumbai attacks. One of them, Farzana Versey, writer, artist, freelance alternative journalist, resident in Mumbai (1) puts her finger on the issue when she refuses to join her colleagues in condemning the attacks. That has cost her space in the media she writes for, who no longer publish her analysis and articles.

 

 

 

Farzana Versey does not highlight the luxury hotels or the chic cafés that were attacked, but the train station, or the hospital or the police confronting the attackers with what people describe as virtually stone age weapons. And that displeases the political and economic elite: they have been attacked so please show solidarity with them and only them. The other victims are unimportant. ¿Why concern oneself with people who are disposable?

 

 

 

Agence France Presse notes a similar feeling in one of its reports when it states, "the millions of privileged people in this country of 1.1bn people feel that those tragedies (attacks with more victims than the latest ones in Mumbai) barely concern them because they affect mainly the poorer classes".

 

 

 

Before the attacks in Mumbai, other Indian cities - Varanasi, Jaipur, Bangalore, New Delhi, Surat and Ahmadabad) had suffered massive indiscriminate attacks in September without the current media lamentations. For those attacks, a brief lone mention on the inside pages and nothing on the television. Islamists were responsible for those attacks too, but the victims were not representatives of the economic elite.

 

 

 

Nobody is talking, or spoke then, about why the Islamists had begun, since at least 2003, a series of indiscriminate attacks throughout the country. Nobody has remembered, as Farzana Versey has made very clear, that in 1992 the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh caused a revolt costing 900 lives, that the senior police officers responsible were promoted and not a single police official was fired; nor that, in Gujarat in 2002, the massacre took place of more than 2000 Muslims.

 

 

 

In India there are 160 million Muslims who are the pariahs of the pariahs, in other words regarded as much lower than the Untouchables, the Dalits in the caste system. No government has done much to change things, as Kavita Srivastava, president of the Public Union for Civil Liberties has denounced. The same happens with the Christians, the adivasi (indigenous people) or the Dalits.

 

 

 

All because unspoken hindu fundamentalism is spreading through society, resulting lately in the detention of soldiers, one of them a lieutenant colonel, in a Hinduist cell that had carried out an attack in the city of Malegaon, one attributed to Islamists. Here we are dealing only with the religious aspects, not the routine police repression against popular movements, like the repression in May this year in Rajasthan. It caused 16 deaths, still un-investigated. That is to mention just one attack with a high number of victims. But there have been more, many more, without the Indian State, let alone the Indian oligarchy, having rent its garments in lamentation.

 

 

 

India's "enviable development"

 

 

 

India as the biggest democracy in the world. India the country with the most enviable development on the planet. Democratic India, counterweight in this part of Asia to authoritarian China. India all aboard the train of western modernity. India and Bollywood. These are the clichés and stereotypes of the well off kids of the comfortable middle class in Delhi, Mumbai or any other of their satellite cities.

 

 

 

They eat their hamburgers or pizzas as they might in any Western eatery, because they refuse to eat local food or to drink the traditional tea with cream because they prefer to drink cola. They buy their clothes in Versace or Mango, their watches in Cartier. Speaking in English, flashing the latest mobiles, they drive out in luxury cars or on high powered motor bikes. Not for them the train or the impossible public mass transport. Condescendingly, they toss a coin to whoever does them a quick turn on the sidewalk, a dance or some other performance so as to be able to eat that day.

 

 

 

They are the privileged ones, these fewer than 250 million out of a total population of 1,097 million who, ever since 1990-1991, have made of India their personal playground. They took advantage of the fall of the Soviet Union to throw overboard the socialising, if not Socialist, country developed by Nehru so as to embrace economic liberalism with all the faith of the converted. The current Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, was Minister of Finance then.

 

 

 

By promoting neoliberalism the State abandoned in practice any pretence of social equality in the sense Nehru had always worked for. Their political economy, so highly praised, has dissolved the local network of interdependence, weakened family and community links and placed consumerism at life's centre for anyone who wants social recognition. Spanish business people say as much themselves when they assert, in an extensive report praising investment opportunities in India, that "the increase in central government investment in the rural economy means that the purchasing power of this large segment of the population will increase and this is good news for mobile phone makers, local and foreign mortgage providers for house purchases and too for manufacturers of durable goods like electro-domestic appliances and other electronic goods."

 

 

 

The Spanish business report also regards as "signs of progress" the elimination of "obsolete labour laws in India that in the previous decade deterred foreign investment". They praise the 339 Special Economic Zones the central government wants to set up around the country. Right now there are 40 SEZs in operation. Thanks to exemptions, companies pay no tax, enjoy fiscal and economic advantages to increase productivity and are able to elude the country's normal labour, trades union and environmental laws, so as to attract local and foreign investors.

 

 

 

So India's "enviable development" is seated on another much less well known reality. Let us put it in the words of Arjun Sengupta, President of the National Commission for Businesses in the Non-Organized Sector: "77% of India's population of 853 million is poor and vulnerable with a consumption capacity less than 20 rupees a day" (about US$0.52 cents). Sengupta classifies the population in six groups: the extremely poor, the poor, the marginally poor, the precarious or vulnerable, people with middle incomes and people with high incomes. He says that the percentage of the extremely poor has declined from 30.7% in 1994 to 21.8% now, but only so as to swell the ranks of the marginally poor and the precarious groups whose index of consumption sits on or around those 20 rupees a day. These are the dispensable people, the victims of the periodic mass attacks that India has suffered over the last five years or so.

 

 

 

The gap between the enormous number of those 853 million impoverished people and the remaining 244 million is total and absolute. They do not mix. And it is the privileged groups who control the country. They can be divided into a more or less comfortable middle class (about 200 million) and the rich (about 44 million). They control the parliament. They control the communications media.

 

 

 

We can put a recent example. Recently, in mid-November, before the Mumbai attacks, various states held elections. In one of them, Chhattisgarh, a bastion of the naxalite guerrillas, of the 687 official candidates, 42 were millionaires (in India a millionaire is considered to be someone worth at least 10 million rupees). Of those 42, 19 belonged to the Congress Party lists (the local state government party self-described as centrist to which Nehru belonged), 7 belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party (the right-wing Hindu People's Party) and 5 to the Bahujan Samaj (a middle class party). In addition there were 53 other candidates involved in corruption trials. As in other places, India's history is a history of class.

 

 

 

And it is the economically most powerful class, the oligarchy and the landlords which, prior to the Mumbai attacks that affected them directly, felt most threatened by the naxalite expansion and pressed the central government for the army to join the fight against the Maoists. The Indian army has a long tradition of being a lay and apolitical force. In contrast to the police, which in inter-communal conflicts usually supports the Hindu nationalists (Hindutva, Hindu supremacy) The army has always acted as a neutral force. But for the economic elite, faced with the growth of the naxalites, that had to change. Their long term interests were at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

The Naxalites

 

 

 

The Indian Maoists fill their ranks with fighters from every ethnic, caste and religious group. For example in Orissa, the majority of the naxalites come from Christian communities, while in other states they are Dalit or even Muslim. The use of the army against the Maoists is a problem for the Indian government but not for the oligarchy.

 

 

 

On November 23rd, three days before the Mumbai attacks, Prime Minister Singh spoke to a select audience of high-ranking officials from the police and other security organizations in which once more he considered the naxalites as India's main internal problem. He recognized that "despite the efforts that have been made and continue to be made, the measures adopted up until now have not given the desired results."

 

 

 

He was referring to a government plan to contain the guerrillas advance, starting a development programme in the most impoverished parts of India, modernizing the police, creating road infrastructure as much for rapid transit of police forces as for the population and the creation of six war colleges to train anti-guerrilla units so as to be able to attack and destroy the naxalite camps in the forests.

 

 

 

At the same time he asked for more forthrightness from the communications media against the Maoists. Interior Minister Shivraj Patil, also insisted on the issue. For him, "an adequate policy from the communications media would help the police win citizens' confidence" in the struggle against the Maoists.

 

 

 

Two reasons explain the failure of the central government's measures. Firstly, the naxalite expansion looks unstoppable, acting in 14 (or 15 according to the Asian Human Rights Centre) of India's 28 states (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Uttaranchal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra & Bihar).

 

 

 

That means that out of a total of the country's 602 administrative districts the Maoists are in control in 182. Furthermore, the naxalites are beginning to reach into the cities, especially into the industrial working class areas of Delhi, Mumbai, Raipur, Pune and Jammu, alternating propaganda actions with military actions. Even the Indian government considered a year ago that between 30% and 35% of India's territory is controlled by the naxalites. That percentage is greater now and which explains the frantic concern of the Prime Minister and the Indian oligarchy.

 

 

 

The second reason is that the Maoists have managed to create their own system of public distribution across wide rural areas in at least four of the states in which they operate, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and West Bengal. This in effect means a government of popular power. Landlords in those states are shocked at the very real possibility that rural workers and their families will seek Maoist protection in land disputes, as has already occurred in Uttar Pradesh.

 

 

 

And recent weeks have seen a substantial increase in Maoist attacks against police units (the latest on December 6th in Jharkhand with 5 dead) or ordering armed strike action ( as in the districts of Gajapati, Kandhamal n Rayagada, in the state of Orissa) in protest at police repression against rural workers and their families. Those strike actions have had mass support. And too, in the local elections held over the last few weeks, in areas where the naxalites operate the boycott has been huge, especially in Chhattisgarh. There, despite the usual percentage of people voting being about 53% (and here the Salwa Judum militia have played a leading role, threatening people who do not vote), in certain districts, the vote barely reached 21%, as happened in Bijapur, to mention just one case of that boycott.

 

 

 

The economic elite, the Indian oligarchy, is more and more worried by the naxalite surge. The Indian Maoists wage a prolonged people's war while the Mumbai attacks happened without warning. But for the Indian economic elite and oligarchy there is a clear order of priorities, "despite the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the nation has another threat, more serious, more sinister represented by the extreme left wing naxalites...The Maoists are not an enemy to be taken lightly. Unless they are eliminated they could cause great damage."

 

 


 

WHY INDIA'S ENGLISH PRINT MEDIA COMPLETELY BLACKED OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE SHOE-BASHING OF PRESIDENT BUSH? By Ghulam Muhammed

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, December 15, 2008

 

 

WHY INDIA'S ENGLISH PRINT MEDIA COMPLETELY BLACKED OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE SHOE-BASHING OF PRESIDENT BUSH?

 

They certainly behaved more loyal than the King. Except for The Indian Express, which published on page:13, the news of US President Bush  being hit by a pair of shoes by an Iraqi journalist in his press conference in Baghdad, while saying farewell to Iraqi President Nuri al Malaki. Even though TIMES NOW and other TV channels had promptly carried the live footage as breaking news, it is an enigma, why the print media got the cold feet. If they had been cautioned by the UPA government, why not the TV channel? In fact, it was the most dramatic and historic moment in the Bush presidency's saga of ignominy and infamy. And a fitting one at that! No amount of scorn and contempt could have been recorded for the posterity to watch in live footage than this simple act of Arab degradation to register how much Bush has brought down the prestige of the mighty USA. An Iraqi, one of the millions that carry the wounds of Bush family's wanton destruction of their people and their country, a journalist could not bear to hold back at the supposedly solemn ceremony of the farewell of the departing President that ravaged Iraqi people, and hit it out by throwing his shoes one after the other at the person of the US President of the world's most powerful nation. "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!", shouted Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, when he hurled his shoes at President Bush. Bush ducked the shoe with remarkable agility. The second shoe too missed the target bodily, but hit the bull mark, with the words: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!"

 

It is an act of great shame that the peeved India, the moral standard bearer of the world at a time, should be compromising its very soul, its very ethos and had no word to condemn the US, for its illegal invasion of Iraq, and that too on false pretexts. India, now under the rule of the pygmies, in the shadow of giants like Nehru and Gandhi, has sold it freedom, its moral authority, its place in the comity of the nations of the world, as the voice of reason, justice and fair-play; always siding with the victims of the colonial brutalities and imperial conquests, never forgetting the trial and tribulations of its own freedom fighters, is now being trampled by every Tom, Dick and Harry from the US/UK/Israel axis, who can buy a plane ticket to New Delhi. It was not very much in the past, when the US Ambassador was to face a public outcry when he tried to lecture India, as how to run their country. Today, the ambassador of Israel has the audacity to castigate Indian leaders publicly for their negligence in not preventing the terror attack on Mumbai. The media slavishly carried his diatribe. The Prime Minister and External Affairs minister took the public reprimand and kept quite. Nobody is asking Israel, what Israeli citizens are doing in India. Who gave them permission to run a charity mission in Mumbai, which can become a center of conspiracy, at any time of Israel's choosing?  India was dragged into Afghanistan imbroglio and it is that colossal mistake that is the beginning of India's misfortunes, starting with the Mumbai terror attack. Why our 'war' navy vessels should cross over toSomalia to hunt the pirates, when our own coast are so unguarded and unsecured. Who pushed India to show its naval might across the Indian Ocean, while our coast is so naked and open to invaders from the sea? What kind of conspiracy was hatched to entangleIndia into the great game?

 

And the patriotic media is silent. It is afraid to even report an event that it presumed to be further humiliation of India's new strategic partner that has the same role of ignominy chalked out for India.

 

It is still time for India, to get out of the northern trap and keep Pakistan as a buffer state, between us and the wild horde of the north. It is still time for India, to say, enough is enough.

 

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 


 

Media complicity in Mumbai terror - By Sunil Adam - thehoot.org

Add to Technorati Favorites

http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3501&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=truehttp://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3501&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=true

Media complicity in Mumbai terror

The visual media and terrorism have a mutually reinforcing relationship, which needs to be broken to the detriment of the latter,  says SUNIL ADAM
 
Posted Tuesday, Dec 09 12:50:05, 2008


The terror strategists who orchestrated the diabolical attacks in Mumbai have apparently decided that global audiences have become inured to images of suicide missions triggering spectacular explosions and mass killings.

 

Their altered tactic -- to stage a protracted carnage at high-value venues that guarantee greater number of victims and help create a psychological state of siege disproportionate to the actual scale of the violence -- has paid off handsomely.

 

By injecting a "human" element into the violence – allowing victims to have "face-time" with the perpetrators, and, vicariously, with millions of television viewers, the strategists have managed to amplify the coldblooded nature of their mission. In contrast, as Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation said recently citing intelligence reports, the Jihadist terrorists have come to regard the remote triggering of IEDs and suicide bombings as too impersonal and not "manly" enough.

 

But what ensured the stupendous success of the Mumbai terrorists was the saturated coverage by international television networks, fueled by a weak news cycle over the Thanksgiving weekend in America. It was "propaganda by deed" at its best, considering that the actual organization behind the attacks didn't bother to claim credit or make demands or issue a communiqué.

 

The success of this strategy is likely to motivate terrorists to stage similar attacks, possibly in Europe, if not in the United States. It will not be farfetched to imagine suicide attackers targeting, say, different venues of the Cannes Film Festival, killing dozens of international celebrities and stars -- a feat that would assure them unprecedented media attention.

 

Curiously, while media coverage has always been central to terrorists' strategy, it has never been factored into counterterrorism policies of targeted governments. Unlike conventional violence, which involves a perpetrator and a victim, terrorism is a triadic tactic involving a perpetrator, a victim and an audience. In other words, a terrorist needs targets as well as objects of violence. The former has no value without the latter.

 

For instance, without underestimating the trauma caused by the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it is plausible to assume that the impact would have been very different had the TV networks not endlessly broadcast the images of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. Because there were no images of the downing of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania and no dramatic footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon building, they are not etched in popular memory the same way as the attacks and collapse of the Twin Towers are.

 

It is pertinent here to note that the media coverage of terrorism also has a bearing on the response of the governments. In his seminal work, "Mini Manual of the Urban Guerrilla," Brazilian terrorist and thinker Carlos Marighella says the whole idea of staging spectacular attacks is to make the target government "overreact."

 

The greater the media coverage, the greater the pressure on the government to demonstrate that it is in control, which invariably results in excessive measures that cause inconvenience to and harassment of ordinary citizens. Worse still, overreaction transforms a political situation into a military situation, as Marighella envisages.

 

That is precisely what the Indian government needs to resist as it contemplates its responses to the Mumbai terror outrage and that is what the Bush administration did not factor in when it declared "war" against the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks. If anything, President Bush compounded the situation by waging a war against Iraq in the mistaken assumption that a demonstration of overwhelming military power against a renegade state will send a message to the nonstate actors.

 

Counterterrorism's conceptual lacuna of not factoring in media coverage becomes all the more glaring when we take into consideration that there are no foolproof ways to prevent each and every act of terrorism, let alone suicide attacks that are virtually indefensible.

 

No amount of intelligence gathering and monitoring of "chatter" or erecting security barriers to secure vulnerable targets can stop every planned attack. Not if all target-rich democracies are potential theaters of terrorist operations. The only option is to neutralize the efficacy of terrorism as an instrument of propaganda.

 

Nearly 40 years ago, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) assembled 60 international television networks and blew up three hijacked, but empty, Boeing aircrafts at Dawson airfield in Amman, Jordan, it became obvious that without the media coverage of terrorism would be reduced to what it actually is: a low-intensity and indiscriminate violence perpetrated by a small number of non-state actors with limited resources and reach.

 

Yet, no effort has ever been made to curtail media coverage on the plea that it would be an affront to the freedom of the press and amount to an undemocratic measure of censorship.

 

But that wouldn't be the case, if there is a voluntary effort by the media itself. After all, over the past two decades, and certainly since 9/11, citizens, institutions and businesses in every country that has been a target of terrorism have made sacrifices and accepted restrictions on their freedoms, in an effort to prevent terrorist attacks.

 

It is only the Fifth Estate that seems to be exempt from contributing to this global effort. If anything, the visual media, particularly the American television networks that broadcast globally, have profited from greater viewership, thanks to the coverage of terrorist activities that have gone up exponentially in recent years.

 

The visual media and terrorism have a mutually reinforcing relationship, which needs to be broken to the detriment of the latter.

 

As for the issue of press freedom, the news media, particularly in America, are not unfamiliar with either self-censorship in the interest of national security or entering into deals with the local, state and federal governments for specific purposes in the larger interest of the audience they serve.

 

Even if one should consider Islamic terrorism as a generational phenomenon that will dissipate when the conditions that breed it change for the better -- not unlike the radical terrorism of the 1960s and 1970s – terrorism as a weapon of political struggle will remain, in this media-driven global village, an attractive option for future subnational actors with new causes.

 

Liberal democracies cannot afford to let the freedom of the press continue to serve the forces that seek to undermine them. Perhaps, it is time for an international conference of leading media organizations to discuss and consider guidelines for an appropriate embargo on terrorism coverage.

 

Sunil Adam is the editor of The Indian American, a general-interest magazine published from New York. He has been a commentator on issues related to international terrorism for nearly two decades.

 


 

ASSESS GROUND SITUATION IN PAK WELL BEFORE WE RESPOND - By Seema Mustafa - THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL, MUMBAI

Add to Technorati Favorites


ASSESS GROUND SITUATION IN PAK WELL BEFORE WE RESPOND
 

By Seema Mustafa

 

 

"Non state actors are operating from a particular country. What we are most respectfully submitting, suggesting to the government of Pakistan: please act. Mere expression of intention is not adequate," said minister of external affairs Pranab Mukherjee in Parliament. The Zardari government, faced with an ultimatum of sorts from Washington, has cracked down on the Lashkar e Tayaba and its parent organization at Muridke at Lahore.

But this is just the tip of the problem. The sophisticated terrorist attack in Mumbai where ten 'commandos' traveled 600 nautical miles by sea escaping Indian intelligence and patrolling, to launch a three day long 'operation' does not have the LeT stamp. The recruits might have been LeT, of for that matter Hizb, or al Qaeda, or what have you operatives but the training was of  a far superior caliber than what had been visible here in the past. It must be pointed out that the Lashkar was used largely by the Pakistan army and ISI in Jammu and Kashmir, and for a while now has been straining at the leash within Pakistan, to move towards the Afghan border. But pressure from both the Pakistan government and the US has prevented these chaps from indulging in anti-US and anti-NATO warfare in Afghanistan, with even senior LeT leaders arrested a while ago to prevent them from shifting their area of operations.

These ten men were very different from the LeT chaps, with better training, far more sophisticated weaponry, and a certain ruthlessness and determination that had our NSG commandos giving them "full marks" for holding out for three full days. These were also an indicator in the shift that has taken place within Pakistan or its sanctuaries, where the war against the US and its allies is going to be waged in countries like India where the security network is porous and penetrated with comparative ease. It is also clear that the Pakistan government had little knowledge of the operation, although it cannot be said with any certainty that sections of the army and the ISI were equally ignorant. What has not been determined as yet, and might never be, is whether the top echelons of the Pakistan military were involved in the training and deployment of the terrorists?

One is saying this, as the disaffection within the Pakistan army is well known. Retired generals and ISI chiefs like Hamid Gul told this correspondent earlier this year that the army was resentful and angry about being involved in the operations against its own people in the villages neighbouring Afghanistan, and that there had been large scale desertions of both soldiers and officers. They said that the Pakistan army could have managed an odd operation or two against its own people, but this sustained warfare had taken a major toll. More so, as the Pakistan army looked upon the Pathans and others in the border areas as its own, and had trained these people earlier to fight the Russians when the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. "They do not look at all this as terrorism, they are now fighting the US," is how the retired army generals in Islamabad put it, pointing out that military action was placing the army and "its own people" in direct conflict.

The Pakistan army, under US and international pressure to do more and more, has been finding the going very difficult and it would, thus, not be surprising if sections within decided to conduct a parallel war of the kind that the world witnessed in Mumbai. After all, the battle insofar as the Pakistan army is concerned, is for survival and for Afghanistan that it has always looked upon as its own territory and is particularly upset at having been reduced to a virtual cipher therein. This is one of the main reasons why former President Pervez Musharraf was struggling earlier to convince the Americans of using the army's expertise to differentiate between the good and the bad Taliban, and reach some kind of a solution through negotiations with the former.

Pakistanis have always been very worried, and this applies also to the man on the street, of the vulnerability of its mainland to an Indian attack. They have always looked to Afghanistan for strategic depth, and are now particularly worried about having lost this in the global war against terror. It is a well known fact that when the US invaded Afghanistan, Islamabad pleaded with it not to bring in the Northern Alliance into the government. This was largely because of the close links between India and the Northern Alliance, and Pakistan fought till the very end to try and keep New Delhi out of Afghanistan. Instead, India opened more consulates and has become very active in the construction of strategic roads in Afghanistan, linking it to Iran and other countries.

The Pakistan army has been facing the brunt of the war on terror, and there is a certain disconnect between it and the Zardari government. The army is not particularly fond of the new President, and does not have very good links with the political parties in power at the moment. It is working as a virtually independent institution, clear from the fact that when India summoned the ISI chief to Delhi, the first response of the civilian government was a "yes." It was only after the army put its foot down that the ISI general was not sent to India, and Zardari also toughened his responses to be more in tune with the army line. Interestingly civil society in Pakistan is closer to the army's denial of involvement, with even progressive Pakistanis in a state of denial insofar as the involvement of the LeT and other groups in the Mumbai attack is concerned. This is particularly interesting, as for the last few years, many in Pakistan's civil society were vociferous in their opposition to home grown terrorism. And the media was also particularly forthcoming in carrying detailed investigation of the terror camps, with critical editorials carried by several newspapers from time to time.

India will have to fine tune its response according to the reality on the ground, and not confine its responses to the LeT that is not the problem. Perhaps not even a symptom any longer. There is a deep churning going on within the Pakistan military and that has to be understood and factored in by our policy makers. Is it the beginning of the end of the army as an institution? Are we looking at a situation where the Pakistan army will become a renegade force out of the control of not just the Americans but its own political masters? If so, how will this impact on India? Remember, in a situation where the command and control of nuclear weapons in Pakistan is not absolutely clear to the outside world, who will be in charge of that briefcase with the little button that can spell disaster for not just this region, but the entire world?



 

Iraqi Journalist Hurls Shoes at Bush - The New York Times

Add to Technorati Favorites



Iraqi Journalist Hurls Shoes at Bush

Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq tried to block a shoe that was thrown at President Bush at a news conference on Sunday in Baghdad. He was not hit.

Published: December 14, 2008

BAGHDAD — President Bush made a valedictory visit on Sunday toIraq, the country that will largely define his legacy, but the trip will more likely be remembered for the unscripted moment when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush’s head and denounced him on live television as a “dog” who had delivered death and sorrow here from nearly six years of war.

Reach of War

Go to Complete Coverage »

Baghdad Bureau

blog looking at daily life inside Iraq, produced by The Times’s Baghdad bureau.

Go to the Blog »
APTN/Associated Press

President Bush, on a surprise trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, got a taste of dissent at a Baghdad press event Sunday when an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at him, forcing him to duck.

Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Muntader al-Zaidi throwing a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and later said lightly, “All I can report is it is a size 10.”

Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A man was wrestled to the ground after throwing his shoes at President Bush during a news conference.

The drama unfolded shortly after Mr. Bush appeared at a news conference in Baghdad with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to highlight the newly adopted security agreement between the United States and Iraq. The agreement includes a commitment to withdraw all American forces by the end of 2011.

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him.

Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until “he was crying like a woman,” said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party, which is led by Mr. Maliki. Mr. Zaidi was then detained on unspecified charges.

Other Iraqi journalists in the front row apologized to Mr. Bush, who was uninjured and tried to brush off the incident by making a joke. “All I can report is it is a size 10,” he said, continuing to take questions and noting the apologies. He also called the incident a sign of democracy, saying, “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside.

But the moment clearly unnerved Mr. Maliki’s aides and some of the Americans in Mr. Bush’s entourage, partly because it was televised and may have revealed a security lapse in the so-called Green Zone, the most heavily secured part of Baghdad.

In the chaos, Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, who was visibly distraught, was struck in the eye by a microphone stand.

Mr. Bush visited Iraq as part of an unannounced trip that later took him to Afghanistan, where he was meeting on Monday with American troops and President Hamid Karzai.

The shoe-throwing incident in Baghdad punctuated Mr. Bush’s visit here — his fourth — in a deeply symbolic way, reflecting the conflicted views in Iraq of a man who toppledSaddam Hussein, ordered the occupation of the country and brought it freedoms unthinkable under Mr. Hussein’s rule but at enormous costs.

Hitting someone with a shoe is considered the supreme insult in Iraq. It means that the target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty. Crowds hurled their shoes at the giant statue of Mr. Hussein that stood in Baghdad’s Firdos Square before helping American marines pull it down on April 9, 2003, the day the capital fell. More recently in the same square, a far bigger crowd composed of Iraqis who had opposed the security agreement flung their shoes at an effigy of Mr. Bush before burning it.

Friends described Mr. Zaidi as a devoted journalist. “He was committed to his job and after training in Lebanon became chief of correspondents about a month ago,” said Haider Nassar, who worked with him at Baghdadia.

“He had bad feelings about the coalition forces,” said Mr. Nassar, referring to the American-led foreign forces in Iraq. Mr. Nassar also said Mr. Zaidi had asked to cover the news conference. Another friend said Mr. Zaidi often ended his reports by saying, “Reporting from occupied Baghdad, this is Muntader al-Zaidi.”

Like many Iraqi reporters at the news conference, Mr. Nassar said he did not think this was an effective way for Mr. Zaidi to make his points. “This is so silly; it’s just the behavior of an individual,” Mr. Nassar said. “He destroyed his future.”

The television channel broadcast a request for Mr. Zaidi’s release in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. “Any procedure against Muntader will remind us of the behavior of the dictatorship and their violent actions, random detentions and mass graves,” the channel said. “Baghdadia TV channel also demands that the international and Iraqi television organizations cooperate in seeking the release of Muntader Zaidi.”

Shortly before 10 p.m., Mr. Bush headed from the Green Zone by helicopter to Camp Victory, where he was greeted with cheers and whoops from hundreds of soldiers inside the enormous rotunda of Al Faw palace. Speaking at a lectern beneath an enormous American flag that nearly reached the domed ceiling, he praised the soldiers and reflected on the sacrifices of those who had died.

He called the increased deployment of American troops in Iraq last year, a strategy known as the surge, which is credited with helping reduce violence here, “one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military.”

Mr. Bush’s arrival in Iraq during daylight hours was one measure of progress; his first visit on Thanksgiving Day 2003 took place entirely at night.

As with previous visits, preparations were secretive and carried out with ruse. The White House schedule for Sunday had Mr. Bush attending the “Christmas in Washington” performance at the National Building Museum in downtown Washington. Instead, he left the White House by car on Saturday night, arriving at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland at 9 p.m. to board Air Force One. A dozen journalists accompanying him were told of the trip only on Friday and allowed to tell only a superior and a spouse — and only in person.

At his news conference with Mr. Maliki, Mr. Bush described the security agreement as a landmark, signaling a new era in the war he began in the spring of 2003. “There is still more work to be done,” the president said about the war, but with the security agreement and “the courage of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi troops and the American troops and civilian personnel, it is decisively on its way to be won.”

Mr. Maliki’s partnership with Mr. Bush and his backing of the security deal are unlikely to help him much once Mr. Bush leaves office.

Although a majority in the Iraqi Parliament approved the agreement, on the street, Iraqis have mixed views. Many distrust any pact made with an occupying power, and while Mr. Bush is appreciated for having overthrown Mr. Hussein, he is widely blamed for the violence that raged in the years after the war, which prompted more than a million Iraqis to flee and killed tens of thousands of civilians.

Still, Mr. Bush’s stalwart support for Mr. Maliki — after an initial period when the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, expressed doubts about him — has been a bulwark against domestic political forces who sought to topple him.

With the American president’s term ending, Iraqi politicians from parties other than Mr. Maliki’s have been discussing whether to force the prime minister out with a no-confidence vote. This is not the first time his ouster has been discussed, but with American power in Iraq on the wane and troop numbers beginning to decline in earnest, it seems a more serious threat.

Weighing against it happening, however, is that there is no agreement on Mr. Maliki’s successor or on how to divide cabinet posts. The posts are split among the political blocs that control Parliament and they would be loath to give up anything they had unless they were assured that they would get another position at least as good.

Atheer Kakan, Tareq Maher and Mudafer Husseini contributed reporting.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?