"Don't expect instant result from
Gen. Musharraf's speech" Colin
Powell Read Full
Story
News Briefs
Slum children seek right to
education NEW DELHI: In
the presence of PM Vajpayee slum children asked what sin
they they had committed not to get education. This was
depicted in a play enacted by them, called 'Akhir Kyon',
at the PM's residence on Saturday.
21 killed in road mishap near
Bhiwani BHIWANI:
Twenty-one people, including four employees of Haryana's
electricity department, were killed in a head on
collision between two trucks on Saturday near Badhra,
about 45 kms from here.
Charas worth Rs 1 crore
seized PATNA: Contraband
charas worth Rs 1 crore in the international market was
seized and one person arrested by customs sleuths from a
jeep in Bihar's east Champaran district.
Four AIDS cases in
Sikkim GANGTOK: Sikkim
has reported four AIDS cases to the National Aids
Control Organisation till November 30 last and has
formulated a nine-pronged strategy to counter the
disease.
French naval ship to visit
Kochi KOCHI: A French
naval ship 'commandant Ducuing' with a complement of 97
personnel, including seven officers, will call at Kochi
on January 12.
TNT EXTRA!
Terror struck India on
December 13 when five gunmen entered the
Parliament complex. See exclusive infographics,
pictures and shootout updates. Read The
Extra!
COLUMN
The six Nobel Prizes for 2001 had
an unusual triple Indian connection, says
Jairam Ramesh. Read The
Opinion
9/11: Of US, Osama bin
Laden, evidence and Ms Roy
California, January 07,
21:55
N JURISPRUDENCE: Whose wisdom are we
talking about?
Ms Roy has stated in her
criticisms of the US that the UN has been reduced to an
ineffective acronym and played no role in "mandating"
the recent US-led air strikes against Afghanistan. In
singling out the US, Ms Roy actually seriously believes
that countries or terrorists who have initiated
conflicts or wars in the past (let alone responded to
them), have done so with permission or mandates from the
UN every time? Even if the statement issued by the UN
Secretary General reaffirming the United States right to
self-defence is ignored, it must be asked of Ms Roy if
she would have found any UN mandate worth talking about,
considering how the UN would then simply be
characterised as a powerless body and an arm of the
United States.
She asks all countries to delve into their "wells
of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern". What
wisdom is she talking about? It is also unclear what her
comment on "centuries of jurisprudence carelessly
trashed" (by the US) refers to. For we are not aware
that such jurisprudence actually existed in countries or
terrorists that either initiated war or conflict -- or
retaliated -- in the course of the history of this
world. How many countries or terrorists routinely wait
to produce "evidence" in a court of law? How many also
wait to win a trial in court to proceed with retaliatory
action? Perhaps it needs reminding that producing
"evidence" is a necessary but not sufficient condition
to gain a conviction. Not only is a trial required, the
suspects have to be convicted by a non-biased jury (to
prevent social/political repercussions and protests) and
using only evidence that is admissible in a court of law
(which is largely only a subset of what clandestine
spying operations conducted without court-sanctioned
warrants or wiretaps may uncover).
If that subset of evidence is found sufficient by
the hopefully non-biased jury, then one might be able to
convict the suspects months or years later. Of course,
this precludes complications relating to suspects living
in foreign countries and what could happen in appeals
(typical in cases like these). Not to mention that
publicizing evidence during the search for culprits is
not necessarily a good idea even in normal criminal
cases, to avoid tipping off suspects (especially those
who have a global network).
The terrorists who carry out acts such as those
of September 11 followed no laws. Most people who
criticize the US do not realize that these terrorists
were/are actually in luck being in the United States.
The laws in the US have historically been well geared to
protect individual rights to the maximum extent
possible, that they will often unintentionally protect
perpetrators like those who engineered the September 11
attacks. Even recordings of conversations or videotapes
made without a previous warrant might likely be
inadmissible in court, even if the subject of the
conversations included plans for a terrorist attack! Why
else did the US Attorney General's office petition the
US Government to provide them with more powers and
expanded laws than what is currently allowed under the
US Constitution to even hold and interrogate suspects,
let alone find ways to make them speak or to convict
known terrorists?
Perhaps it is appropriate to ask what critics
would actually consider real "evidence" against the
perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. What can
convince them that the "evidence" is not doctored to
produce what the US would like them to believe? Would a
confession from Osama bin Laden or the Taliban help or
would that also be something extracted out of duress and
the threat of their losing their drug money? Perhaps
they would like the "evidence" delivered by overnight
mail and gift-wrapped for their reading pleasure? The
point here is that it is one thing to speak of the need
for "evidence" and "jurisprudence" and another thing
altogether to do so with a clear understanding of the
detailed ramifications of conflicts or wars,
terrorist-initiated or otherwise.
Contrary to Ms Roy's apparent erudition on this
subject, the US is not at war with people it doesn't
know. Initial misidentification of a few suspects is not
the equivalent of complete ignorance of who the
perpetrators of the September 11 act were. On the one
hand the United States is considered guilty of creating
Frankensteins and being aware of what they are and where
they are. On the other hand, the US is supposedly so
ignorant that it does not know who it is fighting and
therefore has to manufacture its war for its people!
Another reason proposed by Ms Roy for America's lack of
knowledge on who the enemy is, is that "they (the enemy)
don't appear much on TV". In case she was serious, she
should know that TV-appearances have never been a
requirement for opponents engaged in wars or conflicts
with the US. Perhaps she missed noticing her own claim
as to how the US manipulates its media to its own
benefit (which would obviously mean excluding its
opponents from air-time). Little does it matter that the
same US media cozily accused of being a pawn in US
domestic, military or foreign policy, is the one that
has historically been an able thorn in the side of the
US Government. (Media incidentally includes more than
just TV).
Granted, the major US press could have been more
forthcoming in publishing the slew of dissenting
articles and unpleasant war news, but these are
singularly difficult times for the people of the United
States. The events of September 11 have caused a lot of
pain to US citizens that understandably needs time to
heal. Indeed, we would not be surprised if the US media
soon begins to increase coverage of dissenting views (in
keeping with the legacy that has made them renowned the
world over) as the distance from September 11 starts to
grow. Moreover, in America's free markets, newspapers
that fail to report with objectivity this time will
become dormant or extinct over the years, as others that
stand up better to the challenge take over their mantle,
especially with the spread of the Internet.
At the same time, we would like to know just what
Ms Roy's definition of free press is, considering she
took the time to flay the US media as well. How many
US-based newspapers, magazines or publications has she
read since September 11? When was the last time she
really bothered to checkif her statement deriding America's
press is true? How many instances has she heard of the
Press of any country being almost entirely responsible
for bringing down a head of state or its having played a
dominant role in the impeachment of a head of state? In
which countries do politicians routinely resign or have
their career plans changed for them thanks to the
presence of the Press? In which countries do
multinationals routinely pay up millions (or billions)
of dollars thanks to the direct or indirect influence of
the Press? In which countries does activism through the
media have the most significant influence on businesses
or government?
ON INTROSPECTION: Is America no different from
Afghanistan?
Ms Roy emphasizes the lack of "introspection"
from the leaders of the "International Coalition". It
would not be surprising if the only valid "evidence" of
introspection is for the United States and the
"coalition" to do nothing. As Indian citizens who are
proud of a key part of our heritage as defined by the
non-violence movement in India earlier in the 20th
century (attributable in large part to Mahatma Gandhi --
who was then assassinated on religious grounds by a
dastardly act), we believe very much in peaceful
activism and non-violence. However, we would ask Ms Roy
how she imagines non-violent approaches would work
against terrorists or their sponsoring states where even
peaceful dissent may be considered sedition or
opposition to "God" and might meet arrest or possible
death as a response.
Irrespective of the above, one thing is quite
clear. Since, according to her and many arm-chair
critics, the United States is no different than the
Taliban-run Afghanistan or perhaps Iraq or any other
"terrorist" state, we strongly suggest these critics
should spend a good part of their lives, ideally with
their family, in those other countries. This will allow
them to experience the wonderful freedoms, rights,
privileges, and great opportunities in those countries,
while simultaneously allowing them to provide community
service to the poor, "innocent" civilians living there
and fight against the "evil" of the US. Who knows what
enlightening new findings will emerge about the striking
similarities between the United States and those
countries. (We would specially encourage all the
Bangladeshi women whom we recently saw picturized
shouting pro-bin-Laden/Taliban slogans to migrate as
soon as possible to Afghanistan and live happily with
the leaders they are so fond of. This would be quite
understandable considering how pitiably the billions of
dollars in food, maternal/child healthcare and other aid
that their country has received from the US compares
with the tremendous outpouring of support and care bin
Laden and the Taliban have extended to them as women).
ON "WAR IS PEACE": This is merely an illusion
In response to the statements from US President
George W. Bush stating how the US is a peaceful country,
Ms Roy has remarked that "War is Peace" for the United
States. Her sarcasm is certainly justified since the
United States as a nation has not really demonstrated an
innate inclination to use a peaceful approach (as
opposed to war or fighting) in dealing with many of its
international conflicts or problems.
However,
as long as the basic nationalist, religious, caste-ist,
or racist biases of human beings are cultivated by
power-hungry dictators or misguided writers or anyone in
between, there will be no peace. Peace is not simply a
misleading short-term hiatus in physical fighting or
conflicts. It is characterized by long-term happiness,
true understanding and tolerance between people --
historically something that humans have often lacked,
wherever they come from. The lack of physical violence
at a given point in time is not in itself a
manifestation of real peace. That is merely an illusion
we use to calm ourselves, an illusion that disappears
when the first sign of conflict appears somewhere on
earth.
Ms Roy also suggests that symbols of America's
economic and military dominance -- the WTC and the
Pentagon -- were chosen as targets on September. 11 and
not the Statue of Liberty, perhaps because the attacks
targeted not freedom and democracy but their opposites.
We humbly submit that the attacks were chosen to
maximise civilian casualties (of the "American
infidels") and not waste "martyrs" on mere statues --
"martyrs" hurriedly heading to the promised land of
virgins where of course their own mothers would not be
allowed, and wherefrom the virgins themselves would have
to be expelled soon after the martyrs arrived there.
To be continued...
Text
of Musharraf's Address to the Nation President Musharraf in his
address to the nation reaffirmed to rid the
society of terrorism and strived to project Islam
in its true perspective.
