THROUGH THICK AND THIN - The government must revive the morale of the armed forces
BRIJESH D. JAYAL

Unsung lives
Through this column I would like to congratulate Manmohan Singh and his party for having provided this nation with what was most needed at this critical juncture — a stable government. While doing so I must confess that I am guilty of not being one of those who have made this possible. I chose not to exercise my franchise since the denial of the right to exercise the option of ‘none of the above’ is to my mind not being fair to the spirit of our democracy.
The subject of this article, however, is not electoral reform, but the one institution that has served the nation through thick and thin at the cost of tremendous human hardship and sacrifice — the armed forces of the republic of India. While the public still holds the armed forces in some esteem, the same cannot be said of those who govern the country. Had it been otherwise, there would not have been a progressive decline in the status of the armed forces in the national scheme of things. To quote the Kargil review committee report, “India is perhaps the only democracy where the armed forces headquarters are outside the apex governmental structure.” It would be fair to say that every government since Independence has contributed to the decline of the status of the armed forces and its veterans, either by design or by neglect.
But one needs to make an exception. There was one minister of state for defence under the Rajiv Gandhi government, whose understanding of matters military and the ethos of the armed forces was profound. He later chaired a committee on defence expenditure set up by the V.P. Singh government, and the task force on management of defence set up as a consequence of the Kargil review committee report. Both these exercises had the stamp of his understanding of the issues involved and their national implications. Had the recommendations of these committees been implemented in the spirit in which they were made, the need for this article may well not have arisen.
The nation today is faced with stark choices. The national security environment is the most demanding since Independence and deteriorating by the day. The spectrum of warfare now spans the nuclear at one end to urban and internal at the other. Decades of insurgency in the East and years of proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir are taking a heavy toll on a professional army. Incidents of fratricide and suicides are increasing alarmingly. Hostile interests are taking advantage by spreading disinformation about the armed forces — ‘psychological warfare’ in today’s parlance. We are losing dozens of lives on active duty even during peace. Our borders with both Pakistan and China are underprepared. Revolutions in military affairs demand much greater levels of technological and training skills than at present, but the pool of volunteers is fast shrinking. Yet opportunities in civil life are expanding with generous salaries and stable lives.
That over the years the status of the armed forces has progressively declined is no secret. What is less evident is that the morale of this fine institution is being sapped bit by bit. Because service ethos demands cheerful acceptance of orders, this decline has been taken as meek acceptance. As internal security challenges rise, the polity becomes more competitive, and for the 24-hour electronic media hungry for breaking news, there is a temptation to make a scapegoat of the military. It happened in Manipur some years ago, it occurs frequently in Jammu and Kashmir, and happened recently in Tamil Nadu where an army convoy was needlessly attacked. Successive service leaderships have failed to convince the government of the adverse implications of this state of affairs. The sixth pay commission has merely added another insult to the already wounded psyche of the armed forces.
For the first time in the nation’s history, veterans — from soldiers to three-star ranks — have been driven to express their anguish publicly by holding rallies across many cities, sitting in dharna at Jantar Mantar and, in a regrettable gesture, surrendering their prized medals to the supreme commander in their thousands. These unheard of incidents would have evoked instant response from the government in any democratic country. Our silence is both pregnant and deafening.
The nation needs to introspect. Why, for instance, are we the only democracy where civilian control of the armed forces has come to mean bureaucratic control? Why has there been a systematic and progressive decline in the standing of the armed forces over these last six decades? Why is it that the only living five-star rank-holder should feature in the warrant of precedence below the cabinet secretary? And why was it thought fit not to give a state funeral to a field marshal, who contributed to our 1971 war victory? One could go on; suffice it to say that slowly but surely we are robbing our armed forces of the oxygen of izzat and iqbal, shorn of which they will become mere mercenaries.
The nation under the leadership of Manmohan Singh needs to decide whether it needs professional and combat-worthy armed forces or is content with forces that will be runners-up. Military morale is a strange phenomenon. You can neither define it easily nor see it. While perceptive commanders can feel it in their bones, once it begins to evaporate, even the finest of them need godly qualities to revive it. Too much is at stake for it to be left to the very institutions that have brought us to this pass — and every arm of governance must accept the blame. The legislature for taking little interest in matters relating to the forces, unless there was some political mileage. The government for remaining a mute spectator and resisting bringing the military into the decision- and policymaking process. The bureaucracy for having converted the dictum of civilian control over the military to bureaucratic control. And finally, the armed forces leadership for sometimes failing to protect the ‘safety, honour and welfare of the men they command’ in the face of this onslaught.
The Mumbai attacks tell us how fragile the security environment is and the newer threats that are emerging. Pakistan has kept even the sharpest strategic minds guessing, but the prognosis is far from good. The West sees its war on terror as somewhat different from ours. A senior American navy commander’s recent revelation of Chinese maritime intentions in the Indian Ocean should cause us no surprise. The situations in Nepal and Sri Lanka are still evolving. In every area, without sounding pessimistic, we need to be prepared for far greater security challenges.
The nation can not afford to sit idle while our armed forces continue down a slippery slope. The time has come to opt for innovative solutions — something for which Singh is best known. Let the nation respond by setting up a ‘Blue Ribbon commission’ to look at all aspects of our armed forces. This would encompass every sphere, from the changing nature of warfare to what sort of armed forces are needed in the future, to inter-service working, to the way the forces are organized and integrated within the national decision-making process, to their place within the hierarchy and that of veterans in society, to the creating of a war memorial as well as other issues that contribute to making the armed forces of any nation a unique institution.
The ‘Blue Ribbon commission’ would include citizens known for their experience and non-partisan interests, and will give the beleaguered armed forces some level of comfort. Its recommendations must be debated in Parliament, which should then legislate on major issues determining the role and place of the armed forces in our country.
Legislative direction is the surest way to ensure that decisions that become law are implemented. Otherwise they are open to administrative sleight-of-hand. Even in the United States of America it was the Goldwater-Nichols Act that mandated the joint chiefs of staff institution, scrutinized professional military education and mandated strengthening of focus on joint matters.
It is possible that our precedent-driven administrative system will resist this as a Blue Ribbon commission approach is a departure from the norm. But Singh must have faced similar hurdles when he embarked on the bold economic reforms in 1991. The institution of the armed forces now looks up to him for similar salvation.

Shadow Cabinet

BJP must appoint one for (its own and) India’s sake.
Inspired by the way things happen at the Westminster, a Shadow Cabinet has been a long-standing demand of many well-meaning political commentators in this country. Now that most commentators are predicting the end of coalition politics in this country of last two decades, it is perhaps time for the BJP to step up and grab the space of the principal opposition party, which is willing to put forth an alternative agenda for governance. Rather than staging walk-outs from the Parliament over petty political issues and launching inelegant personal attacks, the BJP should focus on shaping the debate in parliament and influencing policy making.
A prerequisite for achieving this noble goal is for the BJP to not only privately anoint a loose group but publicly declare a Shadow Cabinet. Let Jaswant Singh take on AK Antony on issues related to national security. Let Mr. Antony answer to the nation [through Jaswant Singh] why the major recommendations of the GoM report submitted after the Kargil Review Committee haven’t been implemented so far. The parliamentary committee on defence has made many recommendations to the defence ministry and defence services in the last five years but they haven’t also been seriously considered by the government, forget about them being implemented.
Let the defence minister also explain his ministry’s pathetic record on defence spending under his watch. What, to his mind, is the optimum capital to revenue expenditure ratio for national defence? How can it be achieved, if capital spending is either being reappropriated into revenue expenditure or being returned unutilised? Should the defence spending be related to the national GDP or should there be a quadrennial defence review conducted by the government to determine the budget for the defence LTIPP?
A discussion on defence spending can only occur if the the government’s view on the geopolitical situation in South Asia is known to the nation. Where do the defence services fit in that scheme of things? Is it merely about more weaponry and more numbers — against China or whomsoever he perceives the enemy to be? What are the Indian armed forces readying themselves for? And how will they get there? Can the defence minister and the shadow defence minister agree upon a bipartisan committee or bipartisan studies to recommend the future course of action for India’s national security setup?
There are numerous other issues pertaining to national defence and security — from civil-military relations to Indian contribution to UN peacekeeping missions — that must be debated and publicly scrutinised via means of an informed debate in the Parliament. A shadow defence minister, dedicated to the subject — with a younger MP as his understudy — is sine qua non for improving the functioning of Indian democracy and holding the government accountable on serious issues of national importance. The shadow defence minister and his understudy have to be automatically nominated to the parliamentary committee on defence by the BJP, so that they can influence debate and policy making through a parliamentary fora available to the elected representatives of the country.
Such a measure will not only allow the BJP to reinvent itself as a center-right party focused on substantive issues of governance — rather than frittering its energies on frivolous emotive issues — but also act as a check on the political executive running amok. It will re-establish the primacy of the Parliament — as an institution of public debate and policy making — something which seems to have been appropriated by TV studios in this country to the chagrin of all well-meaning Indians. If the BJP can implement this, it would be doing itself and the nation a huge favour which many generations to come (and this nation’s voters) will express their gratitude for. Can the BJP rise to the occassion

Are we reading correctly ???

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Are we reading correctly ???

Times of India reports here that faced with a query from the Election Commission, cabinet secretary K M Chandrasekhar has now denied that the government has constituted any special committee for the purpose of examining ‘parity in pensions’ of defence personnel. TOI further adds that the government obviously has backtracked in face of the danger of being pulled up for violating the model code of conduct by announcing the decision bang in the middle of elections.

But here is a Congress Advertisement issued by the party on Page 12 of Punjab Kesari today and as we can all see here, it clearly talks of setting up of the ibid committee. Kindly also note that the said advertisement also directly talks not of any vague concept of ‘parity in pensions’ but unambiguously of ‘One Rank – One Pension’ in no uncertain terms.

TOI and Congress, please reconcile. Is there a catch somewhere, or is there something we are missing here ??? :-)

Is Modi Untouchable?-Facts for Media and Public

Narendra Modi and Gujrat Riot 2002
AND FOR THE SAKE OF INNOCENT HINDUS WHO ARE BLAMED FOR EVERYTHING FORWARD TO AS MANY FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE
No discussion can happen on Mr. Narendra Modi, without talking about the Gujarat riot of 2002. Communal riots are not new in India or for that matter, in the state of Gujarat itself - it has happened since medieval times. Neither was the Gujarat riot of 2002 the largest in the history of the state - more extensive and more prolonged violence with much higher death tolls had happened in 1969 and 1985, under the rule of Congress governments.Those who vilify Modi as a representative of Hindutva politicis of the BJP or RSS kind, fail to remember that Hindu - Muslim riots happened even before the RSS was founded in 1925 or the BJP in 1980. Hindus, known for their tolerance and faith in religious pluralism, are never known to be in conflict anywhere else in the world, but the same cannot be said of the followers of the Muslim religion, involved in religious (against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc) and sectarian (Shia, Sunnis, Ahmedhias, Kurds, Baloch etc) violence, not only in the subcontinent of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, but also in Afghanistan, Middle east, Russia, China, Indonesia, Bosnia, Nigeria and other places.They also conveniently downplay or misrepresent the cause of the 2002 riot, not a few stones thrown on a procession or a petty quarrel or a temple bell interrupting the tranquility of the namaj, but the systematically carried out Godhra Carnage where three bogies of the Ahmedabad bound Sabarmati Express were set on fire by a Muslim mob, on 27th February, 2002, killing over 50 people, mostly women and children, mostly karsevaks, returning from Ayodhya.Modi has been accused of permitting, if not directly and deliberately commandeering the portrayed selective massacre and genocide of Muslims, ordering his police force to turn a blind eye, delaying Army help and in the process causing the death of anywhere between 1000 to 5000 Muslims.It is hard to get true accounts of events that erupted on 28th Feb 2002 and beyond, from reported news and stories, almost all of them tainted with a bias against the Hindus and the Gujrat Chief Minister. However certain facts do stand out, even from accounts in the English media, not particularly known to be generous to Narendra Modi.1. The Congress Union Minister of State for Home, Shriprakash Jaiswal, in Parliament on 11 May 2005, said 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the riots. This is hardly consistent with a Muslim genocide.2. The entire police force of 70,000 was deployed in Gujarat on 27 February itself in apprehension of riots. (The Hindustan Times Feb 28, 2002). Gujarat police fired more than 4,000 rounds in the first three days alone. Altogether the police arrested more than 27,000 people. National Minorities Commission Chairman John Joseph noted, "As on April 6, 126 persons were killed in police firing, of which 77 were Hindus." (The Telegraph, April 21, 2002.). This does not tally with the accusation of a deliberately inactive police force.3. "Shoot-at-sight" orders had been given in Godhra on February 27 itself. (Times Of India, Feb 27, 2002). 827 preventive arrests were made on the evening of February 27 itself, on Chief Minister Narendra Modi"s order. The State Government deployed the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas and the Centre sent in CRPF personnel, on February 27 itself even before a single riot had taken place. (The Indian Express, Feb 28, 2002)4. Narendra Modi, frantically called the Army units to Ahmedabad on February 28th (The Hindu, March 1, 2002). Army units started arriving in Ahmedabad on the night of February 28th. On 1st and 2nd March 2002, riots took place even in places where the Indian Army was present, i.e. Ahmedabad and Vadodara, and close to 100 people each were killed, despite the presence of the Indian Army.5. Only 2 deaths were reported on 3rd March in the entire state, and the main violence ended on 3rd March 2002. After 3rd March 2002, riots took place almost entirely in those places where the Army was posted. Subsequently there were 157 riots and all of them were started by Muslim groups (India Today, June 24, 2002).6. As early as 5 March 2002, out of the 98 relief / refugee camps set up in the state, 85 were for the Muslims and 13 were for the Hindus. As on 17 March 2002, as per The Times of India, 10,000 Hindus were rendered homeless in Ahmedabad alone. As on 25 April 2002, out of the 1 lakh 40 thousand refugees, some 1 lakh were Muslims and 40 thousand were Hindus. Again this is not consistent with the unilateral Muslim sufferings that have been portrayed.7. India Today weekly in its issue dated 20 May 2002 clearly admits that, far from being anti-Muslim, the Gujarat police did not act speedily against Muslim fanatics and rioters, for fear of being called anti-Muslim by the biased and partisan mediaAs for the issue of deployment of army, this is what India Today reported on its 18 March 2002 issue .FEB 27, 20028.03 AM: Incident at Godhra claims lives of 57 kar sevaks.8.30 AM: Modi is informed of the carnage.4.30 PM: Modi gives shoot-at-sight orders to the police.10.30 PM: CM orders curfew in sensitive places and pre-emptive arrests.FEB 28, 20028.00 AM: Special control room set up in CM"s house.12.00 PM: Modi informally contacts Centre for calling in army.4.00 PM: Modi requests army deployment following consultations with Advani.7.00 PM: The Gujarat Government"s formal request for army deployment is received in Delhi.11.30 PM: Airlifting of troops beginsMARCH 1, 20022.30 AM: A brigade reaches Ahmedabad.9.00 AM: Discussions between representatives of the army and the state take place, followed by troop flag march in Ahmedabad."Thus, contrary to the accusation of the "fiddling Nero", Mr. Modi did act timely, spontaneously and with due importance to the seriousness of the matter. The National Human Rights Commission and the Minorities Commission "accepted the Gujarat government"s contention that it did foresee trouble and took precautionary steps to check it, but was caught by surprise and overwhelmed by the mob fury erupting on February 28."That the retaliation of the Godhra train carnage was overwhelming for the available resources at his disposal was obvious, but to blame the Chief Minister or his administration for that would be as unjustified as to blame the Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh, for the recent obvious sloppiness and intelligence failure that one saw during the recent Mumbai terrorist attack of Nov 2008. Yet that has been and is still being done in such vigor that even most Hindus feel that it is the truth and are probably shameful about Mr. Narendra Modi.Contrast this with the largest riot that happened in recent times, the anti Sikh riot in Delhi in 1984, in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi"s assassination. In that incidence, officially 3,000 Sikhs were killed and may be 10,000 in actual number. Not a single Congressman was killed, not even one person was killed in police firing, and not even a single government relief camp was organized for the Sikhs in 1984. The joint report on the riots, by the People"s Union of Civil Liberties and the People"s Union of Democratic Rights, mentioned the names of 16 important Congressmen and 13 police officers among those accused by survivors and witnesses.The Army was deployed but was not allowed to act without permission of senior police officers and hence was ineffective. And this was the justification of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, "Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji ... it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little."So, can one accuse that there was deliberate failure of administration in the anti-Sikh riots? Can one be justified to call it a Congress-sponsored genocide and pogrom? Did anybody dare to challenge or disqualify Mr. Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister then?

Attack on Indian Army-Enemy Within

Tamil Secessionists' attack on Army Convoy - Beginning of AnarchyB R Haran7 May 2009In a shocking incident on the evening of Saturday, 2 May, several hundred hooligans belonging to the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (PDK) attacked an Army convoy on the Nilambur Bypass Road near Coimbatore . Around 300 army personnel were returning from Hyderabad after completing a three-month training camp, to their headquarters at Madukkarai in Coimbatore via Salem . Early in the morning, when the convoy of over fifty trucks was passing through Salem, the MDMK and PDK cadres along with goons of Tamil-chauvinist and pro-LTTE outfits like Tamil Desiya Iyakkam and Thamizhaga Ilaignar Iyakkam, attempted to block the bypass, charging that the tanks, weapons, arms and ammunition were being transported to Sri Lanka to aid the Sri Lankan army in its war against the LTTE. Only the timely intervention of the Salem police thwarted attempts to attack the convoy; the police convinced the PDK and MDMK hooligans that the army personnel were returning with only their personal belongings after completing training in Hyderabad . The unruly mob then spread the word about the travelling army convoy to their cadre in Coimbatore , who now lay in wait for the convoy to reach Coimbatore . In this well-planned plot to attack the army, hundreds of cadres belonging to these parties assembled on the Nilambur bypass road pretending to stage a demonstration. The media, with prior information about the impending clash, gathered to cover the so-called protest demonstration, but did not bother to caution the police. Despite an alert from the Salem police, the Coimbatore police were not adequately prepared to deal with what followed. The first five trucks were stopped, attacked, tyres deflated, personal belongings like bedrolls, trunk boxes, tents and clothing thrown on the ground and set on fire in wanton destruction. One driver was grievously assaulted. The army personnel ran away to inform the trucks following behind. Other army personnel, who came rushing on hearing about the attack, took safe custody of the weapons, according per eye-witnesses. The witnesses reported retaliation in defense by the army personnel.Senior police officers arrived with the Rapid Action Force and Armed Reserve Police to control the situation and pacify the army personnel. Some media persons and civilians were allegedly hurt in the melee. Coimbatore police arrested 18 cadres belonging to MDMK, PDK and PUCL and registered cases against them under Sections 147 (unlawful assembly), 148 (unlawful assembly with deadly weapons), 324 (causing grievous hurt) and 294 (b) (using obscene language) of IPC. Members of various media organisations demonstrated against the army personnel for allegedly attacking some of them. They demanded the case be investigated by local police and not referred to Army authorities; hence police registered cases against twenty army personnel as well. Clearly, as in the case of the lawyers’ attack against the police, a section of the media is allied with Tamil secessionists and has positioned itself against our men in uniform - the Army and the Police. A scrutiny of the events clearly indicates a pre-conceived and well-executed attack. As the convoy was allowed to continue its journey through Salem and Erode without incident, the police did not expect trouble in Coimbatore . Anticipating lowered defenses of the Coimbatore police, the anti-national forces came well-prepared to attack the convoy in the guise of a protest demonstration. They clearly outnumbered the police and by the time additional forces were summoned, enough damage had been done. There are reports that the mob even attempted to set fire to the fuel tanks of the army trucks. Initial investigations and interrogation of the apprehended hooligans have confirmed a huge conspiracy behind this daring act. The Sulur Police have registered cases against 250 persons and 19 persons, including Ramakrishnan, general secretary of PDK, Ponchandran of PUCL, and Sivapriyan of Tamil Nationalist Movement. Many hooligans have allegedly escaped to Chennai and Madurai and crossed over to Kerala. The police were able to identify the culprits and gather evidence against them from complete video recordings collected from media personnel. The police strongly suspect that many culprits could have crossed over to Kerala as pro-LTTE elements have a safe refuge there in the coastal areas. PDK leader Ramakrishnan reputedly has close connections with LTTE boss Prabhakaran, and according to police records, even visited North Lanka to meet him in the 1980s; he reportedly conducted photo-exhibitions on the war-front and sufferings of Lankan Tamils. Besides the pro-LTTE and Tamil-chauvinist elements, the involvement of PUCL members gives a different dimension to the issue. The Chennai edition of The Times of India (4 May 2009) reported that PUCL members were involved in the attack. In the past two decades, PUCL is known to have become a front for Naxalites, Maoists and Jihadis, and its sustained campaign against the army in Kashmir and in support of secessionists and militants in the name of human rights, is characteristic of its anti-establishment functioning. It has acted against the governments in Gujarat and Orissa (Kandhamal) in the aftermath of communal riots. It must be noted that Binayak Sen, PUCL vice president, has been incarcerated in Chattisgarh for allegedly helping Maoists. It has been reported that Kavita Srivastava, secretary PUCL and Rajasthan unit’s general secretary, attended the ‘National Political Conference’ in February 2009 in Calicut, organized by the ‘Popular Front of India,’ an amalgamation of Islamic fundamentalist outfits. Most PUCL office-bearers are involved in activities helping militant and separatist forces in the name of ‘human rights;’ a majority are ‘advocates.’ K.G. Kannabiran, President PUCL, and celebrities like Suzanne Arundhati Roy, have advocated ‘clemency’ for terrorists like Afzal Guru. The organization gave a tough time to the government and men in uniform in support of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins and sandalwood brigand Veerappan’s aides. Maoists and Naxalites have a typical style of executing operations. They normally storm police stations, prisons, attack CRPF vehicles and police camps; of late they have started to hijack trains. The recent incident of hijacking a suburban train in Chennai, resulting in the death of four people and injuries to over a dozen, must be seen in this context. Within days, the attack on the army convoy followed. This is a clear indication of increasing infiltration by Maoists into Tamil Nadu and their sprouting new fronts in pro-LTTE parties and Tamil-chauvinist outfits. Initial investigations in Coimbatore reveal a clandestine connection between the arrested persons and the LTTE. Some have been involved in smuggling arms, ammunition and spare parts for land mines to the LTTE during the 1980s. The Maoist-Naxal menace is not new to Tamil Nadu, and in fact it has a history spanning more than three decades. The districts of Salem , Dharmapuri, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai were notorious for Maoist activities and the Maoist-LTTE nexus is known. The LTTE has been training Maoist and Tamil separatist elements and their nexus with sandalwood brigand Veerappan is a violent chapter in Tamil Nadu’s history of ‘Law and Order’. The ‘Communist Party of India (Maoist)’ was actually formed in September 2004 with the merger of two banned Naxalite parties, namely the ‘Communist Party of India (Marxist- Leninist)’ and ‘Maoist Communist Centre of India’. As this new formation was given to violent anti-national and anti-social activities, the Tamil Nadu government banned it in July 2005. With the advent of the DMK government in 2006, there has been an alarming increase in LTTE and Maoist activities, and the Chief Minister had to appoint the immensely popular ADGP K. Vijayakumar, former chief of the STF who finally nabbed and killed Veerappan, once again as the Chief of STF, this time to neutralise the Maoists. ADGP Vijayakumar, considered Jayalalithaa’s blue-eyed boy, was relegated to an insignificant department earlier. As expected, Vijayakumar’s STF and the ‘Q’ branch swung into action and results started to show almost immediately. A dozen Maoists, clandestinely engaged in recruitment of cadres, were captured along with some of their more notorious leaders who had managed to escape police dragnet for years. Among the captured, one was an engineering student (Muthuselvam) and the other a law student (Velmurugan). When questioned by the police, all those apprehended confessed that they had been recruited by the PWG (People’s War Group) to create a ‘liberated zone’ in the Western Ghats and that they had links with Maoists in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Nepal . Maps of Chennai and Madurai , along with blueprints of vital civilian installations, were seized from them. As the Tamil Nadu police tightened its grip, LTTE sought safe refuge in north Andhra Pradesh. Both LTTE and Maoists have been covertly using many industrial units without the knowledge of the proprietors to make key components for rockets, grenades and mortars and many such consignments have been seized by police in both states. Maoist and LTTE activities, which rose in 2006 and 2007, started to slump in 2008.But with the imminent decimation of the LTTE in Sri Lanka , the politics of Tamil Eelam, combining dangerously with Lok Sabha elections in India , gathered momentum and the DMK government, caught in a dilemma, could not employ demonstrable force against pro-LTTE groups and their violent acts. Church backing for pro-LTTE activities was also a reason for the DMK’s weak response. This emboldened the pro-LTTE elements to flaunt their affiliations and indulge in blatantly treacherous activities, starting from the lawyers’ unrest, which prevailed for over five months from November 2008 to March 2009. Indeed, the disorder caused by a section of the legal fraternity started with the celebration of LTTE chief Prabhakaran’s birthday in November 2008 inside the Court premises, and culminated with the physical assault on Janata Party president Dr. Subramanian Swamy on 27 February and violent clash between lawyers and police on 29 February 2009. The lawyers’ unrest exposed the deep infiltration of Maoist and pro-LTTE elements into the legal fraternity of the state and the clandestine support they get from the Church. As the pro-LTTE parties failed to induce the student community to rise in support of the LTTE, and as they could not create a massive uprising in support of the LTTE even after stage-managing the self-immolation of a dozen individuals and the lawyers’ unrest, they are frustrated and desperate. The hijacking of the suburban train in Chennai and the attack on the army convoy in Coimbatore is a sign of that desperation. The extraordinary restraint shown by the Army in the face of this outrageous provocation has averted what may have turned into yet another opportunity for the human rights industry, which by definition is fast acquiring the nomenclature of a front for terrorists to castigate our armed forces.The Army agreed to treat the attack on its convoy as an ‘aberration,’ but warned that troops would retaliate in self-defence as per law if such incidents recurred. Maj-Gen. E.J. Kochekkan, General Officer in Commanding, Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala area, said the troops had “practiced restraint” when the pro-LTTE elements attacked the convoy on May 2. He warned, “The incident is an aberration and not a threat per se. It should not be repeated. If such incidents became a pattern, active measures will have to be adopted and when it gets adopted, then the results could be much worse and catastrophic. It must be avoided at all costs. If it continues, troops will take action in self-defence as the law permits.”Barring State Congress leaders, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and Hindu Munnani president Ramagopalan, no political leader, even from the BJP, condemned the attack on the army convoy. MDMK President Vaiko, whose cadres were behind these dastardly acts, was conspicuously silent, as was his leader Jayalalithaa, who waxed eloquent about her patriotism in response to Kapil Sibal’s barb against her seditious demand for Tamil Eelam. Jayalalithaa spoke of an unrealistic Indian military operation against Sri Lanka . Adding insult to injury, their alliance partner and CPI leader Thomas Pandian condemned the arrest of MDMK/ PDK/ PUCL goons! While Dr. Swamy sought the immediate attention of the Election Commission, Coimbatore-based Congress leader S.R. Balasubramaniam lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police West Zone, demanding that the arrested culprits belonging to MDMK/PDK/PUCL be charged for attempted murder. He rightly felt that the incident exposed a deep-rooted conspiracy of several organisations known for their secessionist ideology and reflected a clear intention to cause hatred against the Indian State and the Tamil Nadu government. It may be noted that the PDK has been clandestinely distributing CD materials in support of LTTE throughout the state; the Congress has objected to the Election Commission. PDK president Kolathur Mani was recently imprisoned under NSA for seditious speech. It is high time the government banned this anti-national organization. Though TNCC President Thangkabalu and Union Minister G K Vasan condemned the incident, the Congress high command preferred silence so as not to embarrass ally DMK. Hence the Prime Minister also kept quiet and the Defence Minister remained mute. The mainstream electronic media, which repeatedly aired and debated the inconsequential attack on a third-rate pub for more than 72 hours, preferred silence on the attack on the army convoy. This speaks volumes about the Medias’ understanding of national security. That this violent attack on an Army convoy is not receiving the attention it deserves is cause for great misgiving. Yet what else can one expect of a government and a media which is essentially run on an NGO agenda. This agenda does not respect national soldiers and shamelessly accepts with equanimity the medals which our soldiers returned a few months ago in anger and frustration.

Ad # 1 Earn Rs.2000 daily. No Investment. Wanted Online Internet job workers. Job is only through Internet. Work part time. You can earn Rs.750-2000/- daily. These are genuine Internet jobs. No Investment required. Only serious enquires please. For more details visit http://www.earnparttimejobs.com/index.php?id=1719654

The "Untouchable" BJP
By: Mahipal

As the nation is in the process of choosing its government, I see a clear tendency of media against BJP. Anything debatable is uttered by BJP gets immediate negative attention as if BJP/NDA is the greatest threat to this nation. It is to be remembered that when you talk about something negative it reflects the fear within your psycho. Talking negative about BJP will make this organisation more powerful because any publicity is a good publicity these days. Remember the journey from Jansangh to BJP which has been remarkable if not astonishing? A story of struggles of few of the individuals with a commitment; I think they themselves would have not realised what they were going to achieve. Today it is the second single largest party of the country. Not all came easily but something came from the source they would have never thought. Then print and later visual media who made sure that BJP must be defeated with all possible means. But the fact has been clear that, this kind of negative publicity by media worked in favour of BJP because it gave the strength BJP to go against all the odds. Till date. PeriodToday singing secularism has become a fashion. Discussions in AC rooms of these media channel slamming BJP on how much damage has the party done reflects the frustration of those people who can not stand for something called “majority rights”. When you are talking about the benefits and freedom of Muslims, Christians you are fine but when you touch a subject of rights of Hindus, you are communal. Who will make them understand that being majority means not just behaving responsible and sacrifices but it means few rights too?So what if BJP talks about Hindu rights? As a diehard Hindu, I understand the meaning of Hinduism. Hinduism can never become a danger to any society or group of people practicing other faith.On remark of Varun Gandhi when Jammu Kashmir CM Omar Abdullah said that “Such remarks by individual like Varun Gandhi can not disturb the peace of our country it was not just for a secular india, it was equally applicable to Hindu community. Religion has never been a word in Hinduism it is just a way of life in which the individual has to decide what is right and hat is wrong. It can never go against the nation. Or had it been so all the Hindu organisations would have been active in killing of our own people happening like in Pakistan, Afghanistan,Iraq.When NSA was imposed on Varun Gandhi by Mayawati, none responded despite knowing that this law has not been imposed even on the deadliest terrorists. Think this law is applicable to BJP only or Vaiko, Bafoon from Bihar Lalu Yadav, one telugu leader also had been in by this time!If I am a supporter of BJP it is not because of Hindutva. It is about ideology. A clear vision, an urge to go beyond family politics and capacity to take the decisions and stand for that.In past NDA has done so many wrong decisions including BJP no doubt in that but then treating BJP like "untouchable" by media is strongly unjustified. Which single government has taken all the right decisions by the way?