Searching Alternate Narratives

Amnesty: How Global Capital Knows to Reward itself while MAKING or BREAKING laws.

2011-09-15T10:14:00.000+05:30

What is Amnesty?

1. Wikipedia: “An official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses”.

2. The Free Dictionary: “A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses”.

3. Dictionary Reference: “a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses,against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

“an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole”.

Amnesty is not *Pardon*. In Pardon, a person or persons, who are convicted of a crime and are undergoing a sentence, are released after commuting their sentences or are freed of death sentence. In this sense all the above definitions are erroneous. Amnesty derives its origin in Amnesia: The Greek Word that means *Forgetting* or *Oblivion*. Therefore, in Amnesty, there is no question of brining anybody to a trial or of convicting him. Government, or Authority, simply chooses to forget that any crime has been committed. It pretends as if no infringement of any law has occurred.

In India, however, Amnesty means forgetting or pretending or ignoring that any Economic Offences have taken place. India has the distinction of offering FIVE times Amnesty to Economic Offenders. In February 2011, Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, a former member of CBDT held, “In the context of the report "Global Financial Integrity" in November 2010 stating that a huge amount of black money has been stashed in foreign banks under the protection of secrecy laws, talk of retrieving it by introducing a Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme is doing the rounds again. Such schemes have been tried earlier in other countries, including the United Kingdom, and five times in India since 1950. Such a scheme is an opportunity for individuals and companies to bring their tax affairs up-to-date”. Last scheme was floated by P Chidambaram in 1997, and his deputy said: “The chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes enthusiastically described the VDIS of 1997 as "a golden chance for tax evaders to become honest"”.

Now Government of India wants to offer another chance to scamsters, fraudsters, evaders, looters, traffickers, gangsters, mobsters, or simply corrupt or dishonest to bring their *Tax Affairs Up-To-Date* and become *Honest*. Only difference is that “Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme” has now become “Offshore Voluntary Compliance Scheme”. Like with everything else of Globalisation and Liberalisation, even in this case we want to follow the Best International Practices: “It will be modeled on the lines of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative run by the Internal Revenue Service in the US”. It is another matter that SIXTH Amnesty is proposed even when FIVE earlier Amnesties have failed to usher in HONESTY or make the TAX AFFAIRS up-to-date.

The scheme proposed says: “Also, the authorities will not insist on the source of the money once it is disclosed voluntarily”. That means Drug money, immoral trafficking money, extortion money, Fraud Money, Scam Money, Corruption Money, Terrorism Money, Counterfeit Scams money, Insider Trading money, et al, are all to be WHITEWASHED. That also means Finance Ministry and CBDT are going much beyond their jurisdiction and brief to legislate in areas that fall under the purview of other ministries and are in the domain of laws not under their scope.

Global Capital knows pretty well how to reward itself whether it is MAKING Laws or when BREAKING Laws. Are there any lessons here for *Corruption Free India* movement?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/745844.aspx

Disclosure scheme for foreign assets soon

The government is working out the details of a voluntary income disclosure scheme that would offer a window for bringing back undisclosed assets stashed away in overseas tax havens into the country’s financial system. The Offshore Voluntary Compliance Scheme will cover Indian organisations, citizens and non-resident Indians (NRIs), and offer immunity from criminal prosecution and imprisonment, besides lower rates of interest and penalties. Also, the authorities will not insist on the source of the money once it is disclosed voluntarily. But in case the tax department tracks down undisclosed assets through its networks, the holder of the money would face “strong punitive actions, including high penalties, prosecution and even imprisonment”, said a government source.

The last such offer — the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS), introduced in 1997 to fight internal black money generation — was an unconventional, but successful one. More than 350,000 people disclosed their income and assets under the scheme that brought in R7,800 crore. The scheme was closed on December 31, 1998. An expert group of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), assigned by the government to curb the generation and transfer of black money abroad and bring the funds back, recommended the new scheme. The source said, “It will be modeled on the lines of the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative run by the Internal Revenue Service in the US.” Under attack by civil society and social activist Anna Hazare for alleged inaction over money stashed away in foreign accounts, the government proposed an action plan, including amendment of tax treaties with other countries.

A multi-disciplinary committee — involving think-tanks such as the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, National Institute of Financial Management and the National Council for Applied Economic Research — has been set up to estimate the quantum of black money generated in India. Earlier, interim recommendations of a BJP task force estimated the amount generated since Independence at $500 billion (about R22.5 lakh crore) to $1.4 trillion (about R63 lakh crore). A recent study by Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based research group, estimated the current value of illicit money outflow from India at $462 billion (about R2079,000 crore).

O O O O O O O O O O O O

Spreading Rumours, Sowing hate.

2011-07-31T08:07:00.000+05:30

The rumour industry in our country is very active and thriving. Recently a friend shared an email that he had received through chain mail forwards from his circle. It had an attachment which purpotedly showed a Fatwa issued by Darul Uloom Deoband. He doubted its authenticity.

Similar news had appeared reportedly in two Nagpur based publications (17 July 2011), Yugdharma in Hindi, and Paran Nagari in Marathi. Google search did not throw up any websites of either publication. However, NagpurPeople.Com has a web page that mentions Yugdharma. Therefore, if similar news items had indeed appeared or not in these publications could not be confirmed. However, Darul Uloom Deoband had issued a categorical denial that this *mischievous Fatwa* has been issued by them. The statement is found on its website, and has been reproduced below. One needs to be very careful about such diabolic acts aimed at spreading hate, insecurity, and suspicions. One may be faithful to any religion, but when it comes to modern news factory, one needs to be a die hard sceptic - distrust every news until proved trustworthy.

-----------------------------------------------

Attempts to Defame Darul Uloom Deoband by False Emails

Darul Uloom Deoband Condemns the Conspiracy of the Communalists

Deoband: 17 July 2011

Nowadays, pre-planned conspiracies are going on in India against Muslims so that the Hindu-Muslim unity is sabotaged and the communal elements are free to enact their agenda. There is an email message floating on internet in which attempts are made to defame the world-renowned Islamic University of Muslims, Darul Uloom Deoband. The email is from a forged organization named "Tahreek-e-Taliban Hindustan" and it reads: "This Country ‘India’ was never a nation of Hindus. It was ruled and governed by Muslims for hundreds of years. And we the students of Tahreek-e-Taliban-Hindusthan, demand that the Muslim majority areas should be and must be ruled according to the Sharia Law. Therefore we pass this verdict from today onwards that all the non-Muslim living in Muslim majority areas should start paying ‘JIZYA’- A tax that every non-Muslim has to pay to Live and Work under Muslims."

The so-called organization "Tahreek-e-Taliban Hindustan" is using the name of Darul Uloom Deoband for its mischievous interests. It is absolutely wrong and unfounded. The authorities of Darul Uloom Deoband consider this statement as baseless and a plot of the communalists. Maulana Mufti Abul Qasim Nomani, Acting Mohtamim of Darul Uloom Deoband and other responsible personalities here in Darul Uloom Deoband see it as a conspiracy to defame Darul Uloom Deoband. They appeal to the intellectual class of the country to study the history of communal harmony of Darul Uloom. The celebrated freedom leader of Darul Uloom Deoband 'Shaikhul Hind Hadhrat Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan' believed that Hindu-Muslim unity was necessary to free the country. Later in 1912, they declared freedom of India and set up Govt. of India in exile in Kabul and elected Raja Mahindara Paratap Singh as the first President of the country. The famous Indian Historians like Dr Tara Chand, Dr Ishwari Prasad and Dr K M Panikkar have acknowledged in their books the social and political services of Darul Uloom Deoband.

Therefore this pre-planned conspiracy of the so-called "Tahreek-e-Taliban Hindustan" aims to break up the unity and harmony of the country so that the communal forces could reap its benefits. The authorities of Darul Uloom express their concern and anger against this campaign and eye this baseless propaganda against the wider interest of the country. All the responsible personalities of Darul Uloom have condemned this statement openly and called it mischievous and baseless propaganda.

Darul Uloom has very splendid history of Hindu-Muslim unity. The people attached to it have given tremendous sacrifices day and night in order to free this country. Darul Uloom Deoband appeals to the government of India to unveil this mischievous conspiracy and find out those who are behind it. The Indian intelligence should find out those who attribute such baseless statements to Darul Uloom so that the conspiracies of communalists could go in vain. The national harmony in the country is the need of the hour and it cannot be given up in any case. The communal elements are busy to disturb the harmony of the country with these false names.

It is imperative to note that such types of news have recently been published in the Hindi newspapers like "Yug Dharm" Nagpur on 16^th of July, and the Marathi newspaper "Paran Nagri" Nagpur that show the mischievous planning of communalists. The newspapers of Nagpur called it the Fatwa of Darul Uloom that is totally wrong and baseless.

Therefore, the Indian government should take necessary measures in this regard.

Issued by: VC Office, Darul Uloom Deoband

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

SITE under scanner: Manufacturer of Jihadi News?

2011-07-29T16:19:00.000+05:30

A friend had passed on some links and among it there was this hidden Gem: https://news.siteintelgroup.com/. In the wake of Norway terror attacks, it had obligingly put out some news stories in the form of teasers on its “not for profit” first page. The close connection between its teasers and the possible spin put in reportage on Norway Terror Attacks was explored here. Since it always seemed to be one step ahead of Jihadists/ Al Qaeda, the site drew lot of interests for further reading. Everyday on this site, there is always some new Jihadi news. Although, it calls itself Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE), it seems to exclusively find only Jihadi-Terrorists. Its *obsession* with Jihadists/ Al Qaeda made it miss so much voluminous terrorist material uploaded on internet by Anders Behring Breivik prior to his brutal gunning of innocent youth on Utoeya Isalnd and bombing of central Oslo. Today SITE had news on Jihadi threat of violence targeting Belgium, where a ban of Niqab has recently been placed. See below.

Curious to know who else has found out about this Jihadi threat, a Google search was made. The search results threw up links to “https://news.siteintelgroup.com/” in the first two places, but no other links to support what SITE had found. The Search results are given below.

Then another Google search was made with same search string, but by replacing ‘Belgium’ with ‘France’. This threw up two separate websites besides that of SITE. Look what these two have to say.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=428194&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21

http://teaandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/france-jihadist-chiefs-threaten-to-attack-over-burqa-ban/

Both news stories clearly attribute the source to “https://news.siteintelgroup.com/”. This means whichever website one visits, source of most Jihadi stories, especially those that appear on daily basis, is one and the same: SITE. This has several implications.

If SITE is the Mother of most sources about *Jihadi News*, then the authenticity of the news it supplies can not be independently verified.
The *Jihadi News* provided by SITE may create an endless ricochet in mainstream media to saturate it.
Such saturation then by itself can provide the necessary WEIGHT to make that news appear authentic (This happened with *Saddam has weapons of mass destruction......* that ricocheted within Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and rest of US administration until it became a “fact” to go to war with Iraq).

This suggests that one has to watch SITE website very carefully to see how the *Jihadi Terrorism* is going to evolve in the near future. Wikipedia has following information on the SITE group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SITE_Institute

The Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Intelligence Group is an organization that tracks the online activity of terrorist organizations.^[1] The SITE Institute was founded in 2002 by Rita Katz and Josh Devon, who had left the Investigative Project (a private Islamist-terrorist tracking group).^[2] In early 2008 it ceased its operations, and some of its staff formed the SITE Intelligence Group, a for-profit entity, to continue some of its activities.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Katz

“Rita Katz (born 1963, Basra, Iraq) is a terrorism analyst and the co-founder of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute (SITE Institute), a private intelligence firm based in Washington, DC. The Institute tracks global terrorist networks, and intercepts and distributes secret messages, videos, and advance warnings of suicide bombings from terrorist groups' communications networks”.

Since SITE tracks SECRET communications, naturally no one else can verify or authenticate them. -

Wiki gives then some interesting *Firsts* achieved by SITE.

May 3, 2011: The organization translated a lengthy statement signed by Al Qaeda’s General Command that confirmed Osama Bin Laden's death and promised retaliation for that death.
Sept. 7, 2007: SITE obtained a 30-minute video of "Osama bin Laden" and provided it to Associated Press. Bin Laden's image is "frozen" for all but 3½ minutes of the tape.^[7] SITE "beat al-Qaeda by nearly a full day with the release of the ... video".^[8] The US government later pronounced the video authentic. See also 2007 Osama bin Laden video.
July 4, 2007: A video by al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri was obtained by SITE "ahead of its release on the internet by militant web sites".^[4] It was "first reported by IntelCenter and SITE, two U.S.-based groups that monitor militant messages".^[5] The video had been "provided by al-Qaeda's As-Sahab Media to IntelCenter".

As Sahab website gives one host of other websites providing all kinds of information about As Sahab, but not As Sahab website itself. As Sahab, The Cloud, is described as the media production house of Al Qaeda by Wikipedia. Yet, there is no website of As Sahab itself or at least Google Search doesn’t yield any. Even a frontline news channel like ABC releases a Jihadi video, which it says was put on the internet by Jihadi Sites:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-video-buy-automatic-weapons-start-shooting/story?id=13704264

“The two-part, two hour video appeared on jihadi websites Friday with images of jihadi leaders as well as snapshots of alleged underwear bomberUmar Farouk Abdulmutallab and accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan ”.

But it does not identify which Jihadi websites carried out the video release. The ABC website shows Adam Gadahn, a wanted Terrorist on FBI website, as the man who appears in the video. Adam Gadahn makes regular appearance on SITE website as well. The big problem is how does one know who actually posts all these videos, messages attributed to Al Qaeda or other Jihadists; and which only “https://news.siteintelgroup.com/” or CIA or FBI have the expertise to hunt & locate even before the alleged *actual perpetrators* have had a chance to publish them? All this is an enigma encapsulated in skullduggery that is wrapped in mystery. It casts a Big Question mark over all the stories put out in mainstream media. That is why SITE looks like a Factory to produce Jihadi News to customers’ orders.

O O O O O O O O O O O O

Daily Mail: Linking Norway Terrorism Attacks to Islamic Extremist pasting Sharia stickers

2011-07-28T18:08:00.000+05:30

Dear Friend,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-British-cities.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

When I looked up I found Daily Mail showing the news item you gave. These Sharia nuts would be soon behind bars if they have transgressed any British Laws. I have no doubts about how law should deal with them: fairly but remorselessly. But what caught my attention more was this bit:

Embedded within this article is the news of Norwegian PM who asserts that extremism will be met with Democracy. Then the News Clip goes on to say : Norwegian PM *defiant* as *under-fire* police reveal they saved 600 people on terror island.

If one clicks the news clip a new page opens on which same matter in big & bold headline screams at the viewer.

Would you call somebody who says, "'It's absolutely possible to have an open, democratic, inclusive society, and at the same time have security measures and not be naive", defiant?

The phrase *under-fire* coming right after *defiant* creates a deliberate impression that Under-fire, Norwegian Prime Minister is defiant.

If you read the news below the Screaming headline, then it says, "After checking there was only one gunman, police then began an evacuation of more than 600 people. 'We are proud and humbled by everybody who helped on Utoya Island,' they said. 'The police did a remarkable job on the island and afterwards.'". There is no mention that police are under fire either.

The wikipedia has this note on Daily Mail: "The Mail has been edited by Paul Dacre since 1992. Under Dacre, the Mail has a reputation for a conservative editorial stance on topics such as immigration, working women and teenage sex. This has led Julie Burchill to nickname it "The Daily Hate".^[13] Science writer Ben Goldacre of The Guardian has described the paper as "the home of the scare story",^[14] and it has been accused by Johann Hari of The Independentof causing the deaths of children, because of "faith-based thinking" in its reporting of the MMR vaccine controversy.^[15] Nick Davies, writing in New Statesman, accuses the paper of routine inaccuracy in reporting issues related to immigration, quoting a former reporter as saying: "you knew that the headline had been written before the story came in and your job was to make the facts fit"".

Secondly, is it not just chance or coincidence or misfortune that the news related to Norway Terror attacks sits pretty visibly within so called *campaign of Islamist Extremists*? Is the positioning innocuous? I don't think so. It is diabolic and deliberate. It is to subtly create a connection in reader's mind that Norway terrorism attacks are because of Islamist Extremists. In Psychology this is called power of suggestion that leads the receiver to make his *own connections*. It is far more powerful than direct propaganda. This is so because reader has a sense of ownership and therefore strong affinity over the *false connection* he is induced to make.

There are fanatics within Muslims community like they are else where. But for all I know, as the headline has been massaged so thoroughly by daily mail, they might have even set up these Sharia Nuts to do this job for a fee on camera for Daily Mail.

When I made the search, except Daily Mail no other top website appeared on the first search page. On the second page the well known site which appeared said this: "According to the Daily Mail, hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and 'put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term".

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/islamic-extremists-set-up-sharia-zones-in-uk_722633.html

There is no SUN, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian.... What does it show?

There is a need for every reader or observer to be an alert *Forensic Reader*.

========================================================================

From: A Friend

Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:35 PM

To: Satark

Subject: [Satark] Any Thoughts on This, Please?

'No porn or prostitution':

Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities

Strict: The posters warn passers-by that they are entering a zone where Islamic rules, such as 'no alcohol', are 'enforced'

Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: 'You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.'

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the 'zone' there should be 'no gambling', 'no music or concerts', 'no porn or prostitution', 'no drugs or smoking' and 'no alcohol'.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and 'put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term'.

In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting 'Islamic rules'.

Choudary, who runs the banned militant group Islam4UK, warned: 'We now have hundreds if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us and a print run of between 10,000 and 50,000 stickers ready for distribution.

'There are 25 areas around the country which the Government has earmarked as areas where violent extremism is a problem.

Seizing control: Activist Jamaal Uddin puts up one of the Sharia stickers in Leyton, in the East London borough of Waltham Forest

Drink outlawed: Uddin places his poster on a lamppost outside the now defunct Oliver Twist pub in a part of Leyton in London

'We are going to go to all these same areas and implement our own Sharia-controlled zones.

'This is the best way for dealing with drunkenness and loutishness, prostitution and the sort of thug life attitude you get in British cities.'

The former lawyer added: 'This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.

'We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.'

Scotland Yard is now working with local councils to remove the posters and identify those responsible for putting them up.

Choudary said he was organising a protest against the Far Right in Waltham Forest this weekend following last Friday's killing spree in Norway by anti-Islamic gunman Anders Breivik.

He said: 'We are going to put the events in Oslo on the agenda. We are going to be marching and addressing this issue. It is a whole new scenario now. The Muslim community needs to be vigilant. There is an undercurrent against Islam.

'I do believe a Norway-style attack could happen here.'

The campaign comes just months after stickers proclaiming a 'gay-free zone' and appearing to reference the religious Islamic text of the Koran appeared in Tower Hamlets.

Women in parts of East London including Tower Hamlets have been threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists if they did not wear headscarves.

James Brandon, of the anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, which has dubbed the intimidation the work of 'Talibanesque thugs', said: 'This is a small group which is not representative of these communities.

'It's great news that the police have decided to investigate this. This has the potential to divide communities and upset people.'

Yesterday the leader of Waltham Forest Council, Chris Robbins, said: 'As soon as we heard about these posters we worked over the weekend to take them all down.

'Since then we have been going through our CCTV images and working with the police to try to identify the culprits. Our policy is to use the full extent of our powers to prosecute any offenders.

'People should not get the wrong idea about our borough because a handful of small-minded idiots, who do not live here, decide to deface our streets with ridiculous posters.'

========================

KB & PC : Lawyerly Deceit.

2011-07-26T15:49:00.000+05:30

The Unfolding Story of 2G Spectrum Scam.

“Deploring the attempt of his predecessor A Raja to implicate Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (MMS) and Home Minister P Chidambaram in the 2G spectrum allocation case, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal on Monday said submissions made by an accused before a court at the time of framing of charges cannot be construed as evidence. In a statement, Sibal refuted claims made by Raja in his submissions made before the special court stating that the sale of equity in telecom companies Swan and Unitech was in the knowledge of both the Prime Minister as well as the then Finance Minister Chidambaram. Sibal said what had happened in case of Swan and Unitech was not sale of equity but “issuance of additional equity”” -Kapil Sibal, Honourable Minister of Communications & IT.

“But speaking to PTI reporters, Chidambaram said the only issue examined by him, as finance minister in 2007, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was if two new telecom licencees — Swan and Unitech — were selling their stake or diluting shares through issue of fresh equity” -P Chidambaram, Honourable Minister of Home Affairs.

Chidambaram admits that both PM MMS & the then FM PC were to *examine* if two licensees were “selling their stake or diluting shares through issue of fresh equity”. It is obvious that neither MMS or PC could have *examined* the issue without the *knowledge* of it. Now, what PC himself admits, Kapil Sibal contradicts while refuting Raja that “sale of equity in telecom companies Swan and Unitech was” not “in the knowledge of both the Prime Minister as well as the then Finance Minister Chidambaram”.

Since we have the corroboration of *knowledge* from the horse’s mouth, we can safely disregard KB, and accept what Raja is telling about prior *knowledge of sale* of both PM & FM in the 2G matter, is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But there is still the matter of what was sold.

Was it “sale of equity or “issuance of additional equity” as KB puts the spin?

Was it “selling of stake or diluting shares through issue of fresh equity” as PC massages it?

And whatever the answer, is it material?

Here are some background facts for the uninitiated.

1. The sale of equity usually signifies sell of shares from one or more persons, who hold shares to other persons. Both seller & buyer could be natural persons or legal persons (company, trusts, etc.).

2. The selling of stake usually, but not necessarily, signifies sale of [his complete] equity holding by a seller.

3. When a seller/s, who hold a *controlling stake* (at least 50%+1 shares of total equity) in a company, sell (at least 50%+1 shares of total equity) stake to buyer/s; then the *effective ownership* is passed on to buyer/s.

4. The issue of fresh equity means offer for sale of fresh equity shares by a company (decided its current shareholders).

5. Diluting shares through issue of fresh equity signifies reduction in the percentage of shareholding of current holders of equity if the fresh equity is picked up partly or wholly by newcomers – natural or legal.

6. When issue of fresh equity results in the new comers acquiring controlling stake (at least 50%+1 shares of total –old+fresh- equity), then the *effective ownership* is passed on to new comers.

The foregoing is germane to what PC asserted later on: “Chidambaram said what was discussed in 2007 was “how did the new partner get inducted. The new partner got inducted by way of fresh equity.””. Why is this hair splitting so important? How does it matter if the *new partner/s* got inducted through sale of old or new equity shares? That is not germane to the issue of *Corruption* in 2G scam, though it may be to *deny spuriously* the knowledge of sale by hiding behind the petty difference of *old* or *new*. It is like the famous saying of युधिष्टिर in Mahabharata, “अश्वथामा जरूर मरा है, परन्तु नरोवा कुंजरोवा”. It is really farcical how both the *eminent* lawyers are rushing together to hide behind a non-existent fig-leaf and defend the indefensible.

For complicity in 2G scam what really needs to be decided is only one simple thing. What was the price at which the new or old equity was sold? Did the price charged, that is premium demanded over face value, reflect an *unearned & massive benefit* to issuer or seller of equity? Did it result in effective ownership change –i.e. Did the newcomers exploit the 2G license or the original allottees? Were any laws like FEMA or Company Law or prescribed policies transgressed?

Now that the knowledge of both PM & ex-FM is established, may be the court will ask these pertinent questions. How long is Man Mohan Singh going to pretend he is blind like धृतराष्ट्र, and plead helplessness.

O O O O O O O O O O O O

Terrorism on European soil: A Quantitative Perspective.

2011-07-25T13:20:00.001+05:30

What is the role played by Islamists or Jihadists?

Following is the presentation of statistics on Terrorism attacks on European Soil compiled by Europol, which is a European Union analogue of Interpol. Most of the debates on role of religion in terrorism are informed by prejudices, propaganda, spin, and vested interests; rarely, if they at all do, facts enter the discourse. This is an attempt to correct that. After presenting the statistics, at the end a link is provided to a post that has looked at the Europol report in some depth.

1. The numbers of all attacks including those attributed to Islamists since 2007 have shown a declining trend, and so have number of arrests. (See tables 1 & 2).

2. Out of the 294 attacks in 2009 only 1 (0.34% of total) and out of 515 attacks in 2008 none (0% of total) were attributed to Islamists. (See tables 3 & 4)

3. While there was only 1 (0.34% of total) attack attributed to Islamists in 2009 and None in 2008; the number of Islamists arrested were 110 (18.7% of total) and 187 (18.5% of total) respectively in the 2 years. (See tables 5 & 6)

4. Total verdicts (both convictions and acquittals) delivered for Islamists in 2009 & 2008 were 89 (21.8% of total) and 190 (49% of total). (See tables 7 & 8). Please see the original reports for breakdown of convictions and acquittals.

The arrests are disproportionately high when compared to the attacks in case 0f Islamists. That shows an embedded bias at the investigations stage. The verdicts could not be compared meaningfully with other figures because it is not clear how many cases pertained to the period before 2008.

Europol is an organization created by European Union: "Europol is coordinating an effective response to international serious crime and terrorism in Europe";. Europol's mandate is pretty wide: <Europol's crime-fighting capabilities are used to tackle drug trafficking, illicit immigration, people trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering, forgery of money and other serious crimes>. It thus covers all angles that come into play -illicit businesses, money laundering, trafficking- when networks carrying out serious crimes or terror attacks are involved. Europol has been publishing for past several years comprehensive statistics on terrorism events –failed, foiled, or successful- on European soil. The link to the statistical base is here.

The tables from reports of 2010 and 2009 covering the years 2009 & 2008 are used below.

The numbers of attacks since 2007 have shown a declining trend, and so have number of arrests.

Out of the 294 attacks in 2009 only 1 (0.34% of total) and out of 515 attacks in 2008 none (0% of total) were attributed to Islamist.

While there was only 1 (0,34% of total) attack attributed to Islamists in 2009 and None in 2008; the number of Islamists arrested were 110 (18.7% of total) and 187 (18.5% of total) respectively in the 2 years.

Total verdicts (convictions and acquittals) delivered for Islamists in 2009 & 2008 were 89 (21.8% of total) and 190 (49% of total).

The LoonWatch.Com is a Website that tracks all "fundamentalists" irrespective of their religions, who it describes as Loonies. For more analysis of above Statistics see the link here.

O O O O O O O O O O O O

Mumbai Bomb Blasts 13/07/2011: Media Round Up 23/07/2011.

2011-07-23T20:59:00.000+05:30

"ATS detains 2 AP detonator dealers".

Times of India reports that 2 Black Marketers from Andhra Pradesh who were profiteering from the sale of Ammonium Nitrate, detonators, and low *density*(?, or Intensity) explosives were arrested from Andhra Pradesh by Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS). <MUMBAI: The anti-terrorism squad (ATS) has detained two black marketers who dealt with detonators in Andhra Pradesh, as they could have supplied ammonium nitrate to the perpetrators of the 13/7 blasts>. <According to sources, the two used to procure ammonium nitrate, detonators and low density explosives from *authorized suppliers* and resell them illegally at higher prices to *developers*, illegal contractors of dams and quarry owners>. Why should developers depend upon "black marketers" when they could by that stuff at regular prices from authorized suppliers? One has heard of illegal quarrying, but *illegal contractors* of dams seem to be a new specie. Are the Dams illegal or are the contractors working on it illegally? Report further adds, <The ATS also detained a person in Pune on Friday, on basis of "concrete suspicions". Three persons are already in ATS custody as they are believed to be members of the outlawed terror organization, the Indian Mujhaheedin (IM). Sources said that while two were from Parbhani, on the outskirts of Maharashtra, one was from a small town in Ahmedabad, Gujarat>. Here the news introduces us to two new concepts: Concrete suspicions, not just suspicions, but concrete suspicions. Other is that Parbhani is on the outskirts of Maharashtra. Where are outskirts of Maharashtra, in Andhra Pradesh? TOI also found that police now know definitively how many people were involved in bomb preparation process and where likely those were assembled, < The officer said investigations suggest that there were 11 persons involved in making, procuring, transporting and finally assembling the bombs. The police suspect that the accused may have assembled the bombs in a rented place very close to South Mumbai, as in the 2006 Malegaon blast case, when IM members had assembled bombs in a rented slum rehabilitation authority flat in Sewri>.

"Maha police pick up 2 IM suspects from state".

The two black marketers of TOI story become Indian Mujahideen (IM) suspects by the time news reaches into the hands of Deccan Chronicle, which also tells that AP police said that no one is arrested from the state. < July 22: The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad reached Mumbai from Andhra Pradesh on Friday morning with two suspects, allegedly belonging to the Indian Mujahideen, to probe their involvement in the recent bomb blasts. Around a dozen men are believed to have been involved in the blasts. "The officers are interrogating the two about their IM links and are also probing where they were when the blasts took place,>. <The Andhra Pradesh police, however, said that no one had been arrested from the stat>. AP police do not say they don't have knowledge of any arrests, they say no one had been arrested from the state. DC also informs about 12 men are involved in the bomb blasts as against 11 persons of TOI who were involved up to bomb assembly stage. DC quotes an officer involved with investigation say, "The sequence of events that led to the blasts at Zaveri Bazaar and Opera House on July 13 has been reconstructed with the help of CCTV footage. We have now got the actual picture as to what had happened on that fateful day". Now that would be great progress by all accounts.

"Investigators still groping for answers".

While DC raised the expectations, Hindustan Times puts in a reality check. < Ten days after joint teams of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the crime branch of Mumbai police began their probe into the triple bomb explosions, little headway seems to have been made. Members of the Indian Mujahideen (IM) who have been arrested recently, are being grilled, but the interrogation of Danish Riyaz has not yielded anything substantial. Likewise, attempts to extract information from Dr Farhan alias Abu Faisal, too, has come to a naught. "We hope we get Manzar, a resident of Ranchi who had trained with Riyaz in the forests of Kerala. He could be one of the brains behind these blasts," said an investigator>. The sketches of the "blast suspect" are not ready, or rather there are two sketches of The Face, the difficulty is which one to choose, <Three days after the blast, ATS chief Rakesh Maria had announced that the sketch of a suspect is being prepared. However, a final sketch is yet to be decided on. "As of now, we have two faces, but we don't have a final sketch," an officer revealed>. What HT says later shows a certain despondency setting in ATS, "investigators are yet to locate the battery or the timer. Forensic reports on the composition of the bomb, too, are awaited. "It will either take a miracle or a stroke of luck for us to get the bombers so soon," remarked an officer. He also pointed out that the German Bakery blast case took over six months to crack". If the composition of the bomb is not known, then why is ATS gunning for Ammonium nitrate?

Then there is this very interesting story in Lokmat dated 18 July that deserve quoting in full:

"हाती आलेले अतिरेकी पळाले"

< (18 Jul) - गुन्हे शाखेचा गलथान कारभार उघड जयेश शिरसाट। दि. 17 (मुंबई) सुरत, अहमदाबाद स्फोटांमध्ये महत्वाची भूमिका बजावणार्‍या अतिरेक्यांनी तीन वर्षांपुर्वी मुंबई गुन्हे शाखेच्या हाती तुरी देत नवी मुंबईतून पलायन केले होते, अशी धक्कादायक माहिती हाती आली आहे. मोहम्मद मोबीन अब्दुल शकूर खान उर्फ इरफान आणि अयुब राजा अमीन शेख अशी त्यांची नावे आहेत. हे दोघेही इंडियन मुजाहिदीनचे अतिरेकी असून दोन आठवड्यांपूर्वी एटीएसने त्यांना मानखुर्द परिसरातून अटक केली आहे. चौकशीत त्यांनी ही बाब उघड केल्याची माहिती मिळते. इरफान व अयुब हे मुळचे सराईत कार चोर. 2008 मध्ये अहमदाबादेत दोन व्हॅगन आर गाड्यांमध्ये स्फोट झाला तर सुरतेत न फुटलेले बॉम्ब सापडले. या गाड्या नवी मुंबई, नेरूळ व न्यू पनवेलमधून चोरल्याचे स्पष्ट होताच मुंबई गुन्हे शाखेने त्याच सुमारास समांतर तपास सुरू केला. स्फोटानंतर काहीच दिवसांत गुन्हेशाखेच्या एका विशेष पथकाने या दोघांना चौकशीसाठी ताब्यात घेतले. त्यांच्या चौकशीत दोघांनी चोरलेल्या आणखी काही गाड्या नवी मुंबईत दडवून ठेवल्याची बाब समोर आली. या पथकाने त्यांना नवी मुंबईत नेऊन गाड्या शोधून काढल्या. घटनास्थळी गेल्यावर गाडी कशी चोरली, याचे प्रात्यक्षिक दाखवा, असे आदेश एका वरिष्ठ निरिक्षकाने त्यांना दिले. तेव्हा चावीशिवाय गाडीचे दरवाजे घडून ते ड्रायव्हींग सीटवर बसले. पुढे या अधिकार्‍याने चावीशिवाय गाडी चालवून दाखव, असे सांगितले. तेव्हा गाडीला धक्का मारावा लागेल, अशी विनंती पोलीस पथकाला केली. पथकातील झाडून सर्व अधिकारी निष्काळजीपणे आरोपींना गाडीत सोडून स्वत: गाडीला धक्का मारू लागले. याचाच फायदा घेत आरोपींनी गाडी सुरू केली आणि धूम ठोकली. त्यानंतर एटीएसने अटक करेपर्यंत या दोघांचा कुठेही थांगपत्ता लागला नाही. या घटनेनंतर गुन्हेशाखेच्या अन्य पथकांनी इंडियन मुजाहिदीनच्या एकूण 21 अतिरेक्यांना अटक केली. त्यांच्या चौकशीतून इरफान व अयुब यांनीच चोरलेल्या गाड्या मुजाहिददीनने स्फोटांसाठी वापरल्याचे स्पष्ट झाले. तेव्हा वरिष्ठांनी या अक्षम्य निष्काळीपणाबाबत संबंधीत अधिकार्‍यांना चांगलेच फैलावर घेतले. आता तीन वर्षांनी हे दोघे गजाआड झाल्यानंतर 'त्या' जुन्या आठवणींना गुन्हे शाखेत दबक्या आवाजात उजाळा मिळत आहे. इरफान व अयुब हे संबंधीत वरिष्ठ निरिक्षकाचे खबरे होते, अशीही चर्चा त्यात सुरू आहे.

दोघांनीच दिली अतिरेक्यांची नावे: इरफान व अयुब यांनीच त्या वरिष्ठ निरिक्षकास अफजल उस्मानी मुतालीबसह इंडियन मुजाहिदीनच्या अनेक अतिरेक्यांची माहिती दिली होती. ती माहिती मिळाल्याच्या आनंदात त्याने या दोघांना सैल सोडले. त्याचाच फायदा या दोघांनी उचलल्याची चर्चा सुरू आहे.>

Lokmat too got this story from its "sources" within police department. The beauty of this sourced story is its circular logic. Two car thieves are caught after the 2 Wagon-R cars used in Ahmedabad in 2008 were found to have been registered in Navi Mumbai, Nerul, and Panvel region. Police usually know the criminals *operating in their jurisdictions*; and these two guys must have been rounded up for questioning. The duo probably *spilled information* about *Afzal Usmani and several other terrorists*. This led to the arrest of 21 IM terrorists. Their interrogation revealed: "इरफान व अयुब यांनीच चोरलेल्या गाड्या मुजाहिददीनने स्फोटांसाठी वापरल्याचे स्पष्ट झाले", i.e. the cars stolen by the duo were used by mujaheddin (i.e. arrested 21terrorists) for bomb blast. Therefore, the duo is also terrorists. But this is belied by the fact that both were car thieves, & were informers of an unnamed senior police inspector. That means the "profession" of the duo was known to police department. And in that case what may have really happened is: cars used by terrorists for bomb blast were stolen (& sold) by the duo. This may look like a minor quibble of no consequence at all, but is not. The "profession" of the duo was to steal cars and sale them. It so happened that the 2 Wagon-R they sold ended up being used in the bomb blast. In any case, car thieves don't & can't dictate *end use* restrictions. This is not the same as what first construction implies: cars were stolen by the duo for bomb blasts; this implicates them in the conspiracy of bomb blasts. Based on the above report in Lokmat, that looks unlikely. The duo is certainly guilty of car thefts, but involvement in the conspiracy of bomb blasts is tenuously constructed. The slapping of more grievous charges may influence the duo to turn approvers at their trial.

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Media Round Up : SPO, Salwa Judum, & Supreme Court Verdict.

2011-07-08T07:09:00.000+05:30

Indian Express chose to speak with DGP Vishwaranjan of Chhattisgarh State (CS) post landmark Supreme Court verdict (click to read). The picture above accompanied its headline: “SC order will hurt; will disarm SPOs, won’t sack them: C’garh top cop”. The news had some glaring lapses in reporting or tacit shift in editorial stance or both. It said at one place: “The SPOs, the DGP said, were never a part of Salwa Judum, the anti-Naxal militia armed and supported by the state. “About two-thirds of them were manning rehabilitation camps and only one-third were helping the police in operations,” the DGP said”. The statement in ‘violet’ is enclosed in ‘quotes’, but the one in ‘red’ is left open ended –open to confusion or misinterpretation. The former has two distinct but interdependent sub-statements that would separate as:

1. The SPOs were never a part of Salwa Judum.

2. Salwa Judum (is) the anti-Naxal militia armed and supported by the state.

Does the reporter, Vivek Deshpande, attribute the second sub-statement too to DGP? The structure of original compound statement suggests that. If so, probably for the first time CS government’ top ranking functionary has admitted on record to have armed and supported the discredited vigilante movement. CS government and Centre have been in denial mode on this issue ever since 2005, which saw the birth of the movement. Harish Salwe, the counsel of CS before supreme had submitted in January 2011, * "There is no question of support to Salwa Judum. No question of supporting this group or any such movement which supports violence," Salve submitted before a Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar – Indian Express, Wednesday, January 19, 2011*. Chidambaram in the same month had stated, *Chidambaram said when the first time he was asked about the Salwa Judum after he took over as Home Minister, he made it clear in the Rajya Sabha that the Central government did not encourage or support any non-state actor or non-state player taking part in enforcing law and order – Press Trust of India, Monday, January 31,2010*.

DGP makes it clear that SPO or Special Police Officers have no links to Salwa Judum, which is the same stand Chidambaram took in the aforementioned interaction with media. Others though have alleged that CS police recruited *promising* Adivasi youth from the Salwa Judum movement to raise an auxiliary armed force on an honorarium to take advantage of their knowledge of local terrain, villages, people, and Maoist tactics. In view of these harshly contending positions, the caption below the photo above is curiously telling: “Police Officers oversee the training of *women SPOs* at a *Salwa Judum camp* in Konta, Dantewada”. If SPOs have no links to Salwa Judum, then why train women SPOs in a Salwa Judum camp? Does it mark a tacit shift in editorial stance –acceptance of bond between SPOs & Salwa Judum- in the light of Supreme Court judgment?

Ejaz Kaiser of Hindustan Times talked about the fate of SPOs, “Post-SC order, Maoist threat looms over SPOs”. He mentions: “The SPOs are now awaiting the state government's decision on their fate. The Sethia group of SPOs and Koya commandos chief Devdhar Sethia and the Dantewada-based Salwa Judum Sukma-Konta block president Soyam Mukka plan a meeting soon to discuss their future course of action”. Now this is a curious statement indeed. The Sethia Group of SPOs gives a clear impression that they are all linked by some umblical bond. That common bond obviously is Devdhar Sethia. Naturally, this is highly suspicious. If these SPOs were individually selected and recruited –that is what CS government implies when it says SPOs have no links with Salwa Judum-; then how did they develop a supra-organizational loyalty other than one to the police force of CS? The obvious explanation is that section of Salwa Judum owing allegiance to Sethia was recruited en masse as SPOs.

Next statement tells us that Sethia group of SPOs is meeting Sukma-Konta block president Soyam Mukka to plan the future course of action. Now why would a group of SPOs that has no links to Salwa Judum as per DGP-CS & Union Home Minister seek to meet a leader of Salwa Judum? Either Kaiser is making a mistake in his reporting, or the two venerable gentlemen – DGP & Union Home Minister have something to hide. Soyam Mukka had been proclaimed an absconder by the then Sessions Court Judge- South Bastar, Shri Sharad Gupta, on 10^th December 2009. (“Dantewada : Accused roam freely, Victims in custody.” & “Raipur : Free Run for An Absconder.”). Police had told the Court that they could not trace Mukka despite their best efforts. However, from Kaiser’s report about his movements & upcoming plans, and likewise from the foregoing two links it will become clear that he moves around freely in full knowledge of both police and journalists.

“SPO Ruling: Centre, States to assess impact on anti-naxal operations” is the heading given by Bharti Jain who reported on the impact of SC verdict for Economic Times. She says that the ruling on *SPOs* will affect North Eastern States and J &K too as the practice of appointing SPOs is not restricted to CS alone. Her report emphasizes one particular point three times: (1) “….the state police will have to divert its own personnel as well as Central forces engaged in counter-Naxal operations to protect the various relief camps housing the SPOs and their families”. (2) “Chhattisgarh DGP Vishwaranjan, when contacted by ET on Wednesday,….. would include expediting the police recruitment drive in the state and getting the Union home ministry to send in additional central forces, particularly to protect the camps housing SPOs”. (3) “Though only one-third of the SPOs appointed by the state government were engaged in active operations, with the remaining 70% guarding the camps in which SPOs lived with their families”. Why do officials talk repeatedly of guarding the camps where SPO live?

CS government had called all such camps as relief camps that were opened to care for and to protect victims of Maoist violence. There was some truth in it, but largely many Adivasi families were forcibly brought there as recruits for Salwa Judum when it was launched in 2005. Such camps were virtual ghettos under tight security protection to ward of Maoist attacks and of course to prevent inmates from fleeing. Regular security forces alongside SPOs stayed in and guarded these camps. Yet no one called them SPO camps until now. Suddenly after the SC verdict, the victims of Maoists violence and Salwa Judum supporters seem to have disappeared from these camps. That alone can explain the repeated reference to Camps by different officials as SPO camps. Or are SPOs a subset of Salwa Judum as is held by many?

All the 3 newspaper reports considered here seem to suggest just that.

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Murali Deora Resigns, feels left out undefended.

2011-07-06T10:37:00.000+05:30

“Deora was petroleum minister between January 2006 and January 2011 before he was moved to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in a reshuffle. According to the Congress leader, Deora wanted the media to be told by the petroleum ministry that it was he who had asked the CAG in 2007 to audit exploration spending in the Krishna-Godavari block operated by Reliance Industries Ltd, Rajasthan block by Cairn India and Panna-Mukta & Tapti fields by the BG Group”.

Is that so Mr. Deora?

“First, that the Government gave RIL and Cairn unjustified deadline extensions for the completion of exploration, ranging from three months to 12 months at a time”.

“Second, the Government allowed RIL and Cairn to retain unexplored contract areas which ought to have been returned to the Government, and re-auctioned, after a given (in the contract) point in time”. Given points were phase-I (June 2004, 25%) & phase-II (June 2005, 25%) – so area to be surrendered by RIL in total was 50%. During this time Mani Shankar Aiyar was the Petroleum minister (MSA-PM). But then, “In 2007, the then DGH, V.K. Sibal, endorsed RIL's claim that the entire area handed out to it contained petroleum and so should be treated as 'discovery area', not to be relinquished. Sibal argued that RIL's claim was in conformity with the production-sharing contract. The CAG refutes this claim. According to it, the terms of the production-sharing contract clearly require wells to be drilled and deposits found for an area to be declared 'discovery area'. ril had not drilled in the entire area”. Say Deora is in effect saying that while with one hand he allowed Sibal to endorse RIL claim, but with another he asked CAG to investigate. He gave his approval thus, “Deora gave the final approval to Sibal's decision regularising (without need for any relinquishment of land at all) RIL's contract area in July 2008 after a committee headed by an additional secretary of his ministry had endorsed the DGH's views in February 2008”. But was the committee constituted as routine matter? No, “Earlier, the then secretary of the ministry had termed Sibal's decision to regularise all of rils land improper, which led Deora to constitute the committee under the chairmanship of an additional secretary”. So the secretary had already given his view that DG-Hydro Carbons decision is *IMPROPER*. Where was the need to constitute a committee? Except, to favour RIL by *SHOPPING* for convenient *opinion*.

“Third, RIL inflated its capital expenditure requirements by 117 per cent between 2004 and 2006, which cost the Government revenue. the CAG has raised serious questions about RIL's sharp upward revision in its capital expenditure plans for KG-D6 between May 2004 and October 2006”. Again MSA-PM was the minister during this period. Even if as Deora claims *he ordered* the special audit in 2007, he had little choice in the matter; he had to do it because, “The special CAG audit was ordered after charges of goldplating artificially jacking up costs by RIL was raised by the Samajwadi Party and ADAG group of Anil Ambani”. Often it is the internecine battles or what could be termed *palace coups* that bring about the murky goings on in the elites' club.

Source : “India Today June 27, 2011”. “http://www.indianexpress.com/news/murli-deora-resigns-ahead-of-reshuffle/812830/”. “Economic times 13 June 2011”.

So Deora could have rightfully asked that like him even Mani Shankar Aiyar should be put under the scanner. No, one would disagree with that.

O O O O O O O O O O

Commentary on Express News: “Right to sex is fundamental, adultery not a crime”.

2011-06-30T19:29:00.000+05:30

Indian Express of 30^th June had this (http://tiny.tw/7PK) news item.

At the beginning, It is important to point out the most noteworthy feature of the *reported case*. The lawyer seems to *apparently* seek parity in Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, which defines adultery. Currently, only husband of a woman, who is having an extra-marital affair, is empowered to prefer charges. Lawyer argues this is discriminatory, and a wife too should get the right to prefer charges against her husband if he is found in an extra-marital relationship. This position is conscionable and unassailable. But, the title of the news report suggests something quite different including some of the other reported statements of the lawyer.

The news reporting is tardy and confusing. On one hand lawyer is arguing for more, & equal rights for women. But a closer look raises doubts about the real drift. Petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that it violates a “*woman’s* fundamental right to have sex with a man of her choice and, therefore, the same cannot be curtailed by an archaic and outdated concept of decency. It would appear from the foregoing argument that lawyer’s client is a woman. Further, lawyer is said to argue on behalf of a *Worli Resident* who is booked under a section (S.497) that attracts up to *5 years imprisonment*, if found guilty. Nowhere does the report talk of the *gender of the client*, who is only identified as a Worli resident. Now usually names are withheld when the victims of crimes of these nature (rape/ molestation/ adultery) are women (Yes, theoretically men too could be victims of even first two crimes). This leads to irresistible surmise that the *Worli Resident* is a woman.

Section 497 of IPC (http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s497.htm).

“Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rap, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may *extend to five years*, or with fine, or with both. In such case the *wife shall be punishable as an abettor* ”.

But section 497 here talks of *crime* committed by *man* and his punishment for it if he is found guilty. This is the same punishment, *up to 5 years imprisonment*, as what *Worli Resident* is likely to undergo if found guilty. This leads to opposite conclusion that the *Worli Resident* is a man, because the punishment prescribed is for a man, and not a woman. But hold for a minute! It also says that wife could be punished as an *abettor*. Since the punishment for abetment has not been spelt out in this section, and at least as far as I could gather nowhere else specifically, it would have to be covered by the omnibus, catch all section 109 of IPC for crimes of abetment.

Section 109 of IPC (http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s109.htm).

“Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and *no express provision* is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Explanation: - An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment”.

Therefore, if a man is found guilty of adultery, then his partner woman would attract the punishment for abetment as prescribed under section 109. That is, the woman would get same punishment as man – up to 5 years. With this it is possible for the *Worli Resident* to be a woman, and yet face the prospect of up to 5 years imprisonment. Thus it may look that the contradiction is resolved and consistency restored to the narrative. But it flies in the face of lawyer’s next submission: “the law (adultery) was *discriminatory* as a husband aggrieved by wife’s extra marital relationship can get *her paramour* booked under the section, however, wife in such a situation has no *redressal*”. This seems *obviously* to suggest that lawyer’s client, a Worli resident and presumably a woman, prefers to press a charge of adultery (or abetment) against her husband, whom she has found to be in extra-marital relationship with another woman – *married or unmarried*, who would of course have be charged with abetment (or adultery). But, if this is the case, then *Worli Resident* will be the *complainant* here, and not the defendant/ accused, who is facing the prospect of up to 5 years imprisonment as stated in news report.

Let us put the two reported statements of the lawyer side by side :

*Petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that it violates a “*woman’s* fundamental right to have sex with a man of her choice and, therefore, the same cannot be curtailed by an archaic and outdated concept of decency*.

*the law (adultery) was *discriminatory* as a husband aggrieved by wife’s extra marital relationship can get *her paramour* booked under the section, however, wife in such a situation has no *redressal *.

The first statement seems to argue in favour of *striking down* S.497. The second on the other hand argues for *creating parity* in S.497 by granting wife the right to prefer charges against a husband for adultery/ abetment (that means keeping S.497 on statute). How can someone argue for both striking down and for keeping S.497? This apparent contradiction, a confusion created by faulty reporting, is resolved by a neat subtlety. The lawyer is arguing for holding S.497 of IPC unconstitutional on *precisely the grounds that it discriminates* as regards right granted for preferring a charge of adultery/ abetment only to a man (husband), and not to a woman (wife). This is like defence through *double negation*. Since S.497 discriminates with respect to gender, remove the charge of adultery altogether from the legislation.

A moot question is : If the court were to ask the government to modify S.497 so as to empower a wife aggrieved by her husband’s adulterous behaviour to prefer charges under it, then where would it leave lawyer’s client, a Worli resident. She is obviously a woman and has been charged by her husband of abetment to adultery. If court takes stand as aforesaid, she would still go to jail. The strategy of the lawyer has a Fifty-Fifty chance. Indeed, it is a bad chance to take. Probably, there is no other alternative left for woman except *compromise* with her husband. Since it is a petition before Mumbai High Court, the Worli Resident is presumably already convicted by the trial court.

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

SC Judgements : About Membership & Possession.

2011-06-28T16:31:00.001+05:30

SC Judgements : About Membership & Possession.

This year Supreme Court gave two landmark judgments that should have acted as model guidelines for *law enforcement* agencies in the conduct of their work. It should have engendered a course correction right across the country and should have led to a review of all such cases under investigation or under trial that fall foul of these two judgments. Judicial magistrates, who frame charges when case is instituted, and subordinate judiciary that tries the accused should at least be aware of these judgments and their ramifications. Alas, that has not happened. But, disseminating information about these to people at large and public spirited activists is of utmost importance. Below, is a small introductory brief prepared by Stan Swamy, who is active in Jharkhand to defend against perversion of laws and constitution by the State and state machinery.

________________________________________________________

“Mere possession of Maoist material cannot be considered an offence”

Supreme Court judgement on 31^st May 2011

“Mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person

a criminal …:

Supreme Court judgement on 3^rd February 2011

Stan Swamy

Context: in Jharkhand, during the past 10 years,
550 young men & women were killed
by the police & para-military forces as being
suspected Naxalites / Maoists.

During the same period, about 4090 young men
& women have been arrested. 99% of those

killed or arrested are Indigenous Adivasis.

The charge against the majority of them is that
“naxalite literature” was found in their
possession and that they are “helpers of Maoists”

1. Mere possession of Maoist literature is not an offence

Observing that mere possession of materials eulogizing Maoist ideologies would licnot be considered an offence of sedition, the Supreme Court granted bail to a person accused of sedition on 31 May 2011. The court went on to say that “some persons have an ideology that revolution is the only way to reform the society. Can this be said to be an offence?” (The Hindu, 1 June 2011) On another occasion the Supreme Court observed that just as someone having a copy of Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography does not make him a Gandhian, so also someone having some maoist literature does not make him a maoist.

The sad fact in Jharkhand is that in very many cases the police have arrested young men and women precisely because they had some “naxalite literature” in their possession. What exactly constitutes ‘naxalite literature’ has not been defined. The question is: Is any written material that is critical of the Government and its functioning forbidden in our democratic society? Is putting out pamphlets calling on people to resist displacement an offence? Is announcing rallies and public meetings to protest indiscriminate arrests of young people improper? Is calling on people to assert their rights on their jal, jangal, jamin not allowed?

What the police usually do is arrest a person on the alleged reason of having naxal literature and then add on other clauses of the penal code on the hapless victim. Very sad to say, hundreds and thousands of young men and women are languishing in the different jails of Jharkhand under this accusation.

It is the urgent need of the hour that an independent commission is appointed to examine all the cases under this accusation and free them.

2. Mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. (3 February 2011)

The court rejected the doctrine of 'guilt by association'. Mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence

It is common knowledge that very many young men & women are held in prison on the suspicion of being “helpers of naxalites”. After arresting them other penal clauses are added on. It is an easy label that can be put on any one whom the police want to catch. It does not require any proof or witness. Let us keep in mind that they are not even members of any naxalite outfit. Supreme Court says even membership in a banned organisation does not make a person a criminal. How far removed are the law and order forces from the judiciary!

Even if there is a modicum of humanity left in the govt and the police, these young men and women should be set free.

23 June 2011

History : US administrations violate US Constitution-Sandinista/Contra/Iran

2011-05-24T09:32:00.000+05:30

Mario Goveia : “USA was trying to help the Nicaraguan Contras liberate Nicaragua from the communists led by Daniel Ortega who had taken control of the country”

Sandinista (Daniel Ortega) History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front ) : “The FSLN overthrew Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979, ending the Somoza dynasty, and established a revolutionary government in its place.^[1]^[2]Following their seizure of power, the Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, first as part of a Junta of National Reconstruction. Following the resignation of centrist members from this Junta, the FSLN took exclusive power in March 1981. They instituted a policy of mass literacy, devoted significant resources to health care, and promoted gender equality. In the 2006 Nicaraguan general election, former FSLN President Daniel Ortega was re-elected President of Nicaragua with 38.7% of the vote compared to 29% for his leading rival, bringing in the country's second Sandinista government after 16 years of the opposition winning elections ”.

Contras History (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm ) : “An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s”. “In his entry for August 9, 1985, North summarizes a meeting with Robert Owen ("Rob"), his liaison with the contras. They discuss a plane used by Mario Calero, brother of Adolfo Calero, head of the FDN, to transport supplies from New Orleans to contras in Honduras. North writes: "Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S." As Lorraine Adams reported in the October 22, 1994Washington Post, there are no records that corroborate North's later assertion that he passed this intelligence on drug trafficking to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ”.

Iran Contra Affair.

In October and November of 1986, it was discovered that for several years, agents of the United States government had been running an illegal operation to sell weapons to Iran and funnel the profits to the Contras, a military organization dedicated to overthrowing the leftist government of Nicaragua. In December, 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was appointed independent counsel by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (An independent counsel is a prosecutor appointed by the Court of Appeals at the request of the Attorney General of the United States to investigate suspected crimes by members of the executive branch of government.) During the early phases of the investigation, a cover-up was attempted by the Reagan administration. In the words of Walsh's final report, "following the revelation of [the Iran-Contra] operations in October and November 1986, Reagan Administration officials deliberately deceived the Congress and the public about the level and extent of official knowledge of and support for these operations."

The Iran-Contra investigation lasted from 1986 to 1994. During this period, Walsh charged 14 Reagan Administration officials with criminal acts. He obtained convictions and guilty pleas in 11 cases. Two convictions were overturned on a technicality, and several officials, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, were issued pre-trial pardons by President George H. W. Bush during the "lame duck" period following his electoral defeat in 1992. Walsh's investigation concluded that "the sales of arms to Iran contravened United States Government policy and may have violated the Arms Export Control Act," that "the provision and coordination of support to the Contras violated the Boland Amendment ban on aid to military activities in Nicaragua" (passed by Congress in 1984), and that "the Iran operations were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President George H. W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Schultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberg, and Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey." Walsh did not did not have legal power to bring charges against President Reagan or Vice President George H. Bush, as the Boland Amendment was not a criminal statute containing specific enforcement provisions. Congress did not exercise its power to impeach.

Historical background. In 1979, the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua was overthrown by a left-wing revolutionary group calling itself the Sandinistas (after Nicaragua revolutionary leader Augusto Cesár Sandino, 1893–1934). Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to secretly fund and equip the Contras, mostly former members of the Somoza military who sought the overthrow of the Sandinista government, and who were operating from bases in Honduras and Costa Rica (to the north and south of Nicaragua, respectively). On December 8, 1982, a bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives forbidding U.S. covert actions "for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua;" some funding for the Contras was still allowed. Some of the Congressional reluctance to give U.S. support to the Contras arose from their unsavory tactics. As General John Galvin, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, testified to Congress, the Contras were directed by the CIA to "[go] after soft [i.e., undefended] targets … not to try to duke it out with the Sandinistas directly." In practice, this meant attacking medical clinics, schools, farmer's cooperatives, and other undefended elements of the civil infrastructure, causing almost exclusively civilian casualties.

In May, 1984, Congress discovered that its 1982 restrictions had been disregarded by the Reagan administration. CIA agents, acting at the behest of National Security Council member Oliver North, had been placing mines in Nicaraguan harbors despite the Congressional ban on such activities. Consequently, Congress cut off all funding for the Contras and passed the Boland Amendment, a statute prohibiting any U.S. agency involved in "intelligence activities" from "supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual."

The "Enterprise." Direct and indirect support for the Contras continued in spite of the Boland Amendment, coordinated by Oliver North through a complex network he termed the "Enterprise." North's agents solicited money and arms for the Contras from three primary sources: (1) countries dependent on U.S. support, including South Africa, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Israel; (2) wealthy Americans sympathetic to President Reagan's policies; and (3) weapons sales to Iran. The Reagan administration was secretly selling arms to Iran (in probable violation of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, according to independent counsel Walsh); North's organization diverted money from these sales to the Contras. The Contras also raised money by allegedly selling large quantities of crack cocaine in the United States with CIA complicity. All these activities violated the Boland Amendment's ban on aid to military activities in Nicaragua, as well as other laws.

Administration support of the Contras became public knowledge when a Contra military supply plane was shot down over Nicaragua on October 5, 1986. An American crew member, Eugene Hasenfus, was taken prisoner and revealed that he was a CIA agent. A month later, a Lebanese newspaper exposed the Reagan administration's secret sales of arms to Iran. On November 25, 1986, Justice Department officials went public with the information that these two news items were linked: proceeds from the Iranian arms sales has been diverted to the Contras.

At this stage, what independent counsel Walsh characterized in his official report as "a new round of illegality" began: "Senior Reagan administration officials engaged in a concerted effort to deceive Congress and the public about their knowledge of and support for the operations."

Outcome of the investigation. Fourteen officials were charged with criminal violations as a result of the Iran-Contra investigation. All individuals tried were convicted; one CIA official's case was dismissed because the government refused to declassify information needed for his defense; and two convictions were overturned on technicalities. A few of the most prominent persons charged, as described in the final report of the independent counsel, are listed below:

(1) Elliott Abrams (Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs): plead guilty to withholding information from Congress.
(2) Robert C. McFarlane (National Security Advisor): plead guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress.
(3) Oliver L. North (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps and Assistant Deputy Director for Political-Military Affairs of the National Security Council, 1981–1986): convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress.
(4) John M. Poindexter (National Security Advisor): convicted of conspiracy, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress. Poindexter's conviction on all counts was overturned on appeal on the grounds that although he lied to Congress, he did so while speaking under a guarantee of immunity. Independent counsel Walsh noted in his final report that North's and Poindexter's convictions were "reversed on appeal on constitutional grounds that in no way cast doubt on the factual guilt of the men convicted."
(5) Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was charged with four counts of false statements and perjury. He was pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush, who also pardoned Elliot Abrams, Robert McFarlane, and two other men at the same time.

Aftermath. The Iran-Contra affair, like the CIA-organized invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961, struck a global blow to American credibility. Officials at the highest level had been detected organizing international terrorism (i.e., the Contras), violating U.S. law, and lying under oath. However, like that of the Bay of Pigs before it, the long-term impact of the Iran-Contra affair on U.S. politics and foreign policy was slight, and the central figures in the controversy later enjoyed high-profile careers in both the public and private sectors.

█ FURTHER READING:

BOOKS:

Busby, Robert. Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. Chippenham, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Macmillan, 1999.
Marshall, Jonathan, Peter Scott, and Jane Hunter. The Iran-Contra Connection. Boston: South End Press, 1987.

ELECTRONIC:

Walsh, Lawrence E. "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra Matters: Volume I: Investigations and Prosecutions." United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsel. August 4, 1993. < http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ > (December 10, 2002).
Webb, Gary. "Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion." 2002. Originally published in San Jose Mercury News, 1996. < http://home.attbi.com/~gary.webb/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html > (December 10, 2002).

=======================================

R P Shahi : "Mario, You have been quoting so much documents, that I went through the archives on my old CDs and found one very interesting case in Internation Court Hague..

NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES. I am sure you will not accuse Judges there of being anti US or pro Jehadis

Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 27 June 1986

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
(MERITS)

Judgment of 27 June 1986

For its judgment on the merits in the case concerning military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua brought by Nicaragua against the United States of America, the Court was composed as follows:

President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Judge ad hoc Colliard

* *

OPERATIVE PART OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT

THE COURT

(1) By eleven votes to four,

Decides that in adjudicating the dispute brought before it by the Application filed by the Republic of Nicaragua on 9 April 1984, the Court is required to apply the "multilateral treaty reservation"contained in proviso (c) to the declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court by the Government of the Untied States of America deposited on 26 August 1946;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Oda, Ago, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Ruda, Elias, Sette-Camara and Ni.

(2) By twelve votes to three,

Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(3) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(4) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(5) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(6) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(7) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière, Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Oda.

(9) By fourteen votes to one,

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled "Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas", and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Oda.

(10) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has committed acts calculated to deprive of its object and purpose the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(11) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(12) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(13) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(14) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(15) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, will be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharrière; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judge ad hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(16) Unanimously,

Recalls to both Parties their obligation to seek a solution to their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with international law.

Mainstream Media Spin : The US Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...

2011-05-24T06:46:00.000+05:30

We saw the answer to : Did US teach school kids Radical Islam & Jihad?

How did mainstream media report this story? Washington Post allowed the truth to slip through. What was the story in other ‘Venerable Newspapers’, who we trust for all our NEWS? Jared Israel shows us how to perform Operation “Reveal Truth”!

Sadanand.

Truth has a dirty habit of surfacing no matter what! Alas, it often arrives on the scene way too late!!

=====================================================

The Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...

Why has the US been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?

And why is President Bush hiding it?

By Jared Israel
[Posted 9 April 2002]

=======================================

Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?
Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"
Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist (or Islamic fundamentalist) textbooks into Afghanistan.
Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd. [1]
Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..."
-- Washington Post, 23 March 2002
See footnote [1]

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."
So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence."
How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?
=============
Let's be reasonable
=============
Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.
But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.
So if the books weren't supposed to be Islamist, that is if their fanatical content contradicted US policy in Afghanistan, shouldn't the mass media and top politicians, such as President George Bush, now be calling for an investigation? Shouldn't they be demanding to know the identity of the official or officials who subverted the intended US policy by flooding Afghanistan with jihad primers?
Indeed, considering the disastrous consequences, shouldn't US officials and the media be questioning the very practice of violating the sovereignty of other countries by distributing millions of Islamic fundamentalist schoolbooks?
Yet using the media search engine, Lexis-Nexis, we could find no evidence that any mainstream Western newspaper, other than theWashington Post, nor any TV station or government leader ever questioned, let alone denounced, the export of millions of Islamist schoolbooks to Afghanistan.
Quite the contrary.
For example here's what the Boston Globe wrote in an article about the obstacles to education in Afghanistan, a year after the US invasion:

"The obstacles to accomplishing that goal are enormous. What few schools impoverished Afghanistan once had - about 2,000 - are now all virtually destroyed, pummeled by gunfire or turned into refugee camps. Teachers here have not been paid for months, even years. Those schoolbooks that still exist are pro-Taliban screeds and deemed unusable.
-- Elizabeth Neuffer in the Boston Globe, March 17, 2002 [2]

The article implies that the unusable textbooks were produced by and for the Taliban - "pro-Taliban screeds." The author, Elizabeth Neuffer, is the Globe's UN Bureau Chief. Surely she must know that the textbooks in question were made in USA and that the US is continuing to ship Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan. Instead of exposing the scandal that the US promotes Muslim fanaticism in Afghanistan, she misrepresents the books and misleads her readers.
Other newspapers spun more elaborate lies. Here is the Daily Telegraph from Sydney, Australia:

[Daily Telegraph excerpt starts here]
"AFGHAN children ran, skipped and dawdled to their classrooms like pupils everywhere yesterday for the start of a new school year -- with girls and women teachers back in class and subjects like math replacing the Islamic dogma of the Taliban.
"In a symbolic break from a war-scarred past, children opened new textbooks written by Afghan scholars based at universities in the US.
"There are even pictures of people -- images banned by the fundamentalist Taliban."
- The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), March 25, 2002 [3]
[Daily Telegraph excerpt ends here]

By beginning the article with the irrelevant but cheery image - "Afghan children ran, skipped and dawdled...[etc]." - the Telegraph prepares us for an upbeat news experience. We are not disappointed. We are told that in the new textbooks:

"There are even pictures of people -- images banned by the fundamentalist Taliban."
-- Daily Telegraph See footnote [3]

Again we get the impression that the Taliban were responsible for the bad old texts but due to the US invasion "children opened new textbooks...".
Unfortunately, as the Washington Post investigators reported:

"Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code." --Washington Post, March 23, 2002

Other than their objections to the human face, the Taliban were perfectly happy with the US-produced primers.
As if presenting evidence of a sea change, the Telegraph tells that now Afghan children have schoolbooks "written by Afghan scholars based at universities in the US."
Similarly, an article five weeks earlier in the Omaha World-Herald declares that, "Afghanistan stands at least a chance of hauling a modern, healthy society up out of the ashes of war and oppression," partly because University of Nebraska at Omaha "officials and staffers" will be "cranking up their presses in neighboring Pakistan" to churn out schoolbooks, all funded by "a $ 6.5 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development [AID]." [4]
Neither newspaper mentions that the bad old schoolbooks "were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies." --Washington Post, March 23, 2002)
What about the US government? Have any US congressmen demanded an investigation to find out who in the US government was involved in the production of jihad primers that "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence"?
No they have not.
=====================
Speaking of forked tongues...
=====================
What about George Walker Bush?
You may recall that George and Laura Bush have made passionate speeches denouncing Islamic fundamentalism. At first Mr. Bush told us we needed to attack Afghanistan in order to stop Mr. bin Laden. But later on he and Laura Bush told us we were fighting to crush the vicious fundamentalists.
Has George Bush said anything about the textbooks?
Yes, Mr. Bush talked about the jihad primers in a March 16th radio broadcast. He held nothing back:

"And before the end of the year, we'll have sent almost 10 million of them [that is, new textbooks] to the children of Afghanistan. These textbooks will teach tolerance and respect for human dignity instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- George W. Bush, "Weekly Radio Address," March 16, 2002 [5]

Note the phrase, "instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."
So according to Bush, Afghan school children won't have to contend with bad schoolbooks anymore because finally the US has taken charge, replacing those other guys, those evil educators who published textbooks "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."
The amazing thing is not only that he tells such total lies but that he delivers them with such righteous indignation.
What about the new textbooks? Will they "teach tolerance and respect for human dignity" as Honest George promises?
To be precise (which may be unwise in today's world) how will the new textbooks that George Bush Junior is shipping into Afghanistan differ from the old ones? You know, those old books that were also designed at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and paid for by the US government agency, AID? You know, those old, un-American books that George Bush Junior attacked for "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry"? Those terrible old books that were shipped into Afghanistan by Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior?
Here's the Washington Post again:

"On Feb. 4, [Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force] arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said."
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- Washington Post, March 23, 2002

So it appears that the only change is that some violent pictures have been removed from the printing plates and some fruit has been added. There is no indication that the texts have been changed.
What does a non-fundamentalist Afghan educator think about the new schoolbooks?

"'The pictures [in the old schoolbooks] are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse,' said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.'"
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- Washington Post, March 23, 2002

So the United States government is right now shipping into Afghanistan millions of Islamic Fundamentalist schoolbooks whose texts, according to a non-Fundamentalist Afghan educator, are not just "horrendous," they are "much worse."
Is it possible that this is all a terrible mistake? That Mr. Bush and US AID just don't know what's in the new schoolbooks?
Apparently not.
According to the Washington Post, the "White House defends the religious content" of the schoolbooks. And as for US AID, the Agency for International Development, which pays for the books:

'It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction,' Stratos said. 'But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.'"
-- Washington Post, March 23, 2002

So because education is predominantly secular it's OK for the schoolbooks to be entirely fundamentalist. Likewise, since marriage is predominantly monogamous it's OK to cheat. And since banks are predominantly places where people deposit money, it's OK to rob a bank.
Got it?
Mr. Bush describes the texts of the old books as "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry." But note, having been republished in the new books, these exact same texts have been reborn. Now they are "religious instruction" (says US AID) and "religious content" (says the White House). It's a modern miracle.
Reading these news reports and statements one might feel a certain sympathy for citizens of the US and allied countries, required to hold in their minds at one time a) the conviction that Mr. Bush is sincerely fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and b) the knowledge that the US is spending millions of dollars to indoctrinate Afghan school children with Islamic fundamentalism.
Not to worry. This problem has been solved by the US and allied mass media, which, with the exception of the Washington Post, have never told their readers and viewers who it was that produced the old books or what it is that's in the new ones.
Even the Washington Post has pulled its punches. For example, consider the headline of the March 23rd article, the only one that deals critically with the jihad primers.
Here's the headline. (Headlines are quite important because with any given article, most people only read the headline.)

"From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts."

"Violent Soviet-Era textbooks." This phrase doesn't even make it clear that the books were shipped in by the US government! They could have been hateful Russian books.
And the phrase "Complicate Afghan Education Efforts" sounds like the books are hindering current US attempts at effecting progressive change. Nobody would guess from this headline that US AID has been forcing Islamic fundamentalist texts on Afghan kids for 20 years or that they're still importing the same texts today, minus the guns and with more fruit.
In the body of the article the Post asserts without evidence that steeping "a generation in [Islamist] violence" was an "unintended consequence" of giving Afghan children violent Islamist schoolbooks.
"Unintended consequence" is fast becoming the US Establishment's favorite excuse (catch phrase) for the many disasters of its foreign policy. "We didn't know. We weren't prepared. We used old maps. We didn't see the train. We thought there were tanks in the refugee column. Who could not have expected this to happen?" and on and on.
But does the case of the Islamist textbooks involve unintended consequences? Doesn't it in fact appear to be deliberate policy?
Now wouldn't it be considerate if they told us: what's the policy?
-- Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

Did US teach school kids Radical Islam & Jihad?

2011-05-24T06:41:00.000+05:30

Questions contributed by Mario Goveia :

Just ask some simple questions.

Is the US teaching Pakistani school kids to hate India and Hindus in their public schools and madrassas? ”.

Answers by Washington Post & The Center for Public Integrity, both from Washington D.C., United States of America.

THE ABC'S OF JIHAD IN AFGHANISTAN * Courtesy, USA
By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post, 23 March 2002 [Posted 3 April 2002]
=======================================

*As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States has delivered 4 million radical Islamist texbooks. More are on the way.* (See text below).

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence. Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a "scrubbing" operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets. The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion. Organizations accepting funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development must certify that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. The certification states that AID "will finance only programs that have a secular purpose. . . . AID-financed activities cannot result in religious indoctrination of the ultimate beneficiaries."

The issue of textbook content reflects growing concern among U.S. policymakers about school teachings in some Muslim countries in which Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism are on the rise. A number of government agencies are discussing what can be done to counter these trends. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have repeatedly spotlighted the Afghan textbooks in recent weeks. Last Saturday, Bush announced during his weekly radio address that the 10 million U.S.-supplied books being trucked to Afghan schools would teach "respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry." The first lady stood alongside Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai on Jan. 29 to announce that AID would give the University of Nebraska at Omaha $6.5 million to provide textbooks and teacher training kits. AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity." Some legal experts disagreed. A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID's former director established that taxpayers' funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union. Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has "not a legal leg to stand on" in distributing the books. "Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious," she said.

Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.

"I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force. AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996. Officials said private humanitarian groups paid for continued reprintings during the Taliban years. Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers. "The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.

An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages. The military content was included to "stimulate resistance against invasion," explained Yaquib Roshan of Nebraska's Afghanistan center. "Even in January (2002), the books were absolutely the same . . . pictures of bullets and Kalashnikovs and you name it." During the Taliban era, censors purged human images from the books. One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing. Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says. "We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."

After the United States launched a military campaign last year, the United Nations' education agency, UNICEF, began preparing to reopen Afghanistan's schools, using new books developed with 70 Afghan educators and 24 private aid groups. In early January, UNICEF began printing new texts for many subjects but arranged to supply copies of the old, unrevised U.S. books for other subjects, including Islamic instruction. Within days, the Afghan interim government announced that it would use the old AID-produced texts for its core school curriculum. UNICEF's new texts could be used only as supplements. Earlier this year, the United States tapped into its $296 million aid package for rebuilding Afghanistan to reprint the old books, but decided to purge the violent references. About 18 of the 200 titles the United States is republishing are primarily Islamic instructional books, which agency officials refer to as "civics" courses. Some books teach how to live according to the Koran, Brown said, and "how to be a good Muslim."

UNICEF is left with 500 000 copies of the old "militarized" books, a $200,000 investment that it has decided to destroy, according to U.N. officials. On Feb. 4, Brown arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said. "We turned it from a wartime curriculum to a peacetime curriculum," he said.

(c) 2002 The Washington Post Company * Posted for Fair Use Only
=========================================================================================================================

University of Nebraska at Omaha

Center for Afghanistan Studies

Omaha, NE 68182-0006

Phone: (402) 554-2376

Fax: (402) 554-3681

http://www.unomaha.edu/~world/cas/

“USAID employee Chris Brown told the Omaha World Herald that the Center was uniquely positioned to meet the textbook challenge. After USAID stopped funding the Center in 1994, Thomas E. Gouttierre, dean of International Studies and Programs and director of Afghanistan Studies at UNO, had continued to raise money privately in order to keep the Pakistan publishing operation open. Thus, in 2002, the Center was already prepared and ready to start printing the textbooks. However, the content of the books, which UNO developed in the 1980s with USAID funding, had to be censored. Critics contended the books' content, which included drawings of guns, bullets and mines, promoted and strengthened an era of jihad violence. So before distributing any more of the books to Afghan students, workers at the Pakistan operation started a "scrubbing" effort to remove violent pictures and references. Yaseer said the Center printed and delivered about 15 million books on time.

But even without the violent images, the content of the books sparked controversy because they still contained Muslim tenets and verses from the Koran. Organizations that receive USAID funding must prove that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. A U.S. federal appeals court had previously ruled in a 1991 case that taxpayer funds could not be used for religious instruction, even overseas. But according to the Washington Post, the Bush White House defended the religious content, saying its presence was necessary because Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture. USAID officials also publicly defended the religious material.”

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=61

Background

The University of Nebraska at Omaha is home to the Center for Afghanistan Studies, which was established in 1972 and is currently the only academic program in the United States exclusively concerned with Afghanistan affairs. It receives almost all of its funding from outside sources; the university pays for several employees' salaries.

From its start until 1978, UNO participated in an exchange program with Kabul University. But after the 1978 pro-Soviet coup, the Afghanistan programs stopped.

It wasn't until 1984 that the Center received its first USAID contract to provide educational training programs and facilities to Afghan refugees. The Center continued the educational programs until the mid 1990s, receiving more than $60 million from USAID.

Although USAID funded the Center's educational and training efforts in Afghanistan, the CIA helped to design and implement the overall program in an effort to strengthen resistance against the Soviet occupation.

"The CIA was involved in a kind of covert assistance to the resistance to fight against Soviets," Raheem Yaseer, assistant director, told the Center for Public Integrity.

The Center, with USAID funding, established offices in Pakistan to train and educate Afghan refugees, who had formed seven mujahedeen resistance groups. Yaseer said the Center's educational work helped the resistance against the Soviet occupation.

"We helped all of these seven parties with school supplies, developing curriculum, paying teachers, teacher training and manpower training," Yaseer said. "They were taught about love for the country, love for freedom, hating the Soviet occupier."

The Soviets left Afghanistan in February 1989.

In October 1997, Gouttierre told the Omaha World Herald that the CIA was involved in the overall program but did not directly provide money to him or the Center.

For 10 years, the Center received most of its Afghanistan education project funding from USAID. But after Congress ended government-sponsored aid to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, USAID stopped funding the Center. Still, it wasn't without funding for long.

In 1997, Unocal, an American oil company, stepped in with an offer.

Unocal hoped to facilitate a business relationship with the Taliban in order to promote a natural gas pipeline project. The company was the development manager for the seven-member Central Asia Gas pipeline consortium that also included Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, Indonesia Petroleum, three other companies and the Turkmenistan government.

Unocal offered the Center an up-to-two-year contract worth as much $1.8 million to train Afghan men to build pipeline, which would run from Turkmenistan through a Taliban-controlled portion of Afghanistan to Pakistan, where it would be marketed. The pipeline could also be extended into India.

"For its land-locked Central Asian neighbors, Afghanistan is a strategically located ‘commerce corridor' to the Arabian Sea," Marty Miller, Unocal's vice president, said in prepared testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1997. He testified at a hearing before the subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asia Affairs when the CentGas project was still underway.

"They [Unocal] wanted to pave the road and create a good feeling," Yaseer told the Center for Public Integrity. "They gave us about $900,000 [up to $1.8 million for two years] to conduct man power training and train people in crafts, carpentry, masonry, electric and building."

As the Center for Afghanistan Studies began training civilian men, it also invited key Afghan officials to visit the university. In December 1997, Unocal sponsored a meeting that brought Taliban ministers to the United States, including the minister of mines and industry, the minister for culture and information and the minister for planning. The Taliban's U.N. representative also joined the visiting group. During their stay, they went to Unocal's facilities in Texas, visited the State Department and toured the University of Nebraska at Omaha. In May 1998, two Taliban ministers again visited the university on a Unocal-funded trip. Public outrage over the partnership soon erupted.

On June 1, 1998, women's rights organizations, including the Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women and the Women's Alliance for Peace and Freedom in Afghanistan, voiced their concern at a Unocal stockholders meeting. Newspapers nationwide covered the issue. Four days later, Unocal announced it would not renew its contract with the Center.

On Aug. 7, 1998, al Qaeda operatives bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Soon, Unocal announced that it would put the pipeline plan on hold.

In a press release announcing the withdrawal from the project, Unocal said it would, however, continue to provide "humanitarian support and skills training to Afghanistan through CARE and the University of Nebraska at Omaha." The oil company added that neither program was designed to provide pipeline construction skills training.

The Center trained 400 Afghan men before Unocal unexpectedly pulled out of the contract.

"They were hot for it then, but they gave up," Yaseer said of Unocal. "But [the 400 Afghan men] all have their own businesses now, so it was a useful program."

Yaseer said the Center hopes to work with whomever ends up building the pipeline by training Afghans in vocational skills. He said the pipeline project is very complicated now because more companies are interested in being part of the consortium.

"If American companies get it, probably we will have a chance," he said. "We will just be interested in training in vocational skills and increasing their chances of getting employment with the pipeline."

Although the 1997 contract with Unocal ended, public scrutiny and questions about the university's connections to the Taliban continued, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks.

On January 29, 2002, as the U.S. bombing campaign on Afghanistan slowed down, USAID awarded the Center $6.5 million to provide books and training for Afghanistan's interim government to resume schooling. The Center, which has a textbook publishing operation in Pakistan, was to print 8 million books and train 4,000 teachers for an estimated 750,000 students by the schools' starting date, March 23.

USAID employee Chris Brown told the Omaha World Herald that the Center was uniquely positioned to meet the textbook challenge. After USAID stopped funding the Center in 1994, Thomas E. Gouttierre, dean of International Studies and Programs and director of Afghanistan Studies at UNO, had continued to raise money privately in order to keep the Pakistan publishing operation open. Thus, in 2002, the Center was already prepared and ready to start printing the textbooks.

However, the content of the books, which UNO developed in the 1980s with USAID funding, had to be censored. Critics contended the books' content, which included drawings of guns, bullets and mines, promoted and strengthened an era of jihad violence. So before distributing any more of the books to Afghan students, workers at the Pakistan operation started a "scrubbing" effort to remove violent pictures and references.

Yaseer said the Center printed and delivered about 15 million books on time.

But even without the violent images, the content of the books sparked controversy because they still contained Muslim tenets and verses from the Koran. Organizations that receive USAID funding must prove that tax dollars will not be used to advance religion. A U.S. federal appeals court had previously ruled in a 1991 case that taxpayer funds could not be used for religious instruction, even overseas. But according to the Washington Post, the Bush White House defended the religious content, saying its presence was necessary because Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture. USAID officials also publicly defended the religious material.

In 2003, the Center lost the USAID contract for Afghan educational textbooks and teacher training. The money went, instead, to Creative Associates International Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based, private company.

"We were very disappointed," said Center director Thomas Gouttierre, whose organization has been involved in Afghanistan education projects since 1973. "We invested our hearts in Afghanistan over a long period of time.

"Maybe it's possible that AID was looking for a different approach that they thought would be provided by a for-profit. The trends seems to be in favor of for-profits."

Yaseer said efficiency and quality are secondary to politics in the process of selecting companies and organizations to perform work in Afghanistan. "It depends on who knows who in the administration, USAID and the State Department," said Yaseer, who worked as an English professor at Kabul University during the Soviet occupation.

"Universities try their best to recruit professionals, but these belt[way] bandits look for surcharges and just grab anybody that comes in handy."

Though the Center did not get a new contract, Yaseer said it had money left over from the 2002 contract and received a no-cost extension from USAID to continue training teachers from its office in Afghanistan.

"I don't think that we're going after that particular [contract] again," Gouttierre said. "Afghanistan is going through some changes."

Gouttierre, the Center's director, lived and worked in Afghanistan for 10 years as a Peace Corps volunteer and Fulbright fellow. He also coached the Afghan National Basketball team and served as senior political affairs officer for the U.N. Peacekeeping Mission to Afghanistan in 1996 and 1997. Gouttierre met Yaseer in Kabul in 1964.

Gouttierre was also a member of the Afghanistan Relief Committee, a private, tax-exempt group founded by former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Robert Neumann and former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs' wife, Mary Ann Dubs, in 1980 to help Afghan refugees.

The Boston Globe reported in 2001 that "The Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha has longstanding ties with Washington policymakers and collaborates regularly with intelligence." Gouttierre told the paper in a Nov. 25, 2001 interview, "We're at war. I'm an American, and the American government is leading this war. If we have some knowledge or analysis that could be of advantage, we should be forthcoming."

In 2001, UNO spent a total of $60,000 lobbying Congress, the White House and other agencies on budget and appropriations, science and technology, and education. In 2002, UNO spent a total of $120,000 lobbying Congress, the White House and other agencies on the same issues. For its lobbying efforts in both years, UNO hired Washington, D.C.-based firm Van Scoyoc Associates Inc.

Afghanistan contracts

The State Department is funding two of the Center's current projects in Afghanistan.

Under a $512,000, 11-month State Department contract, the Center is bringing female Afghan teachers to the United States for training. In October 2002, a group of 13 Afghan teachers, all women, spent five weeks in Nebraska and one week in Washington, D.C. A second group of 12 female teachers is expected to arrive in the States October 29, 2003.

The State Department also gave the Center $60,468 in July 2003 to re-establish the Afghan Fulbright exchange program, an international educational exchange program that President Harry Truman signed into law in 1946. The contract calls for the Center to recruit and prepare 20 to 40 Afghan college graduates who will come to the U.S. to study at various universities for six months to one year. It has been 24 years since Afghans had access to the Fulbright program.

The Center for Afghanistan Studies is also using USAID money, remaining from a $6.5 million contract it received in 2002, to continue its field office in Kabul, which "has a small staff which can be readily incorporated into projects intended for reconstruction of Afghan education at the present or in the future," according to the Center's Web site. Currently, the field office staff is training teachers.

Government ties

Thomas E. Gouttierre, the director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies, is an old friend of Zalmay Khalilzad, President's Bush's nominee as ambassador to Afghanistan and a former paid adviser to Unocal. While working for the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Khalilzad conducted risk analysis for Unocal for the proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Gouttierre also coached Khalilzad's basketball team at Habibia high school in Afghanistan. That team, as well as teams from various Afghan colleges, helped to form the Afghan National Basketball Team in the early 1970s.

During the December 1997 Taliban visit to the United States, Khalilzad joined the group for its trip to Unocal's facilities in Texas. In 1997, Khalilzad, Gouttierre and Marty Miller, Unocal vice president, testified together before the Senate Foreign Relations Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee.

In July 1999, Gouttierre gathered with a dozen Afghan leaders for a confidential meeting, after which he submitted the first of eight classified reports to the State Department.

Peter Tomsen, a former U.S. ambassador to Armenia who teaches courses in American foreign policy and Eurasia at UNO, was President George W. Bush's special envoy on Afghanistan with the rank of ambassador from 1989 to 1992. He was also the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the State Department, United States deputy chief of mission to China from 1986 to 1989 and the director of the State Department's Office of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldive Affairs from 1983 to 1985.

In October 2001, Tomsen told the Chicago Tribune that when UNO hosted Afghan and sometimes Taliban officials' visits, it served as a neutral ground where Afghan leaders, who often disagreed with one another, could informally give information to the U.S. government. According to the Chicago Tribune, "Since 1986, spanning the early years of post-Soviet occupation to the oppressive regime of the Taliban, the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the Omaha commuter campus has served as a back door for U.S. intelligence efforts to expose Afghan leaders to American ideas and democracy."

Thomas E. Eighmy, research associate for the Center for Afghanistan Studies, is a retired USAID officer.

Ronald Roskens, who is a former UNO chancellor , was the director of USAID in the first Bush administration.

—Brooke Williams

============================================

An Exchange triggered by Arundhati Roy’s article.

2011-05-02T17:51:00.000+05:30

Arundhati Roy wrote an article perhaps for The Dawn newspaper called “Operation Green Hunt’s Urban Avatar”. It was shared by someone on ArkitektIndia@Yahoogroups.com less than a year ago. It said at its highpoint: “Is this what Military Intelligence calls psyops (psychological operations)? Or is it the urban avatar of Operation Green Hunt? In which a government news agency helps the home-ministry to build up a file on those it wants to put away, inventing evidence when it can't find any? Or is PTI trying to deliver the more well-known among us to the lynch mob so that the government does not have to risk its international reputation by arresting or eliminating us? Or is it just a way of forcing a crude polarization, a ridiculous dumbing down of the debate-if you're not with "us" you are a Maoist? Not just a Maoist, but a stupid, arrogant, loudmouthed Maoist. Whatever it is, it's dangerous, and shameless, but it isn't new. Ask any Kashmiri, or any young Muslim being held as a "terrorist" without any evidence except baseless media reports. Ask Mohammed Afzal, sentenced to death to ‘satisfy the collective conscience of society’”.

Roy’s uncompromising attitude and impetuosity of her prose often make her highly controversial. Something she seems to revel in. But it serves a purpose. It rivets attention of media to her and hopefully issues she espouses where none otherwise would have been forthcoming. It attracted the following comment on the forum.

Pankaj Jain -: The fundamental fallacy in the position of Arundhati Roy, and her supporter is a baseless assumption- assertion that the so called supporters of poor and oppressed, Maoists, would be and are more effective supporters of poor than our current political system. There is absolutely no evidence to this effect. The record of such people, when in power, is far worse, all over the World, starting from Communist regimes all over the world, thuggish dictators of Africa who came to power to help their country's poor. In equality grew under most such regimes compared to the so-called Capitalists countries, and people suffered enormously. You can talk anything, but when it comes to doing politics in real world, under the complexity of billions of self-interests competing with each other, it is difficult to do better than a functioning democracy. Sure, every functioning system, including Indian democracy, can and should do better but to use its imperfections as an excuse to support the self-appointed ruthless oppressors is a madness, and must be opposed, and suitably dealt with. If there is one glaring weakness of democracies, it is their inability to deal with their thuggish opponents with adequate power and resolve, instead of giving them the protection due to a competitors within the system, while they are self confessed enemies, bent on destroying the system. It is indeed overdue to deal with them and their supporters suitably, exactly as they deal with their enemies.

Pankaj Jain :-

Sadanand -: Real world is undeniably complex. Would such reductionist formulations “…….under the complexity of billions of self-interests competing with each other” or “….every functioning system, including Indian democracy, can and should do better” capture it?

India today has many divides, subdivides, and sub-sub divides. There have been attempts at subsuming these under grand divides like ‘India Vs Bharat’. While all such attempts suffer from various and their own peculiar infirmities, I still venture to advance one – the ‘Democratic Divide’. There are those Indians, who to a greater or lesser degree, have benefited from the present set up – let us call them “Democratic Dividend Winners (DDW). It is my belief that you, I, and others on such forums belong here. Those outside it have, to a greater to or lesser degree, been reaping only losses
from the current dispensation – let us call them “Democratic Deficit Losers” (DDL). Interestingly, the cream among DDW show scant interest in the quinquennial democratic ritual of voting because the outcomes never affect their “dividend matrix”, while many among DDL participate religiously in
the hope that this time things will change their lot. The DDW and DDL are not rigid groupings. There is movement among them. But that movement has been a mere trickle not justified by the pretensions of democracy, while those who have continued to remain within DDL, their plight has been worsening.

While ruling elite among DDW don’t feel & care for the DDL because the system operates (or is operated) for their enrichment & aggrandizement; the others within this group find themselves in a secure comfort zone from which they won’t like to be disturbed, though they are moved from time to time by the plight of those suffering from abject poverty or grave injustice. Such people find
this democracy imperfect and call for tinkering it to improve. They also feel mortally threatened by any signs of armed resistance to Indian State. Additionally, this sub group easily buys the argument that Indian State advances, “more of the same growth & development doctrine” will promote all of DDL to DDW, when the evidence of over 60 years hardly supports such formulation or inspires confidence.
DDL on the other hand have learnt albeit slowly that the Indian State makes tall promises of improving their lot come election times, but has mostly, substantially, observed them in breach. In the initial years of the republic when the extremely poor and marginalized sections among DDL were dispossessed of their Jal, Jungle & Jameen, they mostly had to vacate without any eyebrows being raised. But slowly as the awareness about the rights has gained momentum, DDL are learning and have learnt to fight back. In India today people’s movements have gathered steam all over and largely all these are putting up fights within the democratic framework. There are large scale and peaceful resistance movements going on across India against land acquisitions for SEZs, Power Plants, Mining, private dams, hill stations (Lavasa – in Maharashtra), ports etc. The government doesn’t follow the laws of the land and policies formulated by itself. Discussions with
project affected people are rarely held, Land acquisitions/ Environmental impacts reports seldom circulated, public hearings are invariably held in breach of norms, resettlement and rehabilitation policies never implemented, directives of courts - even superior judiciary - are brazenly flouted, the list of such grievances is endless. Indian State has found only one answer, meet this resistance with brutal force. Mainstream media rarely talks about it fairly. Mostly it is portrayed as law and order problem caused by few miscreants or vested interests. The contradictions are sharpening as the Indian Capital integrates with global capital, and IT/ ITES/BPO/ LPO/ KPO and what have you are creating a sizable constituency of vested drumbeaters for the Indian State; while on the other hand assaults on the DDL are increasing in ferocity and frequency. In this bloody war launched by the Indian State, would it be surprising if the currently peaceful people’s movements, and largely these are peaceful and unarmed, turn violent? And if they do, who is to be blamed?

Maoist may have their own ideology, their mode of functioning, and their preference for armed struggle; but they are presently restricted as far as I can make out to the thickly forested areas and are organizing among the most poor and threatened communities. These have seen the ugliest face of Indian Democracy – brutal kleptocracy. Numerically, I believe, Maoists are not all that large as the Indian State makes them out to be. Unfortunately, their violent resistance alone seems to give results to their constituency, which peaceful efforts have failed to derive. Take the case of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram (VCA) In Dantewada who was active among the Adivasis for some 18 years and was doing good work even by government accounts up until 2005 – the year Salwa Judum (SJ) was formed. When the pogrom of this vigilante group began, VCA could not remain a mute spectator to the atrocities SJ committed. Govt. of Chhattisgarh had its campus illegally destroyed last year in May. VCA had organized a Jan Sunvai based on a promise given by P Chidambaram (PC) in a face to face meeting with Himanshu Kumar – director(VCA), but PC never followed up on his commitment. VCA had spread the message of the Jan Sunvai in the midst of operation green hunt in anticipation of it. Later when it appeared it wouldn’t happen, news of cancellation couldn’t be spread to everyone as some key activists of VCA were arrested and another set up – Ma Danteshwari Swabhimani Adivasi Manch – was formed of SJ to counter terrorize those who would come for the meeting. Some 20 odd people who came from one remote village in the jungle were picked up outside VCA’s makeshift office in Dantewada by SJ and Police in the presence of independent journalists from Mumbai and some more people. Event was filmed, but these journalists were assaulted, their equipment removed, and were charged with dacoity. But since they belonged to DDW, they release could be secured. But the poor DDL have disappeared. What is the lesson for Adivasis? Peaceful Gandhian methods don’t work!! If the armed Maoists succeed in solving Adivasis problems through the barrel of the gun, then what is the conclusion they could or would draw?
Government is not listening to democratic struggles at all. But at least on the face of it giving offers to Maoists of talks if they abjure violence for 72 hours. A thug understands the language of violence. Those who strongly oppose violence, should ask the government to abjure violence against all those people’s movements that are still peaceful even after repeated violent assaults by state forces. Government should also stop violence in the Maoists areas of Dandakaranya and give opportunity to organizations like VCA who have claimed that they can reach doctors, teachers, PDS, etc. into the remotest corners totally unharmed by anybody. Let the tribals see that Gandhian methods still succeed in India. That is the way to end Maoist violence. Else, even peaceful movements in other parts of the country who are facing State’s brutality are watching keenly. Secondly, one has to recognize that in this fateful engagement between DDW and DDL (this may sound over dramatic, but I have a point to make), there is no neutral ground in the sense no one is innocent. Silence or Neutrality is not an option.

Sadanand.

PS : Largely I have kept this discussion free of examples or data. Not that I can’t provide these, but these would be second hand stories. I have given only one example of which I know directly. I am sure there are many on this & other forums, who have rich & experiential knowledge of the conditions of the oppressed, and therefore could provide appropriate evidence. :-

-: Dear Sadanand,
You have presented an excellently articulated view which I believe succinctly captures the present situation in India and answers those who keep saying 'why don't the Maoists contest elections.
Warmly,
Prashant Bhushan :-

Kamal Shah -: I do not know who is Sadanand but I appreciate his guts and his article. The language is superb and I am sure that 90 percent of the readers and government officers will have to search the dictionary to find the exact menaing of the words used. Please do not misunderstand me, I say that the vocabulary and word power of Mr. Sadanand is just superb . I would rather be happy that if India can have such person as the Foreign Minister or Defence Minister or any post which serves the nation using the best language skills and knowledge power.

I have been requesting many of the forums, groups,ngo's to come down under one umbrella. If we use different platforms for same destination on a one -way trach we can never reach our destination. We have to board a single train .Though we remain in diffeent geographical directions with different state of minds with different opinions, with different approach but we ned to remember that our goal is the same.

Even I am one of the victim of the corrupt system and slow judicial procedure and have spent lakhs of rupees just in defending myself and fighting to expose the main culprits, but I have still not let myself down . My single handed fight has at late showing results . Though the end and timeframe is unknown but I have gathered myself such documentary evidences that no court can deny me justice except the word " corruption" for which we are helpless .

I surely agree that time is not far of civil outrage as the DDL's feel still leaving as slaves of DDW's like that of British Era. The net of the corrupted has spread so dep into our system that it is not only difficult but next to impossible in near future. But that does not stop us from marching towards our destiny called real freedom. WE HAVE TO WORK HARD, WE HAVE TO BE MORE VIGILANT, WE HAVE TO BE MORE INTELLIGENT , WE HAVE TO PLAY DUAL ROLE OF DIPLOMACY AND OFFENSIVE TACTICS, WE HAVE TO BE AGGRESSIVE , WE HAVE TO PLAN A STRATEGY , WE NEED CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI, NETAJI, BHAGAT SINGH, AZAD, TATYA TOPE, SAMBHAJI, to name a few of thousand of heroes of the history. These battle could be more dreadful as we have to fight among our own people thus dividing the democracy into two parts .

Though each of us know that democracy does not allow dictatorship which we are suffering today. We must also remember that the power of a govt official or any politician remains just till he remains on his seat. Once he his without seat, his value and power is zero .( See unfortunate example of BJP and also controversies in sena-BJP in Aurangabad and Narendra Modi- Nitishkumar tussle .)

I lead you and you lead me so that we can both reach our destiny together fighting all odds.

Regards,

Kamal Shah :-

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Searching Alternate Narratives

Amnesty: How Global Capital Knows to Reward itself while MAKING or BREAKING laws.

Disclosure scheme for foreign assets soon

Spreading Rumours, Sowing hate.

SITE under scanner: Manufacturer of Jihadi News?

Daily Mail: Linking Norway Terrorism Attacks to Islamic Extremist pasting Sharia stickers

'No porn or prostitution':

Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities

KB & PC : Lawyerly Deceit.

Terrorism on European soil: A Quantitative Perspective.

Mumbai Bomb Blasts 13/07/2011: Media Round Up 23/07/2011.

"ATS detains 2 AP detonator dealers".

"Maha police pick up 2 IM suspects from state".

Media Round Up : SPO, Salwa Judum, & Supreme Court Verdict.

Murali Deora Resigns, feels left out undefended.

Commentary on Express News: “Right to sex is fundamental, adultery not a crime”.

SC Judgements : About Membership & Possession.

History : US administrations violate US Constitution-Sandinista/Contra/Iran

█ FURTHER READING:

BOOKS:

ELECTRONIC:

NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES. I am sure you will not accuse Judges there of being anti US or pro Jehadis

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)(MERITS)

Judgment of 27 June 1986

Mainstream Media Spin : The US Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...

Did US teach school kids Radical Islam & Jihad?

Background

Afghanistan contracts

Government ties

An Exchange triggered by Arundhati Roy’s article.

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
(MERITS)