The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Republic of intolerance
Voice of sanity needs wider support

On the Republic Day when the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are hailed countrywide, a widely respected social and political theorist, Ashis Nandy, was at the receiving end of the “thought police”. An FIR was lodged against him for “casteist remarks” made at a session titled “Republic of Ideas” at the Jaipur Literary Festival.

Last year four participants had to flee the Jaipur Literary Festival for reading out passages from a banned book, “The Satanic Verses”, by Salman Rushdie, who was forced by fanatics to cancel his India trip. In another part of the country a film made by Kamal Haasan has not been allowed to be screened because some think it may hurt religious sentiments of some people even when the censor board has cleared it. The Madras High Court has told Kamal Haasan to settle the matter amicably.

The case against Ashis Nandy is simply absurd. He is a known defender of the disadvantaged. At Jaipur he was trying to distinguish “corruption by the poor” from “corruption by the elite”. Disagreement on views is natural and perfectly acceptable as long as conveyed in a dignified and civilized way. In an exchange of ideas a proper response to an argument is a counter-argument. Rushing to the police to see the speaker, the writer or the film-maker in jail betrays certain narrow-mindedness. The whole case against Nandy is so pointless that it may not even stand legal scrutiny. Even if misunderstood, Ashis Nandy has apologised. The matter should end there.

Intolerance is growing, and so is the tendency to pick a remark out of context and rush to the media, baying for the speaker’s blood. There is no dearth of semi-literate, self-appointed and out-of-work representatives of communities who manufacture rage to take up a cause, no matter how misplaced. Political patronage for needless controversies comes rushing. The liberals must speak out in defence of those who are being hounded on one pretext or the other.

Living in non-existence
Leprosy patients suffer ignorance

You may rarely encounter it, and rightly consider it an ‘old-world disease’, and it is also technically considered eliminated in India, yet we have more than 800 designated colonies meant to isolate leprosy patients, often along with their family members. This is not only a result of lack of awareness and age-old beliefs regarding the disease but also a cause of its perpetuation, for several patients avoid reporting in early stages. Treatment in the initial period is crucial to avoiding the deformities the disease is typically associated with. Once the treatment begins, it very soon becomes non-communicable. That is what people at large have to realise and be educated about to stop the purposeless and cruel isolation of patients.

As a country, India has achieved a lot in bringing down the leprosy incidence — to less than one per 10,000 of population, a level where it is considered eliminated as a public health problem; it was 57 in 1981. Yet, in absolute terms, we are home to the largest number of leprosy patients, with nearly 1.30 lakh new cases being identified each year. TB is another disease where we have a long way to go. A common factor in both diseases is the long course of treatment and ensuring the patients — including the poor and uneducated — get it uninterrupted. While medicines are available free of cost under global programmes, diagnosis facilities may not always be available.

Often it is possible to achieve success against a disease medically, but the social fallout proves far more difficult, especially in a disease like leprosy, which has a long history of patients’ isolation. There are even laws that provide for discrimination against the afflicted, which is proof of how little we have done on the awareness front and why it needs immediate correction. While encouraging the assimilation of the crores of patients in the mainstream — by shutting down their colonies — we also need to guard against some of them being thrown out in the street by their families and not finding shelter. How we treat our destitute is a sure measure of our development.

Thought for the Day

Happiness is not something you postpone for the future; it is something you design for the present. —Jim Rohn

ARTICLE

The Syrian maelstrom
Re-emergence of Muslim Brotherhood
by Arundhati Ghose

The murderous violence in Syria is grinding into its third year as the civil war morphs into a regional war, a maelstrom of countries and groups with different objectives and interpretations of the situation, with most action and inaction leading to more destruction and death.

The immediate origins of the protests in Syria could have been Syrian, but soon enough, into the vortex were drawn extremists from around the region and beyond — Yemenis, both resident and visiting, Libyans and Algerians,Uzbeks and Chechens, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, some fresh from fighting experiences in Afghanistan. One group, however, has emerged as one of the most organised forces within the Syrian opposition — the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's friendly relations with Turkey's Islamist Justice and Development Part drew that country into the struggle as did its links with small but oil-rich Qatar.

Assad's support came from Iran, and the colours of the conflict turned sectarian as the Gulf countries, keeping aside their suspicions of the Brotherhood, put their weight behind the 'rebels' fighting the Syrian government. Arms and money flowed from Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey became the base of the Syrian National Council. Then, of course, there was the West — whether due to the reports of the increasing humanitarian crisis, the desire to indirectly put pressure on Iran, or the pressure from the Arab League, now minus Syria and with the abstention of Shia Iraq, led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the issue went to the UN Security Council, and the campaign for intervention has gathered force.

Russia and China have so far vetoed any moves in this direction, though the US and Russia, facilitated by the UN special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, have been meeting in Geneva to try to reach some compromise on the continuation of Assad in any political resolution of the situation. In the confusion of interests, objectives and groups, the Brotherhood has been emerging as a face among the faceless 'rebels', slowly consolidating its position in the opposition. It has so far strongly resisted the inclusion of Assad in any future negotiations.

The Muslim Brotherhood, established first in Egypt, has been active in Syria for many decades and even, at one time, participated in the government. With the coming of Hafez al-Assad and the Baath Party to power, it turned to violence, including assassinations and bombings culminating in the killing of 83 Alawite student officers at a military academy in Aleppo. Assad reacted with fury, and reportedly killed over 20,000 inhabitants in Hama, a city controlled by a wing of the Brotherhood. The organisation was banned and its membership meant the death penalty — the Brotherhood leaders fled to exile, not to return till after the death of Hafez al-Assad. The Brotherhood tried to come to terms with the new Assad; with Turkey's mediation, many Brotherhood prisoners were released, but the ban remained, also on the return of the exiles. The Brotherhood then cultivated opposition figures and forces and continued to try to come to an understanding with Assad, up till 2010, but with little success.

With the Arab Spring of 2011, they kept a cautious distance at first — it was only in April 2011 that it called for the toppling of the regime and in October of that year co-founded, in Istanbul, the Syrian National Council, comprising several groups then opposing the government. It became the most influential party in the council, which received most of its budgetary support from Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. This council has now, in December 2012, become a part of the US-supported and Qatar-sponsored Syrian National Coalition, and though in a minority and regarded with some suspicion by secularists and leftists, the influence of the Brotherhood remains. The coalition today has the support of the US, the EU and the Arab League.

The context in which these developments need to be assessed is the Saudi-Iranian rivalry for the leadership of the ‘ummah’, and a clear sectarian divide. The Brotherhood is, of course, a Sunni party, though it has called for a post-Assad Syria that is democratic, pluralistic and with a republican parliamentary system. In its 'Covenant and Pact' issued in March 2012, it further calls for a Syria where there would be equality of all citizens, including between the sexes, for a state which would respect 'human rights as enshrined in divine texts and international instruments', a state that would be 'based on a constitution arrived at by national consensus'…which would 'guarantee equal representation to all citizens.' Such sentiments are clearly to win the support of an international community wary of rising Islamist groups capturing power in the region.

In Egypt, President Mohamed Mursi, on being elected, had said, movingly, "We as Egyptians, Muslims and Christians…are equal in rights" and spoke of the need for national unity. However, Mursi's subsequent actions have belied his assurances; he enabled an Islamist-dominated Upper House to rush through a constitution, which was duly adopted despite strong objections from secularists. Parliamentary elections are two months away, and it is clear that the Islamists — the Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists — will be able to garner an influential number of seats. The Brotherhood in Egypt has clearly won the first round. In Syria, matters are at an early stage, but the outlines of future developments can be discerned.

While seeking to project itself as a moderate Islamist party, in which Qatar is trying to play a facilitating role, the Brotherhood has yet been critical of the US decision to declare the extremist Al Nusra party, an extremist but efficient fighting group, a foreign terrorist organisation, and of current US reluctance to directly assist the rebels with weapons or intervention. It is likely that the Brotherhood will be an important part of any final agreement; it is much more likely that it will seek all paths to consolidate its influence in a Syria of the future.

MIDDLE

A blessing in disguise!
by Manika Ahuja

That night literally burning the midnight oil preparing for my examination, I was scared to hear a vast volcano-like sound that was on the verge of erupting. “What on earth is that?” I wondered.

The noise was like a tornado coming or a loud freight train bearing down. It was coming from the master bedroom where my mom and dad were sleeping. I rushed to the room and, to my amusement, found the adorable couple in sound sleep, happily snoring.

The sound made by my dad was louder and in between my mom complemented him with slender noise. Not able to concentrate on studies, I brought out my smart phone and recorded the scary yet funny sounds. The next morning as I prepared to leave for my college, I told my parents that I would like them to listen to something “fascinating”.

“What was that?” , questioned my dad. “Was that the sound of our old refrigerator?” My mom was equally amused and commented that it seemed to be the sound made by a buzz as it got louder and louder and ended on a honky tone.

Mom could not control her laughter. Dad was utterly startled. He stood frozen at his spot and arched a questioning eyebrow towards me. I knew this was his way of telling me that the cat could no longer be kept in the bag. And there came my glorious revelation, “Dad, that was the sound of you snoring!” The uncontrollable laughter of my mother came to a screeching halt. “I do not snore!” pat came the reply. It was here that I produced the indisputable evidence: a video clip that I had surreptitiously made of them.

Initially, he was a little nervous, but later valiant when I told him that famous well-documented snorers included Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, George Washington, Winston Churchill and Richard Nixon.

To find a sure cure, I decided to do some online search and the Internet trawl suggested that loud, unpleasant and embarrassing snoring happens due to obstructed air movement during breathing. Like any sound, snoring too is caused by vibrations that make particles in the air form sound waves. Just as our vocal cords vibrate to form our voice, turbulent airflow causes the tissues of the nose and the throat to vibrate which results in snoring.

Contrary to the popular perception, snorers are not always fat with a thick neck, and can have any body type. Thin people with a slim neck are prone to snoring just as loudly. Simple lifestyle alterations can greatly reduce snoring like losing weight, quitting smoking, avoiding alcohol and heavy dinners. Sleeping on one side too helps reduce snoring and as also using high pillows.

Down with author Anthony Burgess, "Laugh and the world laughs with you, snore and you sleep alone." My discovery has benefited me the most as now and then when I want to wake up the whole night for studies, I venture out to my parents’ room and the loud sound is enough to keep me awake the whole night. My brothers too have benefited from this new finding, and our better showing in examinations is a sure indicator of uses of snoring.

OPED Defence

India sends the right message to Pakistan
The recent incident of the Pakistan Army beheading two Indian soldiers has outraged the nation. To safeguard national interest, our resolution to employ the full spectrum of options at the tactical and strategic levels should be firm and clearly
Lt Gen Nirbhay Sharma (retd)

The recent barbaric act by the Pakistani Army has evoked a legitimately angry response across the country. The disappointment is heightened by the fact that India and Pakistan were working towards normalising relations. After the initial fire and fury, there is now a belief that the situation is relatively under control. This assumption may be misleading, unless the dynamics of the Line of Control (LoC) and its violations are fully comprehended. The drivers of this act and their motivations have also to be clearly identified and a comprehensive response enunciated. Failing this, such tragedies will continue to recur and may even spin out of control beyond redemption.

Indian soldiers patrol the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. The Army has to not only defend it, but also prevent infiltration through gaps in between border outposts, much of it which is in bad weather, difficult terrain and in proximity of the enemy

The LoC owes its origin to the ceasefire that came into effect in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on January 1, 1949. The two opposing armies then dug in their heels where they were and have stood confronting each other since then. It is a unique situation with no parallels worldwide. The LoC is 740 kilometres long and runs through undulating, forested and mountainous terrain with heights ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 feet and temperatures becoming as low as minus 20 degrees centigrade. To give a sense of scale, the LoC has more than a lakh of armed men in uniform manning it 24x7. While the Pakistani Army, along with its “strategic assets” defends the line, the Indian Army has to not only defend it, but also prevent infiltration through gaps in between the border outposts (BOPs). Much of it is in bad weather, difficult terrain conditions and in proximity to each other. It does not follow a well defined tactical alignment for the most part and is therefore, subject to military vulnerabilities.

A fence has also been constructed on the Indian side of the LoC. It is a formidable anti-infiltration obstacle system, but does not run exactly along the LoC. It is in fact, anything from a few hundred meters to two–three kms behind it. There are BOPs and small villages across the fence towards the LoC, which make counter-infiltration measures less effective. Recent incidents have taken place primarily via this space because herein transgression is more feasible.

History makes it obvious that the Pakistani Army views the progress of any peace track with India as undermining its own relevance. It is perhaps no coincidence that whenever peace initiatives gain momentum, provocative attacks derail the process. We need look no further than the 1999 Kargil conflict that was foisted upon us soon after then Prime Minister Vajpayee’s grand peace gesture. Instead of paying lip service to the cause of peace, the Pakistani Army needs to prove its credentials. Adhering to ceasefire regulations and freezing of cross-border infiltration of terrorists are the first set of steps that must be taken in this direction.

The resultant “locked ín’’ deployment, hostile environment and mutual suspicion have often resulted in violations, either by design or by default. At its peak, and prior to the current ceasefire effective from November 2003, more than a lakh of small arm rounds were fired on a virtually daily basis, with the escalation ladder sometimes climbing up to the exchange of artillery fire. There have also been occasional physical raids across the LoC by small teams, but the threshold has remained relatively manageable. So it’s fair to say that despite all the confidence building measures (CBMs)s and standard operating procedures (SOPs), occasional clashes do take place and are perhaps unavoidable. But the recent decapitating of two Indian soldiers by the Pakistani Army is different. It is an uncivilised, unsoldierly and dastardly act. It would be simplistic, almost naïve, to bracket it as another case of the action-reaction syndrome. This development needs to be analyzed in terms of why the Pakistani Army did it and what response is merited.

A multitude of developments in Pakistan during the last few years have brought the stock of the Pakistani Army low within its country. It is no longer seen as the saviour of the nation within or without. Post the Lal Masjid incident, terrorists have repeatedly attacked the military. It is also bogged down in ethnic and sectarian violence and fighting insurgencies in most parts of the North-Western Frontier Province and Balochistan. Its helplessness against repeated drone attacks by the US and the killing of Osama Bin Laden inside Pakistan by US forces (independent of the Pakistani Army and the Inter Services Intelligence) have eroded the aura even further.

These factors have resulted in a newly found assertiveness in the Pakistani government vis-à-vis its army. A prime example of this is the uncertainty about the extension of the tenure of present Pakistani army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani and the change of the ISI Chief against his advice. As a counter, the Pakistani army has fielded a belligerent Chief Justice, a “dual nationality” cleric and players like Imran Khan in order to unsettle a corrupt and beleaguered government. The one comforting news for the Pakistani Army is the American `Draw Down Plan 2014’. It has once again made the US mollycoddle the Pakistani army, thereby emboldening them. As a quid pro quo, it expects the US to perhaps overlook its aggression against India.

In the past, had overall circumstances been similar, the Pakistani Army would have exploited the internal situation and taken over, but General Kayani knows the pitfalls of such a move only too well. Out of all the emerging scenarios, the Pakistani Army is probably looking at continuing to rule the country by proxy. It aims to remove the present political dispensation and replace it with a new element of its choice. If the planned formulation is “tweaked right”, then the army’s confrontational agenda of raising the India bogey falls into place. However, it is also fairly possible that if the military thinks that the proposed national election will not yield a “suitably” functional system, it could hijack democracy once again. Given the mercurial and volatile history of Pakistan, the jury is still out on the final outcome.

History has made it abundantly obvious that in essence the Pakistani Army views the progress of any peace track with India as undermining its own relevance. It is perhaps no coincidence that whenever peace initiatives are gaining momentum, provocative attacks from the Pakistani Army derail the process. We need look no further than the 1999 Kargil conflict that was foisted upon us soon after then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s grand peace gesture.

There is yet another narrative that has been proffered, wherein Pakistan is viewed as a nation in the throes of an existential transition marked by uncertainty, violence and instability. It is argued that at the core of it all is change in the role and mindset of its military, which no longer sees hostility with India as its raison d’être. General Kayani’s recent statement that the real threat to the country comes from internal sources and not external enemies is seen to imply a nuanced shift in focus from conflict-mode to normalisation-mode with India. However, the ground situation and trust deficit between the two countries make it difficult to accept this hypothesis. Instead of paying lip service to the cause of peace, the Pakistani Army needs to prove its credentials. Shedding denial and accepting the folly of its recent savage act, adhering to ceasefire regulations and freezing of cross-border infiltration of terrorists are the first set of steps that must be taken in this direction. Till then, the safe premise has to be that Pakistan the country, and its army, are two separate entities. The Pakistani Army is not yet on the same page with regard to the peace process, as hostility with India continues to be in its DNA.

With this as the historical legacy between the two neighbours, recent events have obviously outraged our nation. An appropriate tactical response by the Indian Army to this gruesome act will come at a point and place of its choosing. To prevent escalation and safeguard national interests, our resolution to employ the full spectrum of options, both at the tactical and strategic level, should be clearly discernible and misperceptions, if any, removed firmly.

The Indian media, in general, has done well to steer the recent incident to the centre stage and create enabling public opinion. However, trying to drum up war hysteria or jingoism, as on display on some of our TV channels, is irresponsible and counterproductive. That said, overall the Indian approach has been quite measured and mature. The statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has sent an unambiguous message to Pakistan and its impact is already discernible. Going forward, for sustainable resolve, credible military deterrence is essential. The gaps in our operational capability need to be filled in expeditiously. The proposed defence reforms are behind schedule and cannot be overlooked anymore. On this one issue, consensus across the political spectrum must emerge, as national interest is always supreme.

To sum up, for the immediate, the Indian response has reined in the Pakistani Army. However, statecraft demands a calibrated use of all tools, ranging from diplomatic to military in tandem and not just in lieu of one another. The country would do well not to forget that military is the last argument of the King and must be kept in a state of constant readiness. Ultimately, confident strength is the context in which a just and enduring peace can take root.

The writer has commanded a corps in Kashmir and is at present a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhidiscernible

Chronology of events

Jan 8: Pak troops cross LoC, brutally kill two Indian soldiers. Atleast eight Indian posts in Krishna Ghati sector come under enemy fire

Jan 9: Inda lodges strong protest through diplomatic channels. Defence minister AK Antony calls Pak act highly provocative

Jan 10: Pak suspends trans-LoC trade from Poonch—Rawalkote route. Ceasefire violation continues, with Pak losing a soldier

Jan 11: Pak halts Poonch—Rawalkote bus service. Antony says army’s prestige must be maintained.

Jan 12: Air Chief NAK Browne warns Pakistan against ceasefire violations. Fresh firing in Poonch.

Jan 13: Pak agrees to hold brigadier-level flag meet to defuse tension. Friring in Poonch again

Jan 14: Army Chief Bikram Singh takes tough stance, calling Pak act unpardonable and that orders have been issued to commanders on LOC to retaliate to Pak fire. Says India reserves the right to retaliate at the time and place of its choosing.

Jan 15: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says no business as usual with Pak over its barbaric act. Asserts those responsible for this crime will have to be brought to book. Army Chief, Northern Army Commander reiterate tough stand. Firing again on LoC.

Jan 16: India and Pak DGMOs speak over hotline, agree to defuse tension