Wednesday, May 20, 2015

How to Take Over a Small Country

SOURCE :
http://warontherocks.com/2015/05/how-to-take-over-a-small-country-in-10-easy-steps/?singlepage=1





         How to Take Over a Small Country

                                    in

                         10 Easy Steps

                                  By

                            

 
 
 


How to Take Over a Small Country in 10 Easy Steps

    



                      


                   Mercenaries  R    Back!


 
 
 After a three-century hiatus, sensible people are once again realizing that renting an army is cheaper than owning one: the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Putin in Ukraine and Syria, even Nigeria against Boko Haram. It’s boom time, boys! But why work for someone when you could be king? Countries are ripe for the plucking these days, from the Crimea to the Gambia to large swaths of the Middle East. Just don’t be an amateur about it. Here are some tips to be a professional coup maker.
 
*****************************************************
 
 DONT FORGET PAKISTAN WHEREIN A RENTED ARMY                                        KNOWN AS
 
                    ""  NON STATE ACTORS ""
 
 
HAVE  LITERARARY STUCK A BAMBOO IN THE BOTTOM OF BOTH INDIA & AFGHANISTAN IN PARTICULAR
& EVEN USA IN AFGHANISTAN in general - 
 
                                                                                 Vasundhra
 
 
**********************************************************************************



1. Choose your country. Select a country that has been consigned to the trash heap of history, preferably one without strong regional allies. The discerning mercenary looks for the following qualities in a potential selection:
           (a)  Exploitable natural resources, 
           (b) corruptible and/or incompetent military, and 
           (c)  At least one functional airstrip.


To facilitate recreational activities, make certain your target country has a good brewery, beautiful beaches, and women sans veils. Although this rules out central Africa, most of the Middle East, and some of Asia, you’ll have a much more enjoyable war with beer, bathing, and babes.

 
2. Find a Warlord and Co-opt him. Taking over a small country can be exhausting work, so don’t do it alone. Local knowledge (and muscle) is best. Win a native strong man to your side. This is the easiest part. He will handle the recruitment of local talent and interrogation of sources, and will generally keep trains running on time.


To make him dependent on you as the access agent, exploit his vulnerabilities. Common leverage points include: hookers, cocaine mountains, tankards of favorite libations (Chivas Regal for the English speakers and Hennessy XO for the French ones), chromed AK-47s, a supercar fleet, statues of himself, and excessive flattery to foster images of megalomaniacal grandeur.



3. Secure funding. Unless you’ve got oodles of cash in unmarked bills lying around the chateau, you’re going to have to find someone else to pay for your king-making enterprise. The U.S. government might bankroll your private army, and USAID will throw money at anything.

 Be sure to mention “capacity building” using “holistic modalities” that establishes the “rule of law” to “counter violent extremism” and deny “terrorist safe havens” in your proposal. List your strongman as an “implementing partner” with the highest respect for human rights. They won’t check, so it’s alright.


Another good bet are Big Oil companies, especially if you fabricate “third party” geological surveys indicating strategic-reserve levels of oil. If everything else fails, seek out the son of a former British Prime Minister who is politically connected, massively rich, galactically stupid, and fancies himself a latter-day Lawrence of Arabia. Or better yet, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater and now working for China.

 
4. Create a shell company. To get people to give you huge amounts of cash, you need the pretense of legitimacy. Have a look at the advertisements in the back of the Economist magazine. For $398 you can have your own offshore company in the Bahamas and go scuba diving too.

Make sure your offshore company is located in a country with no extradition treaties.

That will come in handy later.




Branding note: Don’t call your new company something obvious like Sharp End International. Choose something vague and dull using any combination of the following words: operations, options, strategy, group, global, international, solutions, or just use the name of your college alma mater or a famous statesman. Nifty combinations might include Harvard Operations Group (HOG) or Polk International Strategic Solutions (PISS).




5. Raise your Mercenary Army. More likely than not, there is a huge labor pool of raw talent in your country’s neighborhood. Don’t bother with a TV or radio recruitment campaign (they won’t have electricity), billboards (no roads), or posters in villages (they can’t read). Instead, lean on your local strongman to put the word out in the ungoverned countryside through the beer delivery trucks, who intrepidly venture where CIA agents don’t dare and are beloved by everyone.


Initially, you’re going to need some battle-hardened combatants, preferably from disenfranchised ethnic groups or tribes that used to be in power and are surly about it. Anyone identified by Human Rights Watch as a systematic violator of human rights is a sure bet for real talent. Offer $100 a rebel (in crisp U.S. greenbacks), an all-the-enemies-you-can-kill deal, and promise a massive keg party at the end of it. That should do the trick. A few hundred recruits will do in the beginning, and the rest will join at gunpoint later. If you have trouble making your numbers, children are easily pressed into service. Alternatively, you can always start your own cult.



You will soon learn that your new recruits have a great deal of shooting experience, but little ability to shoot accurately. You will have to break bad habits, such as: shooting with one hand over their eyes, shooting their legs off, shooting colleagues, and disco-shooting — a technique involving shooting AK-47s while dancing in the middle of a firefight. Expect to lose one quarter of your recruits during basic rifle marksmanship.

Whatever you do, don’t give out the grenades until game-day.

 Remember — your army doesn’t have to be well trained, just better trained or crazier than your adversary’s army. If you’re lucky, you’ll be squaring off against an American trained force.


If you are operating in Africa, you will find that most of what you require can be purchased cheaply and easily at the village market. For example, an AK-47 should cost no more than $20 or a small goat.

Other equipment to procure includes: ammo, RPGs, crew-served weapons, and the ubiquitous Toyota Hilux pickup truck with .50cal attachment (aka a technical”). Avoid pistols, as they tend to be used against you by overly ambitious subordinates, typically once you have seized power.


If you have problems sourcing equipment, try the local United Nations mission, who spend months collecting weapons from former warring parties.

For a little baksheesh, UN peacekeepers (especially those from South Asia or Nigeria) are often willing to under-report a few tons of weapons.


 If all else fails, go on a shopping spree in Eastern Europe. Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania are best. Avoid Russia. Ukraine is busy. Also, don’t bother with the middleman: go directly to the weapons factory.
Expect to spend a lot of tush-time in dilapidated, four-prop AN-12 cargo planes flying with the aid of a Garmin suckered to the windshield. Bring earplugs. Pack a lunch, a few briefcases of cash, and some firepower in case the deal goes bad. While in flight, do not be alarmed by the drunken crew smoking on your live-ammo crates while drinking homemade slivovitz that tastes vaguely like distilled hydraulic fluid. This is normal, and you will be expected to participate.



6. Develop a propaganda campaign. You can count on the international press not caring about your country-to-be, unless white tourists are killed. However, noisome Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), such as Amnesty International, may raise a stink after your coup, so pre-empt them by offering a counter-narrative to the complacent press. Claim that you “nobly plan to restore hope to a beleaguered people, victimized by a serial human rights abusing, terrorist-loving tyrant.” Be sure to flash pictures of starving babies with flies on their faces to attract Hollywood celebrities to your cause. Include some combination of the following buzz-phrases in your press release:

 “local ownership,” “human security” and “good governance.”



For NGOs who fail to get the message, don’t order a “disappearance” of their staff, as they will only use this against you. Instead, arrange for a sex-scandal involving the NGO’s country director, small native boys, and YouTube.
 With luck, the entire NGO will be declared persona non grata, and kicked out of the country by dawn.



7. Stage your coup. Once you’ve passed out the hand grenades, fueled up the technicals, and verified that your army is high on dope (you can’t stop this so you might as well channel it for the cause), you are ready to stage your coup d’etat. Most fragile states are so accustomed to coups that all you really need to do is take over the radio station and the Presidential Palace to achieve local “buy-in.”


           First, attack at dawn, when government forces will be hung-over and thus incapacitated.

           Second, take out the cell-phone towers. You will find that this eliminates 99% of the government’s ability to communicate (the last 1% comprise of hand-signals and verbal abuse).


            Third, drive madly down the main streets shooting into the sky and cursing wildly. This is standard coup-protocol, and signals to the citizens:

“Armed coup in progress; please remain inside your homes.”


              Fourth, expect a final stand of semi-sober, loyal government forces at the palace front gate. This will be a paltry but fearless force of the president’s “elite” inner-circle bodyguard. Usually this means about a hundred deranged child soldiers who worship the president as father and king. The best way to defeat these mini-monsters is to take cover and taunt them via bullhorn, calling them names (e.g., teeny squirt, virgin-boy, lil’ pecker, mini-me-men, etc.).

 Inevitably, they will become enraged and shoot all their ammo at you. When it runs out, crash down the gates and crack heads.



                Fifth, go straight to the president’s bedroom and dig him out from under his pile of whores (caution: he may be dressed as one of them). He will appear much smaller in real life than on TV, so it might take a while to recognize him. Almost immediately (within the hour) conduct a “war crimes” trial followed by a good old-fashion hanging, Saddam Hussein-style. A minimal level of pageantry is important. For some reason, the international community respects this more than a bullet to the head.


Finish up with a national feast, involving free beer from the local brewery, indigenous dancing, and virginal sacrifice (if culturally appropriate).



8. Cement your position. To your surprise, you will find that the citizenry will continue on with “business as usual.” However, you will have to act immediately to establish your authority among pesky rivals by eliminating the opposition entirely and making a few examples of ambitious allies (e.g., your co-opted warlord). You must do this on the same day as the coup, which will send ripples through the countryside, contain most of the bloodshed to a single day, and make good press.


Avoid becoming a global pariah by joining a “coalition of the willing” and/or becoming a U.S. partner in the “War on Terror” or whatever they call that now. Instead, volunteer your country as a secret U.S. air base or CIA prison center in exchange for Washington’s political cover at the United Nations and lots of military aid

(it worked for Pakistan and Egypt for years).




9. Do some nation building. In order to avoid a coup yourself, you will need more than repressive secret police — you will need to generate some Gross Domestic Product for your country. If you can grow them, poppies or coca leaves yield more revenue than, say, rice or whatever the World Bank is pushing these days. And then people will pay you not to grow them, so it’s “win-win.”



However, becoming a narco-state is so yesterday. Instead, consider turning your country into an offshore tax haven for hedge funds and oligarchs. As the British Virgin Islands shows, laundering billions of dollars will not only pay handsomely, it will also put you in tight with the Fortune 500 cocktail circuit, who will pay to develop ultra-posh scuba resorts on your beaches, right next to your banks. Of course, this will land your new nation on the Financial Action Task Force blacklist, but think of this as free advertising.




Lastly, shore up customer confidence by not signing quaint extradition treaties. Let them know that they always have a “home away from home,” if they must suddenly flee their country. You may have missed out on the Arab Spring wave but you might get lucky with an African Spring, Latin Spring or Asian Spring. You will soon realize that once you have a vote in the United Nations, you can do whatever you want — enjoy!




10. Bask in your victory. You will find that ruling a small country is akin to being a rock star. Give yourself a new name in the local language, like Rooster Who Gets All the Hens,” and even name your new nation after yourself like Cecil Rhodes did. You will have hoes-a-plenty, drugs, money, a private jet, an entourage, and no responsibility. People will expect you to misbehave, so don’t let them down.



Sean McFate is the author of The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order.

 


 
                  From Around The Web







Report: White House Lied About Killing of Bin Laden









 

FEAR OF NON EXISTENT UNKNOWN :ONE YEAR OF MODI NINE FEATURES THAT DEFINE THE ' NEW NORMAL ' FOR MUSLIMS

SOURCE :
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/national/one-year-of-modi-9-features-that-define-the-new-normal-for-muslims/ar-BBjYSn7


          







             FEAR  OF  NON EXISTENT 

                           UNKNOWN 




                       PART ONE OF TWO


             :ONE YEAR OF MODI 

- NINE FEATURES THAT DEFINE THE
     ' NEW NORMAL ' FOR MUSLIMS
                                 BY 
                         Ajaz Ashraf  
 
 

© Provided by Firstpost
In the scorching month of May 2014, the Muslims of India slipped into a dark mood of pessimism at the prospect of living under a BJP government swept into office with a decisive majority.


 
Over the course of the year, that somber mood has since been dispelled. This is not because the NDA-II has proved to be a different kettle of fish, but because Muslims have adjusted to what can be called the New Normal. This is the condition in which it is considered normal to have anxieties and fears triggered by political developments - and pessimism, to a degree, is deemed realistic.


To understand the New Normal, we need to rewind to May 2014.

When Modi ascended to office, Muslims feared they would be besieged by the Hindutva forces, which would bring to the front-burner the contentious Ram Temple and the Uniform Civil Code issues. Worse, it was thought Narendra Modi would trigger minor tsunamis to sweep the BJP into power in states where Assembly elections were due. To have a BJP government at the Centre and also in the states seemed akin to Muslims being caught in a pair of red-hot tongs.
 
 
 
 
Looking back some of the fears haven't thankfully materialized; for example, widespread riots haven't broken out. But it doesn't mean nothing has changed. For the religious minorities, life under the Modi government can be considered 'normal' only because the very definition of the word has been altered.
 
This New Normal has 10 distinct features.


Feature No. 1 of the New Normal is the absence of major rioting - this descriptor doesn't apply even to last year's communal conflagration in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where three persons died, scored were injured, and curfew imposed for days. Yet Saharanpur pales in comparison to the horrors we Indians are capable of inflicting on each other.


Horrifying rioting may not happen under the New Normal, but the communal cauldron is constantly kept simmering, brought close to the boiling point every time there is an election around the corner. This began during the byelections in Uttar Pradesh and stopped following the Delhi Assembly polls.


Feature No. 2 of the New Normal pertains to the methods of keeping the communal cauldron on a slow simmer. Over the past year, Sangh Parivar has enhanced social tensions through divisive programmes such as love jihad and ghar wapsi.

An additional ploy is to raise communally charged non sequiturs to spark furious debates.
Sample just two of these - since Muslims and Christians drink from the same fount of culture, why can't they call themselves Muslim Hindus or Christian Hindus? Since most Muslims and Christians were either compelled or lured into leaving Hinduism, why can't they be brought back into its fold?

These debates on non sequiturs leave not only the minorities aghast, but also many who are counted as Hindus. TV, newspapers, digital sites remind the BJP that it was voted to power for ushering in good governance and development, not for tearing apart the social fabric. The media clamour conveys a sense of social instability, turning citizens and investors apprehensive of the future. Perhaps it also enables the moderates in the BJP to mount pressure on the hardliners to retreat.


This kicks in Feature No. 3 of the New Normal. Commmunal rhetoric no longer dominates, the anxieties and fears of minorities ebb, and life seems as normal as when non-BJP governments rule at the Centre. Call it 'extreme normalcy' - for it defies credulity, feels illusory, and always seems on the verge of disappearing.


The Sangh scripts extreme normalcy periodically to  allay the fears of Hindus opposed to Hindutva. The liberal-left and rightwing secular among them then begin to debate issues material, not cultural or religious, in nature.


Over the last two months the nation has witnessed extreme normalcy, manifest in the discussions, say, over the land ordinance. In the weeks of extreme normalcy under the New Normal, members of the minority often begin to speculate on its duration, whether it has been crafted only because there is no election around the corner.


For instance, many Muslims have already begun to predict that extreme normalcy will end as soon as Nitish Kumar and Lalu Yadav cobble together an electoral alliance. Should they fail to reach an agreement, the period of extreme normalcy may be extended, but it is guaranteed to end sometime next year, in preparation for the battle for Assam and West Bengal in 2016 and Uttar Pradesh in 2017.


Feature No. 4 of the New Normal is the political marginalization of Muslims, which underlines in turn the diminishing importance of their vote. As I had written after the Lok Sabha elections, "If you were to look at the results from just the narrow perspective of victory and defeat, Muslims have been effectively disenfranchised: for the first time in India's electoral history, the Lok Sabha election has been won without their contribution." And not a single Muslim was elected on the BJP ticket to the Assemblies of Haryana, Maharashtra, and Jharkhand - all three states where the BJP captured power in recent months.

As the Muslim vote becomes less key to electoral victory, Muslims and their sentiments are not taken into account in controversial policy decisions. Hence, the expansion of the ban on cow slaughter to include bulls and oxens, and rewriting of history books to portray the Mughals as despicable bigots Rewriting of history is aimed at communalizing the past for demonizing the Muslims in the present.

 

Feature No. 5 of the New Normal is establishment double-speak, where RSS pracharaks and the Prime Minister speak in conflicting voices, a trend which originated under NDA-I.

RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat will conflate India with Hindus, extol the superiority of their culture, and tacitly exhort them to assert themselves over others, besides taking potshots at Mother Teresa and her like. By contrast, the Prime Minister will speak of the supremacy of the Constitution, assert an Indian citizen's right to profess and propagate his or her faith. Since Bhagwat only heads a self-proclaimed (and self-attested) cultural organisation, we are asked to place our faith in the Prime Minister's words.


Yet Modi didn't publicly admonish the Hindutva footsoldiers engaged in the ghar wapsi and love jihad programmes, or when the churches in Delhi were vandalized or desecrated before the Assembly elections there. His strategic silence gives lie to that Red Fort speech, made early in his tenure, which included an appeal to citizens to put a 10-year moratorium on caste and communal violence. Muslims would have preferred Modi to speak against the ideological basis of such violence instead of appealing for a moratorium.

However, the Delhi debacle prompted Modi to speak at a Church function about the "undeniable right" of people to "adopt or retain the religion" of their choice without coercion. Weeks later, he reiterated to Time magazine his government's intention to provide "total protection" to all communities.

Modi's interview to Time magazine, unwittingly, underscored


 
Feature No. 6 of the New Normal, when he said,
 "My Government will not tolerate or accept any discrimination based on caste, creed, and religion. So there is no place for imaginary apprehensions with regard to the rights of the minorities in India."

Thus, under the New Normal, Muslims' fear of the Hindutva projects are dismissed as plain paranoia. This also entails pumping journalists with statistics suggesting that the communal situation under Modi is the same as it was under his predecessor, Manmohan Singh. Genuine fears and anxieties of a community that can never be captured or communicated through the curvy lines of graphs are dismissed as baseless.

The severe drubbing the BJP received in Delhi has belatedly resulted in Feature No. 7 - that it is possible for minorities to hope for change under the New Normal. For one, it shattered Modi's aura of invincibility. Two, the Delhi debacle could prompt the BJP to rethink its strategy of Hindu consolidation. After all, its attempts to trigger communal tension didn't yield a rich harvest of votes for it.

Three, since there are no permanent majorities in democracy, Muslims and other minorities will stive to align with other segments of the electorate to vanquish the BJP. For instance, in the 2013 Assembly elections, the Congress bagged five out its eight seats from Muslim-dominated constituencies. All these five constituencies voted overwhelmingly in favour of AAP in Feb. In this sense, the New Normal is no longer about adjusting to the existing reality. It is also about striving to reconfigure it.

The Sangh's policy of menacing Muslims spawned the tendency among Muslim voters - who have largely chosen to vote mainstream non-BJP outfits since 1950 - to rally behind parties anchored in Muslim identity. This possibly explains the success of Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM in Maharashtra recently. It has been the factor behind Badruddin Ajmal's AIUDF in Assam performing extremely well. This trend is likely to be arrested byAAP's spectacular victory in Delhi.


 
 
 

Feature No. 8 of the New Normal pertains to periodic reminders to Muslims that there are issues other than threats to their religious-cultural identity. For instance, their own experience of agrarian distress is similar to that of Hindus; the fear of dispossession the land ordinance has triggered grips them as it does others as well.

This could become the basis for consolidation cutting across caste-religious divides. Under the New Normal, even as the Sangh presses on with the Hindutva issues, Muslims will therefore also feel the pull of the politics of interests. They will therefore feel the pressure of choosing between parties predominantly focussed on their religious insecurities and those more inclined to promoting material interests. Their choices will determine the electoral impact in rural areas having substantial Muslim peasantry - for instance, in west UP, which has become a veritable Hindutva laboratory. (Nor prescriptive any more, I hope)
Feature 9 of the New Normal entails religious minorities keeping their fingers crossed in the hope communal relations don't deteriorate to the point where their anxieties and fears are enhanced beyond the current levels. For instance, that could happen in case the BJP launches a vigorous movement for building the Ram Temple in Ayodhya before the UP Assembly elections, as is widely feared; or roads having Muslim names are changed. That would, for sure, lead to redefining the New Normal. Watch this space next year.


 

(Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores. Email: ashrafajaz3@gmail.com)






                                  
                PART TWO  OF TWO


SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/listening-to-the-sounds-of-silence/82224.html




         LISTENING TO THE SOUNDS
                                  OF
                           SILENCE
                                  BY
                  SHIV VISVANATHAN  



 May 19 2015



Whether Muslim or Christian, Indians who have felt Indian and believed they were Indian citizens are now being forced to reach out to their minority status for protection. There is a new insecurity, a ghettoisation of the mind taking place














 



  •  
     
        
     
    Children attend a class at a madrassa in a relief camp for displaced Muslim residents in Muzaffarnagar. Threat perception and fear have put the minorities on the defensive. The drumbeat of a new patriotism creates a brutal majority



    REPORT cards are liturgical rituals, acts of trusteeship. There is something about report cards that gives citizens and experts a sense of empowerment. For that moment, one feels in control or command of a process of history. But this time the report cards of the Modi regime speak a different language. It is not his “Make in India” as a world of manufacture one wants to talk about. It is the unmaking of another India that one waits to record.

    Vision of the Future
     
     
    Every regime tries to build a positive vision of the future but to build such a favourable future, one must exorcise the past. The past was a double burden for the adherents of the Bharatiya Janata Party because the past as history is read as being unfair to them. Secondly, the categories of the past, the idioms of secularism articulated the logic of a world the majority in India felt uneasy with. They wanted a world which was less English, more modern, a world where the secular and the minoritarian strip-mined their lives asking them to deny their inner selves. Therefore, the majoritarian self was a repressed self and when the BJP won, an order of repressions was domesticated into the everydayness of policy.



    The BJP as an electoral majority represented an array of dangers. Firstly, it equated electoral majoritarianism with democracy. Instead of democracy being syncretic and plural, the majority acquires a new role in history. Its dominance is physical and threatening and when paradoxically a dominant class behaves as if it has been victimised, it becomes doubly repressive. It wants to rectify history and teach the minorities a lesson. In fact, in majoritarian regimes like the BJP, politics becomes the fine art of changing minority responses. It has been decided that the minority must be cut to size and taught its sense of place.


    Assertions of Ethnic Identity
     
    Muzaffarnagar was a classic example of such a political pedagogical act that the media hardly confronted.

    The BJP over the year has done this act of bullying in a wonderfully distributed way. Its political leaders ask Muslims to accept the duties of citizenship and join the mainstream. This allegedly subtle hint is actually a coercive way of warning the minorities that assertions of ethnic identity are not welcome. While the legislature seeks uniformity, the other incarnations like the RSS, the VHP, even the Shiv Sena, seek to rectify history and purify identity. Culture becomes the basis of contestation and majoritarian culture asserts their primacy twice. This asserts the language of loyalty to the nation-state, calling patriotism the new secularism because for the RSS the state is the secular god.



    Patriotism Unbound
     
    When patriotism is equated with national development and national purpose, any challenge to growth in terms of social justice or ecological cost is termed as sedition. In fact, a new hybrid of minority-dissent is seen as threatening law and order. One of the first and most publicised acts of the regime was to attack sustainability advocates on grounds of security. Civil society groups which objected to mines destroying soils, or to pollution or displacement were defined and treated as anti-national. Green and Red became brothers under the skin, when Green Peace and Naxalism were treated as equivalent threats. Dissent and minoritarianism both become threats to law and order.

    The BJP as a majoritarian regime operates at four different levels. Firstly, it treats patriotism and citizenship as sacred-thread ceremonies, often denying such rite or rights to people from Kashmir or the North-East. Instead of citizenship being part of the taken for granted, it begins as part of a politics of suspicion.



    No Pampering
     
     
    Secondly, it feels minorities should not be pampered on grounds of ethnicity but be part of the secular citizenship of the majoritarian society. The BJP regime has not gone as far as the French regime of Sarkozy, which denied citizenship to the Romany people turning them homeless or by disallowing the veil in schools and other public places. In fact, it has campaigned for Muslims to join the party. Whether this is fatalism on part of the Muslims or a temporary tactic is difficult to decipher.

    Thirdly, the majoritarian community operates in terms of the politics of hurt. Hurt is an all-encompassing word in the majoritarian glossary. Hurt is an injury, damage, disrespect, real or imagined, to the identity, integrity, ego, the respectability of the group, to its history or to its collective identity. Such a broad view of hurt has virtually created an epidemic of politicians who specialise in hurt. A Dalit might find it troublesome to establish humiliation but hurt is like a mimosa plant, it triggers even at an imagined wound. The politics of hurt has been used to ban, censor, silence authors,who d writers, musicians, painters who not suit the majoritarian imagination.


    Surveillance Corridor
     
    Such majoritarianism which creates a surveillance corridor to police history, culture, also becomes a form of moral policing. One witnesses this in the activists of groups like Bajrang Dal which harass young couples holding hands in Manipal Beach. There is an attempt to domesticate sexuality, creating a tacit understanding between populist groups and police while harassing minorities and women. Any Muslim boy dating a Hindu girl becomes a target of harassment. The hoardings installed on the beach are clear. It says: “Be educated, do not hold hands.” The moral policy of majoritarian groups is almost like pollution ritual, a cordon sanitaire, protecting the majority from being “infected”. Antics like moral jihad were slapstick illustrations of this policy.

    Fourthly, the RSS and its cohorts feel that the syllabus should be a part of politically correct and approved history. Dinanath Batra and other self-styled educationist and historians become peripatetic Savonarolas deciding which books do not fit the official space. Syllabus reform and censorship becomes two forms of thought rectification.



    Indifference of Middle Class
     
    The inner circles of hysteria by which majoritarianism keeps real and imagined threats at bay has an outer penumbra of indifference. The middle class as an aspirational class is indifferent to many forms of suffering. Its indifference to farmers committing suicide shows that growth is a greater value than suffering, that casualties are an acceptable consequence of development. One must admit that in many cases of majoritarianism brutality, the regime does not participate actively. By threat, by intimidation, by symbolic manipulation, the regime and the majority create a tacit constitution of categories, taboos, fear, preferences which literally create a fence around thought. Various forms of dissent, eccentricity, minoritarianism and radicalism remain outside the fold. It is this tacit constitution which envelops the formal constitution and makes it feel effete and meaningless. The state as a policing apparatus and the informal economy of coercion both combine to create a structure of threat which minorities feel uneasy with.Whether Muslim or Christian, Indians who have felt Indian and believed there were Indian citizens are now being forced to reach out to their minority status for protection. There is a new insecurity, a ghettoisation of the mind taking place. Old words like pseudo-secularism now sound effete and harmless as the majoritarian judgement moves ruthlessly.

    If the minority or the dissenter is less Indian than others, the diaspora with its long-distance nationalism is seen as doubly patriotic. For the majority, this is the great Indian ideal, to be Hindutva with an American style of consumption, to belong both to one of the oldest civilisations and to one of the most modern of nations and claim an authenticity from both. It is a win-win situation that every aspiring Indian dreams of.



    Demise of the Nehru Era

    Deep down, the victory of electoral majoritarianism and its repressions has allowed the demise of the Nehru era. In seeking to create a Congress Mukta Bharat what the BJP sought was a Nehru Mukta Bharat void of minority sensitivity, pluralism and secularism. In a way the first year of the regime has cleared the way for this new era.

    In fact, while Modi and his regime talk of communication, what one senses starkly is the silences of the regime. In fact, one is reminded that progress is articulated through the noisy rhetoric of development, while suffering exists in an ecology of silence. In such a regime, citizenship and its entitlement, speech is only available to those who accept a majoritarian code. 

    The elliptical imaginations of radicalism, dissent, minority, the availability of eccentricity is lost in the drumbeat of a new patriotism which creates a brutal majority. Accompanying this is a religion of the nation-state, an uncritical acceptance of science, an attempt to exorcise history. Given this, it is not speech that marks the regime but silences pregnant with meaning that promise critique but refrain from it.



    Politics of Majority

    • The BJP equated electoral majoritarianism with democracy. Instead of democracy being syncretic and plural, the majority acquires a new role in history.

    • Its dominance is physical and threatening and when paradoxically a dominant class behaves as if it has been victimised, it becomes doubly repressive. It wants to rectify history and teach minorities a lesson.

    • In fact, in majoritarian regimes like the BJP, politics becomes the fine art of changing minority responses. It has been decided that the minority must be cut to size and taught its sense of place.

    • One must admit that in many cases of majoritarianism brutality, the regime does not participate actively. By threat, by intimidation, by symbolic manipulation, the regime and the majority create a tacit constitution of categories, taboos, fear, preferences which literally create a fence around thought.
     



     


    Listening to the sounds of silence



    Christians participate in mass prayer to protest against the attack on Delhi churches, in Bhopal. AFP/PTI



    The writer calls himself a social sciences nomad

    Tuesday, May 19, 2015

    DEFENCE PREPAREDNESS: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?








    DEFENCE PREPAREDNESS: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
     

    Lt Gen PG Kamath (Retd)

     
     
    If one has read the CAG’s report on the state of Ammunition that was reported in all dailies on 9 May 2015, that should set alarm bells ringing; and ringing loudly.  The report mentions that the Armed Forces have ammunition for just 20 days of intense war.  125 of the 170 types of ammunition is below the ‘minimum acceptable risk levels’; and 50% of the total types of ammunition; the holding was critical and insufficient even for 10 days battle.  Which war the CAG has in his mind?  A two front war against China and Pakistan; or, a single front war against China or Pakistan? What about the trouble likely to be caused by foreign aided terrorists, who will certainly fish in troubled waters? The country needs to equip for a two front war against China and Pakistan and the CAG needs to be more specific about his observations, so that the Prime Minister has a correct picture on the state of our Defence preparedness.
     
    Such perpetual shortage has always been a bane on our war preparedness and no one seems to be much concerned about this serious security lapse.  Now let us look at the Constitution of India to pin point who is responsible for this sordid state of affairs?  The Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces is the President of India.  However other than being the holder of this onerous position the constitution does not assign him any specific role. The President can always ask for accountability for the dismal state, should he perceive himself to be even symbolic head of the Armed Forces.  As the President does not feel obliged, the mantle should then fall on the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) – the supreme security policy making body of the Government.  The CCS comprises the PM, RM, Minster for External Affairs, Finance Minister and Home Minister.  Please note the three Service Chiefs are not members of CCS.  Thus the CCS is not privy to professional advice on Military matters institutionally.  Now let us delve further into our constitutional provisions to hold some one accountable for the security lapse?
     
    First Schedule of Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 (Clause 3 of Art 77 of Constitution of India) states that the Business of Government of India would be conducted by the Departments mentioned in the First Schedule.  Please note none of the Service Headquarters are Departments of The Ministry of Defence and all the Departments of the Ministry of Defence are headed by secretaries who are bureaucrats.  Hence the three Service Chiefs and the three Service Headquarters are not authorised to conduct the business of the Government of India.  It has to be done through the Departments i.e. Secretaries (Babus) who are responsible to the Raksha Mantri and head the Department of Defence, Department of Defence Production, Department of Defence Research and Development and  Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare.
     
    The Second Schedule states the distribution of subjects among the Departments. Now let us look at the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence that is directly under the Defence Secretary is responsible for “Defence of India and every part thereof including preparation for Defence and all such acts as may be conducive in times of war to its prosecution and after its termination to effective demobilisation”.  Hence the Defence Secretary, is responsible for the Defence of the Country.  It means that he is responsible to keep manpower, arms & ammunition, conduct of operations and prosecution of war including demobilisation after the war.  Pray please tell me: My Dear Prime Minister and Defence Minister, as to why are you not holding him accountable for the miserable state of ammunition and equipment state in the Armed Forces? What action has the PM or RM have taken in the past 67 years of the country’s existence against the Defence Secretary?
     
    In 1962, after the humiliating defeat of the country, our great civilisation was brought down to our knees by a hostile neighbour.  Now let us look what happened to whom all?  Let us start from the top: Prime Minister Nehru was so humiliated that he lost his stature and lost his will to live and died in next year and half.  The RM, the Army Chief and the Corps Commander resigned.  The Defence Secretary was Mr Pulla Reddy, who had been the Defence secretary for the last four years and master minded the defeat to the nation; and constitutionally responsible for the Defence of the country; went on a routine posting a month after RM resigned. 
     
    Gen VK Singh out of sheer disgust wrote a letter to the PM in Mar 2012 regarding cavernous hollowness in the Indian Army.  The Air force was and is nearly 33% depleted and a spate of accidents in Indian Navy has shown to the world its poor state.  The submarine fleet is on life support system; and the IAF has the dubious distinction of having the same aircraft in the museum and on the runway.  Who is responsible for this? Whom has the PM or RM held accountable for this grave anti- national act of omission or commission?
     
    Now let us look at the last three Defence secretaries who are solely responsible for this disastrous state of our armed forces?  Mr Pradeep Kumar after retirement was appointed as the CVC for masterminding the hollowness in the Armed Forces.  Mr Shashi Kant Sharma ironically is the CAG who is finding fault on himself in his new avatar.   Look at the irony of our system as to how we reward bureaucrats with higher constitutional appointments for carving out hollowness in the Armed Forces; and thus aiding our adversaries. Does it not amount to treachery? The present Defence Secretary has been in the MoD for ages at different levels; and is probably already looking forward for one of the higher appointments after his retirement.
     
    Life goes on in the MoD in the same nonchalance pace as they have the authority without accountability; and the Service Chiefs who have the responsibility are without authority, as told to the press by Admiral DK Joshi, who took moral responsibility for the accidents in the Indian Navy and put in his papers.  The public should not forget that Anthony and the Defence Secretary instead of owning up responsibility, worked at lightning speed to get the Admiral’s papers through and send him home. The legal machinery that worked for Salman Khan’s bail application however quick, can take a page or two from the MoD.
     
     
    Lt Gen PG Kamath was commissioned into Madras Regiment in 1973 and retired as Commandant Army War College.  During his forty years of service he has served in most operational areas and also served in several command and staff appointments.  He is a graduate of Defence Sevices Staff College, Wellington and National Defence College, New Delhi.   Presently he has retired and settled in Bangalore and gives lectures and writes on current issues on Defence and Leadership.