Defusing the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario
The ticking time bomb scenario is a hypothetical situation, but a real-world possibility. Over the years the meaning and nature of counter insurgency, elimination of political and armed opponents and use of torture to defuse the ‘ticking time bomb (scenario)’ has acquired a new shape. It has raised questions on two fronts. Front one: advocates torture- in interest of the society i.e. national security and front two: questions legal and moral sanctions behind the use of torture for neutralizing the possible attack.

The national security interest requires the state authorities to arrest the terrorist (suspect and/or proved guilty) and interrogate in order to avert the possible attack that is likely to kill hundreds and injured thousands. Here comes the first argument in favour of the use of torture. Torture to avoid disaster. But how far this would be justified? The shining example of this would be the physical and mental torture of suspected and proved terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Gharib, Iraq by American security authorities. Many arrests were carried out in the name of averting the possible future terror attacks. Defusing the time bomb. But it raised more questions then answer desired.

The procedure of detention, treatment and trial of suspects adopted after 9/11 at Gitmo prison and at Abu Gharib brought the inhumane aspect of torture to the fore. Indian police and security agencies after the Mumbai serial blasts, 1993 used physical and mental torture in order to discover and establish the concrete link between the well crafted blasts and involvement of Dawood Ibrahim. Also, after the Mumbai terror attack of 26/11, 2008 the Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasav was dealt psychologically by showing him the pictures and videos of his parents in Pakistan by the Indian intelligence authorities. No use of physical torture has been reported. Not even by the defence lawyer.

What would the state authorities do when they have the terror suspect in the torture chamber with all important information about the type of the bomb, where is it places and the scale of disaster and amount of havoc it can create and just 1 hour to find and neutralize the explosive? Torture him physically? (Remember they are trained for physical torture). Physical torture raises legal, moral and humanitarian questions. Or apply psychological torture? (Terrorists are brain washed to die but not to speak out). They are hard nuts to crack. Above all, who would decide that person arrested is a terrorist or has links with the terror group? What if he is just a relative of the terrorist the security agencies looking for? What if he is innocent: a common man held on the grounds of suspicion? And, what he is a child possessing vital information brainwashed not to divulge anything?

Going back to the ‘Operation Condor’, 1975, Latin America, the concept of counter insurgency and torture has under gone a major transformation. From the concept of ‘opposition is equal to revolution’ then, to fighting heavily armed militants on the streets today. The communists (political opponents during Condor era) have been replaced bythe armed militias from different nations operating in various countries with different parent organization at different time but with one motto.

Operation Condor is often termed as the genesis of ‘war on terror’, but was directed to eliminate the rising communist forces in America’s backyard. Today, the international community is fighting terrorism and facing the ticking time bomb scenario at the global level. On one hand we have increasing counter insurgency operations being carried out from dense jungles of Kashmir to Columbia to high mountain ranges of Torabora and Hindukush valley in Afghanistan to the plains of Iraq. Whereas on the other hand we have clandestine terror organizations, operating with the help of sleeper cells (local support) with great degree of precision in terms of information and attack making it extremely difficult for the security agencies to trace and neutralize the attack.

GEORGIOUS GUERRILLAS

The jungles are quiet. No more Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, Carlos Marighella and other revolutionists-cum-guerrilla warriors. But their legacy and spirit lives on. They represented the militant voice of the revolutionary age. They died for freedom: freedom from the imperialist west, for the peasants and for nationalism. They represented the youth then and continuously to do even today. Their portraits and pictures appear on T-shirts. The networking youth has online communities and fan clubs in their name. Even after their death they influence the society.

Mao’s portrait at the Tiananmen Square depicts his legacy and struggle, which he fought through the barrel of gun in jungles and with his poems and effective writings. While the 5 story steel outline of Che’s face in Havana, Cuba speaks for his armed struggle along side Fidel Castro and Raul Castro against the political penetration of the west.

Mao studied Han dynasty and examined past revolutions, but his main source of inspiration was Sun Tzu, a Taoist thinker and the author of The Art of War, a book on military strategy. He followed the theory of ‘deception and pretend incapacity’ given by Tzu. On the other hand Che travelled throughout Latin America and was transformed by the poverty, imperialism and capitalism in the region.

The guerrillas sell optimism and provide hope for liberation. Their movement uses mass demonstration, propaganda, strikes and weapons to arouse voice against the established rule. Mao puts is bluntly: “Arouse the greatest number of the masses in the shortest time by the best means possible….to deal with the enemy.” Che is explicit: Guerrilla warfare is a war of the masses….guerrilla is the social reformer who takes up the arms against the oppressor in order to change the social system.” Guerrilla warfare has its roots embedded in political and armed intervention of the foreign forces and the feeling of nationalism that are aroused by such interventions.

In China it was Mao’s struggle against Chiang Kai-shek and foreign intervention of Japan and American help to the later. He called for foreign aid from the west, but with a condition. The condition was, not to accept any aid that is given on the basis of imperialism and it had to come as per China’s condition. Che was a prolific writer and diarist. His writings include analysis of guerrilla warfare, his memoir The Motorcycle Diaries and have inspired a manual for the Green Berets, a book on counter guerrilla.

Many countries have freed themselves from the imperial clutches in the last century mostly by guerrilla warfare. Again the major cause for their armed revolution was the foreign intervention: political, military and economic. Even today there is intervention from the west in terms of multinational and transnational corporations, global economic opportunities, military support and advance technologies. Unfortunately no amount of Che and Mao can fight these different forms of imperialists.

India-Pakistan: Repairing relations

http://www.student-direct.co.uk/2009/10/india-pakistan-repairing-relations/

Parjanya Bhatt

THERE is never a dull moment in the India-Pakistan relationship. Be it the recent meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries in New York, cross-border terror issues or the exchange of terror dossiers. Or on the lighter side, on the cricket field where happy cricket fans from both sides cheer for their respective teams. And Pakistan’s well-known love for Indian movies, food and societal freedom. And how can I forget to mention the soaring temperature on the Wagah border with citizens from both the sides chanting ‘Hindustan Zindabad’ and ‘Pakistan Zindabad’.
Bilateral relations between the two countries nosedived after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack that left over 160 innocent civilians dead. India suspended the composite dialogue. But now, the two sides are busy mending their relations once again. Since the Mumbai terror attack Pakistan has been under pressure to act against the terror groups, and after the diplomatic disaster in Sharm-al-Sheikh over Balochistan, India is applying caution. Indian foreign minister, S M Krishna and Pakistan foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi met in New York last month on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly, but stopped short of announcing any breakthrough. The two sides need more interaction on a diplomatic level, as well as between citizens.
Given the turbulent history of relations between India and Pakistan, it is still a positive step forward from both the sides. But India wants concrete action to be taken against the masterminds of the Mumbai terror attack. Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, during his meeting in Egypt with Indian PM Manmohan Singh said, “Pakistan will do everything in its power to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice.” So far there are mixed signals about Pakistan’s seriousness in bringing the Mumbai terror accused to justice. Court order preventing the media coverage of the trial is making the issue murky and casting shadow over Pakistan’s seriousness in tackling India-centric terror activities of the home grown terror groups. As this article is being written, in a recent development the anti-terror court in Pakistan has adjourned the trial until October 10, which probably won’t be well received by the Indian establishment. India has high expectations from Pakistan with respect to action against the terror groups. Any action for action’s sake from Pakistan could put the already fragile relations between the two in serious jeopardy.
The United States has asked Pakistan to bring the culprits of the Mumbai massacre to justice as soon as possible, adding that they would always encourage talks between India and Pakistan to ensure peace in the region. In reality, however, we have to bear in mind that American interest across the border in Afghanistan would be in danger if tension on Pakistan’s eastern border with India rises. The Obama administration understands the importance of the peaceful relations between India and Pakistan. But the contentious issues of cross border terrorism and Kashmir will always remain centre stage for any positive and progressive dialogue between the two sides. The issue of Kashmir should be left to the two sides and the two Kashmirs. No American intervention should be entertained. But as far as cross border terror is concerned it is the duty of the international community, the nations involved (sponsors and victims) and the flag bearer of the war on terror to take the lead.
The geographical division of ‘Hindustan’ into India and Pakistan in 1947 has failed to create total divide in the hearts and minds of people on both sides. Bilateral relations between the two Asian nuclear neighbours may remain severely strained after the Mumbai terror attack, but Pakistani cricket fans here in Manchester cheer for their team with Hindi movie songs being played in the background. And Indian cricket fans applaud their team with Halal, Shorma and Kababs being served to them in Pakistani restaurants. What kind of divide are the media and two governments talking about? Pakistani couples often spotted fighting in stores in Manchester over which Indian pickle to buy; Bombay, Gujarat or Maharashtra pickle? The question should be put to the diplomats and policy makers from both sides; will the two governments stop its citizens from sharing their culture?
Civil society organizations and cultural links have grown, and sports ties – particularly in cricket – have generated substantial goodwill and understanding. Cultural exchange between the people of two sides can help make it just ‘lines on the map’. But on a larger scale ties between the two Asian rivals will not be easily improved, in light of the continued cross border terror attacks.