KASHMIR 2015 ASSESSMENT SATP

Jammu and Kashmir Assessment - Year 2015 For the third consecutive time, the electorate in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has thrown up a hung Assembly. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), with 28 seats in an 87 seat Assembly, has emerged as the single largest party, followed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, with 25 seats; the National Conference with 15; the Indian National Congress, with 12 seats; the Jammu & Kashmir People's Conference with two; and the Jammu And Kashmir People Democratic Front (Secular) and Communist Party of India (Marxist), 1 seat each; three seats went to Independents. Unsurprisingly, hectic parley and consultations, between the major political formations and independent candidates on the issue of Government formation are underway at the time of writing. Results for the 2014 State Assembly Elections were declared on December 23, 2014. Despite the ambivalence of the outcome, there was a clear message of the people’s growing faith in democracy, with approximately 65.2 per cent of the State's registered voters exercising their franchise. The elections, conducted in five phases between November 25 and December 20, saw the highest turnout of 76 per cent during the last phase (on December 20), while the lowest turnout of 49 per cent was recorded in the fourth phase (on December 14). Voter turnout during first (November 25), second (December 2), and third (December 9) phase, stood at 71.28, 72.1, and 58 per cent, respectively. In terms of number, a total of approximately 4,733,059 voters out of 7,259,293 registered voters cast their vote. Significantly, 831 candidates, 803 men and 28 women, were in the fray for the 87 Assembly seats spread across the State's 22 Districts. Voting percentage varied considerably. Significantly, 17 constituencies recorded 80 per cent or more polling; another 46 constituencies recorded 60 per cent or more polling; voting percentage in seven constituencies stood over and above 50 per cent. 17 constituencies recorded less than 50 per cent turnout – seven of them registering less than 30 per cent polls. J&K is administratively divided into three parts – Jammu Division, Kashmir Division (also known as the Valley) and Ladakh Division. Out of 46 constituencies in the Kashmir Division, where the separatist and terrorist constituency remains relatively strong, 29 registered more than 50 per cent voting, including two that recorded more than 80 per cent - Charar-i-Sharif (82 per cent) and Sonawari (80.10). Another 21 of these constituencies recorded polling of 60 per cent or more. All the Assembly constituencies of the Jammu and Ladkah Divisions recorded turnouts of over 60 per cent, with the exception of Kargil, which recorded 59.82 per cent. Several of the constituencies in Jammu Division had, in the past, also recorded a strong presence of terrorists and separatists. All the seven constituencies which recorded less than 30 per cent turnout fell under the Srinagar Parliamentary Constituency, which had suffered the most during the devastating September 2014 floods, reaffirming the fact that the State Government had failed to reach the people in the aftermath of the deluge, and the voters had chosen to punish their politicians. Voting percentage during the 2008 State Assembly elections stood at 61.16 per cent, as against 43.70 per cent in 2002, and 53.92 in 1996, demonstrating a steady consolidation of the democratic constituency. Crucially, moreover, despite sustained provocation from across the border, the 2014 elections remained almost violence-free. None of the 87 constituencies which went to polls recorded a fatality on Election Day, and just one fatality was recorded in a constituency other than that were being polled on one of these five days, December 20, when terrorists killed a sarpanch (head of a village Panchayat, village-level local self-government institution), identified as Ghulam Ahmed Bhat (65), in Sopore town of Baramulla District. Sopore had gone to polls during the third phase, on December 9. Indeed, Vinod Zutshi, one of the Deputy Election Commissioners of India, observed, "It has been the highest turn-out in the last 25 years. This has been a historic turn-out in the current elections... unprecedented and totally peaceful." This was despite Islamabad’s desperate campaign to escalate terrorist violence, following the high voter turnout during the first phase of elections, to disrupt the poll process. According to partial data, compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), between November 25 and December 20, 2014 [voting days], a total of 46 persons, including 11 civilians, 16 Security Force (SF) personnel, and 19 terrorists lost their lives in terrorism-related incidents across the State. This period also witnessed four major incidents (each involving three or more fatalities), including two suicide attacks. On November 27, 2014, terrorists who had reportedly been infiltrated across the border under covering fire by Pakistani Rangers, in violation of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA), carried out a suicide attack targeting an Army Base Camp in the Arnia sector of Jammu District, killing five civilians and three SF personnel. The four attackers were also killed. Again, on December 5, a group of heavily armed terrorists who had been infiltrated from across the border, carried out a suicide attack targeting the Army’s 31 Field Regiment Ordnance Camp located at Mohra, near the Line Control (LoC), in the Uri sector of Baramulla District. In the ensuing gunfight, which lasted over six hours, 11 SF personnel, including Lieutenant Colonel Sankalp Kumar, and six terrorists, were killed. December 5, in fact, recorded four coordinated attacks by terrorists, which resulted in at least 21 fatalities, including 11 SF personnel, eight terrorists and two civilians. It was the highest fatality figure for a single day since May 23, 2004, when at least 30 persons, including 19 Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, six women and five children, were killed in an Improvised Explosive Device blast at Lower Munda, near Qazigund, on the Srinagar-Jammu highway. Further, Islamabad-backed J&K separatist formations working directly under the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s external intelligence agency, had again called for a boycott of the polls, and these calls were backed by threats from terrorists groups operating out of Pakistan. The nexus between the separatists and terrorists was visible, for instance, in a statement by Mohammad Yusuf Shah aka Syed Salahuddin, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) chief and chairman of the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK)-based Muttahida Jehad Council (MJC], United Jehad Council), who released a statement on November 14, 2014, declaring, "People who will vote in the coming elections will be considered as traitors who sell the blood of martyrs." He had urged the separatists, mainly the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), to launch a door-to-door poll-boycott campaign, which they did, though some have questioned their enthusiasm thereafter. With widespread participation of voters during first phase of the elections, Yusuf Shah found his own constituency wandering away, and stated, "The militant leadership believes participation in the polls is betrayal with the sacrifices (sic). But whatever decision is taken by the Hurriyat over the issue, we will abide by it." Earlier, the State had also participated in the five-phase General Election for India's Parliament, between April 10 and May 7. The voting percentage during these polls was 49.72, a significant improvement over 2009 General Elections, at 39.70 per cent, and the 2004 Election, at 35.20 per cent. As with the Assembly polls of November-December 2014, the April-May 2014 General Elections were also almost peaceful. According to SATP data, between April 10 and May 7 (voting days), the total terrorism-related fatalities were 13, including four civilians, three SF personnel and six terrorists. Out of six parliamentary constituencies, only Anantnag recorded a killing on Election Day on April 24, when a polling official was killed and another five persons were injured when unidentified gunmen attacked them at Nagabal in Shopian District, within the constituency. The saga of democratic consolidation was reinforced when, after 33 long years, the State conducted village Panchayat elections in a peaceful environment between April 13 and June 27, 2011. A staggering 79 per cent of the electorate exercised their right to vote in those elections, demonstrating a dramatic deepening of democracy in the State, as a result of the improved security scenario, as compared to era of terrorist ascendancy in the State. At the peak of the Pakistan-backed terrorist campaign, J&K had recorded a total of 4,507 fatalities in terrorism related incidents in a single catastrophic year, 2001. However, lingering irritants continue to throw up new challenges. Terrorism related fatalities, which had declined continuously, year on year, since 2002, to record a low of 117 in 2012, have seen an increase since, with 181 killed in 2013, and 193 fatalities already recorded in 2014 (till December 28). Significantly, fatalities among civilians increased by 60 per cent, from 20 such fatalities in 2013, to 32 in 2014. Nevertheless, other parameters of violence, including major incidents, suicide attacks and explosions have remained more or less at the same level in 2013 and 2014. In 2014, the number of major incidents stood at 21, resulting in 107 deaths, as compared to 22 such incidents, resulting in 108 deaths, in 2013. Similarly, 2013 recorded three suicide attacks resulting in 20 deaths, while 2014 recorded two such attacks, resulting in 29 fatalities. The number of explosions increased from 12 in 2013 to 14 in 2014, with corresponding fatalities at four and six respectively. On a comparative, 2012 had recorded just 10 major incidents resulting in 45 deaths, and the last of suicide attacks in the State, prior to 2013, were in 2010. The year witnessed a single suicide attack resulting in four deaths, including one civilian, a Policeman and the two suicide attackers (who were killed by the Police). Even the number of Districts from where killings were reported remained almost the same between 2013 and 2014 – 14 and 13, respectively. In 2014, the maximum number of fatalities were reported from Kupwara District (61), followed by Pulwama (36), and Baramulla (31). In 2013 too, Kupwara had recorded the highest fatalities (67). Significantly, however, no civilian fatalities were inflicted in Kupwara during these two years. In terms of civilian fatalities in 2014, Jammu and Pulwama Districts recorded the highest, at eight each, followed by five in Baramulla and three in Samba. The highest SF fatalities was recorded in Baramulla (14), followed by Kupwara (10) and Pulwama (9). Among the most visible of irritants, exposing the sustained deceit and hostility of the Pakistani state, is the continuous turbulence along the International Border and Line of Control (LoC). According to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA), at least 130 infiltration attempts were made from the Pakistani side in 2014, till October, and of these, 45 occurred in the preceding three months alone. Similarly, a total of 545 incidents of violation of the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA, 2003) occurred along the LoC and International Border were reported in 2014, till November 25. Of these, 424 were reported between August and November 2014 (till November 17), alone. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least six infiltration attempts have been reported since November 1, 2014, and there have been eight CFA violations after November 25, 2014, (data till December 28, 2014). The number of infiltration attempts and CFA violations in 2013 stood at 277 and 347, respectively. Meanwhile, the drawdown of International Forces from Afghanistan has been completed, and there are apprehensions that India’s border with Pakistan may experience increasing volatility in the proximate future. More effective measures to the border and LoC will be necessary if the dramatic gains of the past years are to be reinforced and advanced further. Several steps have been taken in this direction, and these have significantly reduced the number of successful infiltration attempts from the Pakistani side. As against 100 terrorists estimated to have infiltrated through 2013, 60 are believed to have got through in the current year, according to an August 31, 2014, report. The reversal, albeit relatively small in comparison to the peak phase of terrorism in J&K, of trends in fatalities in the State is a warning that there is no room for complacence, and that the price for political and administrative mismanagement can be unacceptable, as it has been in the past. The Assembly Elections have created new opportunities and aroused great hope in the State, even as they have eroded the credibility and support base of the separatist constituency. India's and particularly J&K's tragedy in the past has often been that great hope has been followed by great disappointment and consequent anger, feeding the cycle of militancy, and whetting the appetite of terrorist groups and their state handlers in Pakistan for greater violence. It remains to be seen whether the fractured mandate of 2014 will yield a greater stability in this troubled province, and whether the parties will, in fact, deliver on the promise of 'good governance' that lay at the heart of election campaigns this time around.

BRIG HEMANT MAHAJAN NATIONAL SECURITY: WILL CHINAS AGRESSION BRING WAR I ASIA-

BRIG HEMANT MAHAJAN NATIONAL SECURITY: WILL CHINAS AGRESSION BRING WAR I ASIA-: From the air, the Spratly Islands, a cluster of miniature rocks and sandbars 425,000 kilometres square in the middle of the South China Se...

WILL CHINAS AGRESSION BRING WAR I ASIA-

From the air, the Spratly Islands, a cluster of miniature rocks and sandbars 425,000 kilometres square in the middle of the South China Sea, are almost imperceptible. Even up close, the Spratlys do not look like much – a few islands have tiny rocky beaches or occasional makeshift buildings. A tiny contingent of Filipino marines camps on a rusty hulk of an American ship from the Second World War grounded in the Spratlys. It’s hard to believe these outcroppings could be at the centre of an international dispute, let alone one that could lead to a future Asian war. But the Spratlys are not only claimed by China as Beijing’s exclusive economic zone. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei angrily retort that parts of the South China Sea belong to them, including areas that Beijing insists is China’s alone. The South East Asian countries and China have been unable to resolve their overlapping claims to the sea, believed to be rich in oil and strategically vital – more than US$5 trillion (Dh18.4 trillion) in trade passes through annually. The Philippines and Vietnam have asked an international tribunal to rule on what areas of the South China Sea are within Beijing’s exclusive economic zones but any decision will be meaningless; China argues that the tribunal has no power. In the past three years, under President Xi Jinping, Beijing has for the first time since Mao stated its desire to be the dominant power in Asia. China’s leadership is asserting long-dormant claims to unsettled land borders and large portions of Asia’s waters, including the South China Sea and the East China Sea in North East Asia, and demanding that it, not America or Japan, lead regional organisations. With the United States desperately trying to maintain its influence in Asia, countries like Vietnam, the Philippines and many others that relied on US protection are scrambling to build up their own armies and navies. China does not appear threatened. In November, during a forum sponsored by a Chinese military organisation, China’s vice foreign minister Liu Zhenmin declared that “Asian countries bear primary responsibility for the security of their region”, a statement interpreted as a warning to the United States. While the forum was being held, satellite photos revealed that China had been secretly building a landing strip in the Spratlys – one that could allow Chinese military aircraft to land in the archipelago in case war broke out. Despite the increasingly bellicose climate in the region, some Asian businesspeople and leaders believe that growth and trade in Asia, increasingly the powerhouse of the entire world economy, will prevent tensions from escalating. Asia’s economies are becoming increasingly integrated. China already has a free trade deal in place with the 10 countries of South East Asia, and Beijing has become the major trading partner of most other Asian economies, as well as a huge aid donor to poorer Asian countries. “Asia will experience a new golden era of peace and prosperity over the next 10 years” because of integration and trade, notes Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore. But these trade ties might not stop a future war. In many respects, the situation in East Asia today resembles Europe before the First World War. Just as in East Asia today, at that time in Europe rising powers challenged established ones, militarism spread, and countries maintained intricate webs of economic ties. Yet even while they traded with each other, European powers in the 1900s and 1910s launched an arms race, and trade links ultimately did not guarantee peace. The Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has admitted that the comparison is apt, telling reporters last year that despite growing Japan-China trade, the two countries are in a “similar situation” as Britain and Germany were shortly before the First World War, when the European powers engaged in a naval arms race while also becoming major trading partners. As happened then in Europe, today’s East Asian standoff could end bloodily. China and South East Asian countries are becoming more openly hostile to each other. Beijing has warned ExxonMobil and other big oil and gas companies not to launch joint ventures with South East Asian nations to explore the South China Sea. Chinese officials also have become explicit in warning South East Asian countries not to challenge Beijing’s claims to water and land. “China is a big country and other countries [in South East Asia] are small countries, and that’s just a fact,” the Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi declared at a summit of China and South East Asian countries in 2010. In an interview last year with The New York Times, Philippines President Benigno Aquino III pointedly compared China’s rising assertiveness to the Nazis’ domination of Europe before the Second World War, though some Filipino officials also have compared the situation in Asia to the period before the First World War. “If we say yes to something we believe is wrong now [giving China its claims to the South China Sea], what guarantee is there that the wrong will not be further exacerbated down the line?” Aquino said. “At what point do you say: ‘Enough is enough’? Well, the world has to say it – remember that the Sudetenland was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War Two.” Asia’s dangerous environment stems in part from American weakness. Coming into office, Barack Obama launched a policy that would be called “the pivot” to Asia, although the White House now calls it “the rebalance”. The policy was supposed to shift American economic, diplomatic and military resources to Asia from other parts of the world. The Obama administration publicly denied that one rationale for the pivot was to contain China’s growing power and strengthen American partners that might confront Beijing. But in private administration officials, and many members of the US Congress, admitted that containing China was indeed a reason for the pivot. Some said so publicly. The former US senator James Webb, head of the Senate subcommittee on Asia during Obama’s first term, pushed for the United States to restore close relations with Myanmar, a pariah for decades because of its brutal military regime. “Sanctions by western governments have not been matched by other countries, particularly Russia and China. Indeed, they have allowed China to dramatically increase its economic and political influence in Myanmar, furthering a dangerous strategic imbalance in the region,” Webb wrote in one prominent op-ed in 2009. Yet despite its ambitions, the pivot has fallen far short of its promises, leaving many Asian states wondering whether the United States can really serve as a guarantor of security in the coming decades. “The pivot is seen by many in Asia as a slogan but not much more than that,” says one former senior South East Asian leader. Indeed, despite pledges to boost US assistance to Asian countries, a recent report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that America is still only spending a measly 4 per cent of its aid money in South East Asia. In addition, although the Obama administration promised to move the bulk of America’s naval assets into the Pacific by the end of this decade, it now appears it will fall well short of that goal. Although this delay is due, in part, to the real threat of conflict along Russia’s borders, the slowdown in moving more of the American navy into the Pacific is perceived, several South East Asian officials say, as a worrying sign that the United States will never be able to divorce itself from events in Europe and the Middle East. While the pivot has faltered, China’s new leadership has become the most politically powerful within China and the most nationalistic in foreign affairs since the time of Mao. After Mao’s death, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping issued a maxim on Chinese foreign policy that, until 2013, dictated how Beijing acted abroad: “Keep a low profile [in the world] and bide our time.” In the 1990s and early 2000s, Beijing started a new charm offensive towards its neighbours, boosting aid and investment to Asian countries, tempering any military moves and launching cultural diplomacy across the region. During that time, Beijing also played down its existing disputes over waters in the South and East China seas. As it does now, Beijing still claimed nearly all of the South China Sea, and those claims were challenged by Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Indonesia. But China generally stopped publicising its vast claims. Yet in the past three years, new Chinese president Xi Jinping, and the group of leaders around him, have shattered Deng’s maxim of humility and abandoned the charm offensive. Today’s Chinese leaders are the first generation that rose up in the party after the Cultural Revolution, and have only known an increasingly rich and powerful China – yet one that still had to play by international rules created by the West. As president, Xi has made clear he believes China should regain its regional and global pre-eminence, and he has not been shy of staking that claim. Xi has declared that his goal is to build what he calls the “Chinese dream” – a phrase his confidants explain as meaning he wants to restore China to the power it enjoyed in the world for millennia. Xi has backed up his words with action. On the one hand, Xi’s power within the Chinese leadership, which he has amassed through skilful backdoor manoeuvring, has allowed him to deliver major domestic and international accomplishments. Last autumn, he agreed on a landmark emissions reduction deal with Obama. Within China, Xi has launched a major crackdown on graft in the Communist Party. Senior officials like former minister of public ­security Zhou Yongkang have been charged with corruption. In October, China also launched a bold new development bank focused on Asia. China has pledged up to $50 billion for the bank. Yet at the same time, Xi’s assertive style has fostered a foreign policy that seems, to many of China’s neighbours, increasingly threatening. Besides rhetorically claiming much of the South and East China seas, under Xi the Chinese government has had Chinese state oil companies move oil rigs, accompanied by naval or coastguard vessels, into disputed waters as a means of claiming them. Last May, such a move by one of China’s state oil companies triggered anti-China riots in Vietnam that killed at least 20 people and raised the possibility of a war between the two countries. Top Chinese and Vietnamese leaders refused to speak to each other for a month; only in June did their leaders talk and finally cool tensions, for the time being. Beijing also has started buzzing US surveillance planes in Asia, moved thousands of troops to its Himalayan border with India, and declared in 2013 that it controls areas of airspace relatively close to Japan. Since that 2013 declaration, Japanese and Chinese military aircraft have repeatedly buzzed each other, coming close to deadly crashes. Many countries in East Asia are now clearly frightened of China’s growing power and willingness to use it. Vietnam’s leaders increasingly seem willing to boost ties with the US, even at the risk of totally alienating China, Vietnam’s leading trading partner and longtime strategic ally. This past autumn, the US dropped a ban on selling arms to Hanoi. Several congressional sources predict that the US will, within the next five years, sell significant quantities of weapons to Hanoi and will start large-scale joint military exercises with Vietnam’s armed forces. The Philippines, which in the early 1990s kicked US armed forces out of the bases it maintained in its former colony, is now so worried about Beijing’s rise that it has essentially welcomed the US army back. Last April, Manila signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Act with Washington, a 10-year deal that basically allows American forces to be stationed in the Philippines again. Philippine national security advisers have also gone privately to Washington repeatedly in the past three years to beg US officials to sell Manila advanced military equipment. Washington agreed to sell the Philippines more arms. Other countries also have responded to China. Under its new president, Joko Widodo, Indonesia has announced a new foreign policy doctrine that, Jakarta says, will make the country into a maritime power. To show Jakarta is serious, in December Indonesia sank several foreign fishing boats it claimed were illegally operating in Indonesian waters. A senior adviser to the president, Rizal Sukma, told a forum in Washington that the sinking was designed to send a message primarily to China. “We sank Vietnamese boats last week … maybe we will sink Chinese boats after that also,” Sukma said. Japan has pushed back as well. Last year, Tokyo approved a five-year budget plan to dramatically increase military spending on new fighter planes, submarines and amphibious warfare carriers. Unfortunately, Japan’s growing willingness to defend itself also has come along with historical revisionism. While Abe has pushed to rewrite Japan’s post-Second World War constitution, written by the US occupiers, so that Tokyo can expand its military, he also has appointed senior officials who deny that Japan committed massive atrocities against other Asian peoples during that war, such as forcing captured women into sexual slavery and slaughtering civilians during the occupation of Nanjing in China. This revisionism has only further poisoned Sino-Japanese relations. Indeed, Asia is now in the middle of a rapid arms race. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks country-by-country military spending, reports that arms sales to East Asia are up by more than 100 per cent since 2005. Clashes in the South and East China seas – between Chinese and Vietnamese boats, Chinese and Filipino boats, Chinese and Japanese boats, and others – occur now on an almost daily basis. On several recent occasions, such as the standoff between Beijing and Hanoi last May, war was only narrowly averted. If war erupted in East Asia, it could easily draw in America. Although the Obama administration has not explicitly stated how it would respond to conflict in the South or East China seas, the US is a treaty ally of the Philippines, Japan and South Korea, bound to defend these countries against attacks. America also has increasingly close military partnerships with Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia and other Asian countries. If China occupied disputed islands in the South China Sea, “of course” the United States would help the Philippines to respond, the head of US naval operations declared last February. Barack Obama only has two years left in the White House. But after he leaves, there is little guarantee a new American president would help restore calm in Asia. As secretary of state during Obama’s first term, Hillary Clinton was a central architect of the pivot and was believed to be more hawkish about confronting China than the president. During a trip to Asia in July 2010, Clinton asserted that the South China Sea was a central US “national interest”, the first time an American official had made such a claim. Clinton, the likely Democratic front-runner for the presidency in 2016, is hardly backing down now. She has repeatedly suggested that Obama’s foreign policy is too weak, and that, as president, she would be much tougher on national security affairs. But even Clinton would not risk war between the biggest powers. Of course, people said the same thing about German and British leaders before the outbreak of the First World War.

युरोप व अमेरिकेतून इराक सिरिया व येमेन या पश्चिम आशियातील मुस्लीमबहुल देशांकडे जाणारे ‘दहशतवादी’ तरुणांचे लोंढे वाढले -LOKMAT

युरोप व अमेरिकेतून इराक सिरिया व येमेन या पश्चिम आशियातील मुस्लीमबहुल देशांकडे जाणारे ‘दहशतवादी’ तरुणांचे लोंढे वाढले असून त्यांची दर महिन्याची संख्या एक हजारापर्यंत पोहोचली असल्याचे वृत्त आहे. या लोंढ्यांना आळा घालण्यासाठी अमेरिकेने अतिशय कठोर कायदे केले आहेत. फ्रान्स, जर्मनी, आॅस्ट्रिया, स्पेन, पोर्तुगाल व कोसोव्हो इ. युरोपीय देशांनीही त्यासाठी कठोर पावले उचलली आहेत. पण दहशती बंदुकांचे आकर्षण आणि इस्लामी धर्मगुरूंचे प्रचारी आवाहन यांना तोंड द्यायला या सगळ्या उपाययोजना कमी पडत आहेत. इराक, सिरिया व मध्य पूर्वेतील अनेक देशांना त्यांच्यातील धार्मिक ताण तणावापायी मातीमोल व्हावे लागले, हे जगाला दिसले आहे. अफगाणिस्तान हा त्यापायीच उद्ध्वस्त झालेला देश आहे. ही स्थिती तेथील स्थानिकांनाही भयभीत करणारी आहे. इसिस या इराक-इराण यांच्या दरम्यान उभ्या झालेल्या अत्यंत जहाल धार्मिक दहशतवादी संघटनेने खिलाफतची स्थापना करून तिच्या झेंड्याखाली सारे जग आणण्याची प्रतिज्ञा केली आहे आणि तिला विरोध करणारे सगळे वध्य ठरवून त्यांची हत्याही केली आहे. इसिसने ठार मारलेल्या स्थानिक स्त्रीपुरुषांची संख्या काही हजारांवर जाणारी आहे. शिवाय तिने अमेरिका व युरोपमधून आलेल्या अनेक पत्रकारांचा शिरच्छेद केल्याचेही जगाने दूरचित्रवाहिन्यांच्या पडद्यावर पाहिले आहे. बोको हरामने परवाच दोन हजारांवर निरपराध लोकांचे बळी घेतल्याचे वृत्त आहे. अल् कायदा, बोको हराम, इसिस आणि त्याचसारख्या धार्मिक दहशतवादी संघटनांमध्ये निरपराधांचे बळी घेण्याची व स्वत:ची दहशती जरब वाढविण्याची अहमहमिका सुरू असल्याचे सांगणारे हे चित्र आहे. तेवढ्यावरही या संघटनांमध्ये सहभागी होण्यासाठी पुढे होणाऱ्या ‘अविचारी व शस्त्रप्रिय’ तरुणांची संख्या वाढत असल्याचे सांगणारे हे विपरित चित्र आहे. काही काळापूर्वी भारतातील केरळ, कर्नाटक व पुण्यातील तरुणांनी त्या भागात याचसाठी जाण्याची तयारी केली होती. त्यातले काही पकडले गेले तर काही जाऊन माघारी वळले. दहशत, खून आणि रक्तबंबाळपण यांचेही एक जीवघेणे आकर्षण असते. ते धर्मश्रद्धेच्या व बलिदानाच्या नावावर तरुणाईच्या गळी उतरविले जाते. ते विष अंगात भिनलेल्या लोकांना मग धर्मासाठी ‘शहीद’ होण्याचेच वेड लागते. साऱ्या जगातून पश्चिम आशियात जाऊ पाहणारे तरुणाईचे आताचे लोंढे अशा वेडाने भारलेल्या अर्धवटांचे व त्यांना चिथावणी देणाऱ्या त्यांच्या धर्मगुरूंच्या शिकवणीच्या यशाचे आहेत. मृत्यू समोर आहे, विजयाची कोणतीही आशा दिसणारी नाही व ज्या शक्तींना तोंड द्यायचे त्या सर्वविनाशी आहेत हे दिसत असतानाही जी माणसे या मार्गावरून जायला सिद्ध होतात त्यांना काय म्हणायचे? धर्मवीर की धर्मवेडे? प. आशियातील अशा धर्मवेड्यांच्या मृत्यूची संख्याही मोठी आहे. मात्र आपण मेलो तरी आपला तथाकथित धर्म त्यामुळे विजयी होणार असल्याचे त्यांच्या डोक्यातले वेड त्यांना पुढे जाण्याच्या व प्रसंगी मरण्याच्या प्रेरणा देत असते... अशावेळी शांतताप्रेमी व मानवतावादी शक्तींनी काय करायचे असते? या शक्ती धर्मवेडापुढे दुबळ््या ठरतात काय? एकेकाळी या शक्तींचे प्रभावी नेतृत्व करणारे जगाने पाहिलेले लोक आता दिसेनासे झाले आहेत काय? रसेल, आईन्स्टाईन किंवा गांधींसारखी माणसे आजच्या जगात दुर्मिळ आहेत काय? काळ जसजसा पुढे जातो तशा जाती,धर्म, पंथासारख्या जन्मदत्त श्रद्धा दुबळ््या होतात आणि मानवता, स्वातंत्र्य, समता व बंधुतेसारखी मूल्ये त्यांची जागा घेतात असे म्हटले जाते. तशी या मूल्यांची ताकद व मोठेपण जगात वाढलेही आहे. हाताच्या बोटावर मोजता यावी एवढीच राष्ट्रे आता स्वत:ला धार्मिक म्हणवितात. बाकीचे सारे जग स्वत:ला धर्मनिरपेक्ष म्हणविणारे आहे. बराक ओबामांसारखा कृष्णवर्णीय नेता अमेरिकेच्या अध्यक्षपदावर निवडला गेला आहे. खुद्द मुस्लीम देशातल्या मुसलमान फौजा या दहशती मुस्लीम शक्तींशी लढताना दिसत आहेत. तरीही धर्म निरपेक्षतेचे बळ जगाच्या काही भागात कमीच पडत असावे असे सध्याचे चित्र आहे. धर्मांधतेविरुद्ध संघटित होणाऱ्या व आवाज उठवणाऱ्या शक्ती एकेकाळी युरोपसह आशियात उभ्या झाल्या. ते चित्र आता बदललेले दिसत आहे. धर्मगुरू, पुरोहित, पाद्री, मुल्ला, साधू आणि साध्व्या यांची वाढती आक्रमक वक्तव्ये आणि त्यांच्या बोलण्या-वागण्यातील वाढता विखार पाहिला की जगात मानवता येत असली तरी त्याच्या सांदीकोपऱ्यात या जुनाट श्रद्धांचा वापर अजून तसाच राहिला आहे असा प्रत्यय येतो. आपला पराभव या श्रद्धांनाही दिसत असावा. विझणाऱ्या दिव्यांच्या ज्योती अखेरच्या काळात मोठ्या होतात तसाही हा प्रकार असावा. झालेच तर अर्धवट शिकलेल्या, अजिबात न शिकलेल्या किंवा शिकूनही आपल्यावर असलेले धर्मांधतेचे पारंपारिक संस्कार पुसू न शकणाऱ्यांचाही एक वर्ग असावा. ही माणसे दुबळी असतातच शिवाय ती मनाने निराधारही असतात. मात्र काहीही झाले तरी या दडून बसणाऱ्यांना हुडकून बाहेर काढणे व त्यांना योग्य ती अद्दल घडविणे हे सगळ्या सुसंस्कृत जगाच्या रक्षणासाठी आवश्यक आहे आणि त्यासाठी अमेरिका व युरोपच नव्हे तर भारतासारख्या पूर्वेकडील देशांनीही जागरुक व सज्ज राहणे गरजेचे आहे.

कौरव पांडव संगर तांडव द्वापर काली होय अति,तसे मराठे गिलिचे साचे कलित लढ़ले पानिपति॥

कौरव पांडव संगर तांडव द्वापर काली होय अति, तसे मराठे गिलिचे साचे कलित लढ़ले पानिपति॥ - १४ जानेवारी १७६१, राष्ट्रावरचं संकट मराठ्यांनी आपल्या छातीवर झेललं. मराठे गिलच्यांविरुध्द एकाकी झुंझले. अभिमन्यूप्रमाणे झुंझत झुंझत देह ठेवला. उभ्या भारतातून एक हरीचा लाल मराठयांबरोबर पाय रोवून पानिपतात उभा राहीला नाही. मराठ्यांनी पाय गाडून युध्द केलं. रक्त - मांसाचा चिखल झाला. मराठ्यांचा भावी पेशवा मारला गेला. पुण्यातल्या प्रत्येक घरातला एक जण तरी पानिपतावर कापला गेला - "दो मोती गलत, दस-बीस अश्रफात, रुपयोंकी गिनती नही|" पण माझ्या दृष्टीने पानिपतावरती झालेला पराभव हा खरा पराभव नाही. कारण १८व्या शतकाच्या शेवटि तब्बल १४ वर्ष लाल किल्यावरती "भगवा" फडकत होता हा इतिहास आहे. मराठ्यांनी दिल्लीची वजीरीच नव्हे तर सगळी दिल्लीच पुन्हा मांडिखाली दाबली हा खरा इतिहास आहे. महादजी शिंद्यांनी एकेका रजपुताला सुटा करुन करुन पिदवला हा खरा इतिहास आहे, "गढ मै गढ चित्तोड गढ बाकि सब गढियॉ।" म्हणून लौकिक मिळवलेला किल्ला जवळपास वर्षभर लढल्यावर आणि डोळे पांढरे व्हावेत इतका तिखट प्रतिकार झाल्यावर ’महान’ सम्राट अकबराला मिळाला होता ..... मराठ्यांनी बोल - बोल म्हणता तो १८ दिवसांत जिंकला होता हा खरा इतिहास आहे. नजिबाचाच नातू "गुलाम कादिर" याने "अली गोहर" बादशहाला आंधळे केल्याबद्दल व बादशाहाच्या कुलातील स्त्रीयांना भर दरबारात नग्न केल्याची शिक्षा म्हणून मराठ्यांनी त्याला टाचेकडून मानेकडे जिवंत सोलून ठार मारला होता व नंतर दिल्लीच्या लाहोरी दरवाज्याजवळ ३ दिवस टांगून ठेवला होता हा खरा इतिहास आहे. पानिपताला जबाबदार असलेल्या नजीबाची कबर मराठ्यांनी सुरुंग लावून उडवून दिली हा खरा इतिहास आहे.. म्हणूनच म्हणतोय खरा पराभव पानिपतावर नव्हे तर इतिहासाकडे बघण्याच्या दृष्टीकोनात झालाय, पुस्तकांच्या पानांवरती झालाय. दुसर्‍या महायुध्दातील दोस्तांच्या डंकर्कच्या पळपुटेपणाला कौतुकाने माना डोलावून "यशस्वी माघार" म्हणणारे मात्र; पानिपतावर देह ठेवून राष्ट्र वाचवणारे "पराभूत" झाले असं म्हणतात तेव्हा त्यांची किव येते. आज अडिचशे वर्षानी त्याच्याकडे बघताना केवळ "पराभव" म्हणून न बघता "गुरुदक्षिणा" म्हणून बघा. मराठ्यांनी शिवछत्रपतींना दिलेली "गुरुदक्षिणा". राष्ट्रावरचं संकट आपल्या छातीवर घ्यायची संथा त्या महामानवाने मराठ्यांना दिली होती. त्या संथेची गुरुदक्षिणा म्हणजे "पानिपत"

घेऊ शत्रूवरी झेप वाघापरी...कर्नल सुनील वासुदेवराव देशपांडे (निवृत्त)

घेऊ शत्रूवरी झेप वाघापरी... आज १५ जानेवारी. भारतीय सेना दिवस. स्वातंत्र्यापूर्वी व स्वातंत्र्य मिळाल्यानंतरच्या प्रत्येक युद्धात भारतीय सेनेने प्रत्येक रणांगण आपल्या अद्वितीय शौर्याने गाजविले आहे. भारतीय सेनेचा पराक्रम जगजाहीर आहे. द्वितीय महायुद्धात मराठा लाईट इंफ्रंटीचा शिपाई नामदेव यादव व नाईक यशवंत घाडगे यांना अद्वितीय शौर्याबद्दल ब्रिटिश सरकारने त्यांचे सर्वोच्च शौर्यपदक ‘व्हिक्टोरिया क्रॉस’ देऊन गौरवान्वित केले होते. तसेच जनरल भगत यांनाही ‘व्हिक्टोरिया क्रॉस’ देण्यात आला होता. जनरल भगत त्यावेळी लेफ्टनंट होते व शत्रूसमोर असताना त्यांनी आपल्या सोबती इंजिनीयरिंग जवानांना घेऊन सुरुंग लावण्याचे जोखमीचे काम पार पाडले होते. १९६५ च्या युद्धात माझी बटालियन २ मराठा लाईट इंफ्रंटीला काम दिले होते की फिरोजपूरजवळ सतलज नदीवर हुसैनीवाला पुलाचे व शहीद भगतसिंह सुखदेव व राजगुरूच्या समाधीचे पाक हल्ल्यापासून रक्षण करणे. माझ्या कमांडिंग अधिकारी कर्नल नोलनने आदेश दिला की, २ मराठा शेवटल्या सैनिकापर्यंत व शेवटल्या गोळीपर्यंत हुसैनीवाला पूल व भगत सिंग, सुखदेव व राजगुरूच्या समाधीचे पाकिस्तानी हल्ल्यापासून रक्षण करेल. १९ सप्टें. १९६५ रोजी पाकिस्तानने हल्ला केला. तो हल्ला आमच्यापेक्षा तिप्पट शक्तीने व रणगाड्यांसह झाला. घमासान युद्ध झाले व हा हल्ला आम्ही परतविला. पाकिस्तानी सेनेने अखेर माघार घेतली. कितीतरी मृतदेह सोडून ते पळाले. या हल्ल्यात आम्ही पाकिस्तानी रणगाडे पकडले. युद्ध सुरूच होते. पाकिस्तानने आमच्यावर तोफांचा मारा चालूच ठेवला. दुसरे दिवशी आमचे कमांडिंग अधिकारी कर्नल नोलन मारल्या गेले. परंतु आम्ही हुसैनीवाला व समाधीचे रक्षण केले. आम्ही गड राखला पण आमचा सिंह गेला. भारतीय सेनेचं बलिदान लोकांच्या मनात घर करतं. कर्नल नोलनचा मृतदेह फिरोजपूरहून लखनऊला सेनेच्या गाडीने पाठविला. फिरोजपूरहून जेव्हा रात्रीच्या सुमारास जेव्हा ही गाडी रवाना झाली, तेव्हा त्या काळोखात संपूर्ण फिरोजपूरचे नागरिक तेथे आले होते. त्याच सुमारास पाऊस सुरू झाला, परंतु ती गाडी रवाना होईपर्यंत कुणीही तेथून हलले नाही. ‘कर्नल नोलन अमर रहे’, ‘भारतीय सेना विजयी हो’ या वाक्यांनी तो परिसर दुमदुमला होता. आम्ही सैनिक जेव्हा हे बघतो तेव्हा आमचं मनोबल उंचावतं. कारण, तेव्हा आम्हास वाटतं की संपूर्ण देश आपल्या पाठीशी आहे. कारगिल युद्धात लेफ्टनंट मनोजकुमार पांडे व कॅप्टन विक्रम बत्राने अद्वितीय शौर्य गाजविले. या युद्धात विक्रम बत्राने एक शिखर काबीज केले. त्याचे शौर्य बघून पाकिस्तानी त्याला शेरशाह म्हणू लागले. चार-पाच दिवसांत त्याच क्षेत्रात आणखी एका मोठ्या हल्ल्याची योजना झाली. दुर्दैवाने हल्ल्याच्या दिवशी विक्रमला १०३ अंश से. ताप होता. त्याच्या कमांडिंग ऑफिसरने सांगितले की या हल्ल्यात बत्रा जाणार नाही. यावर बत्रा सरळ कमांडिंग अधिकार्‍यांना भेटला व त्यांना स्पष्टपणे सांगितले की, काहीही झाले तरी हल्ल्यात विक्रम जाणारच. अखेर कमांडिंग अधिकार्‍याने हो म्हटले. त्या हल्ल्यात विक्रमने अद्वितीय शौर्य गाजविले व शत्रूचे ठाणे काबीज केले. या हल्ल्यात विक्रम धारातीर्थी झाला. त्याच्या शौर्याबद्दल त्याला मरणोपरांत परमवीर चक्र देण्यात आले. पाकिस्तानी हल्ले आपल्या सीमेवर गोळीबार करून आजकाल चालू आहेत. आपले संरक्षणमंत्री मनोहर पर्रीकर यांनी सडेतोड उत्तर देण्याचे सेनेला आदेश दिले आहेत. भारतीय सेना कोणताही हल्ला परतविण्यास पूर्णपणे सज्ज आहे. सध्याच्या सरकारचे सेनेविषयीचे धोरण चांगले आहे. मागील सरकारने भारतीय सेनेच्या गरजा पुरविण्यास्तव निर्णयच घेतले नाहीत. परंतु या सरकारने ताबडतोब निर्णय घेतले. ८०,००० कोटींच्या तोफासंबंधीच्या करारावर नुकतेच शिक्कामोर्तब करण्यात आले. त्याकरिता रक्षामंत्र्यांनी तातडीने पावले उचलली पाहिजेत. मागील दिवाळी आपल्या पंतप्रधानांनी सियाचीन येथे जवानांसोबत साजरी केली, हे अत्यंत महत्त्वाचे आहे. या कृतीने मोदींनी हे दाखवून दिले की, सणावारात पूर्ण देश सैनिकाला विसरत नाही व सैनिकाच्या पाठीशी आहे. पंतप्रधानांनी हा संदेश दिला की, माझी प्राथमिकता भारतीय सेना आहे. या कृतीने सैनिकांचे मनोबल गगनात मावेनासे झाले. पंतप्रधानांची इच्छा ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ ची आहे व त्याकरिता त्यांनी बर्‍याच योजना आखल्या आहेत. याकरिता त्यांनी आपल्या डीआरडीओ व आयुध निर्माण फॅक्ट्रीजमार्फत हे मेक इन इंडियाचे काम पूर्ण केले पाहिजे. आपल्या ऑर्डनन्स फॅक्ट्रीजमध्ये बरीच क्षमता आहे. मनुष्यबळाची कमी नाही. आज भारतीय सेनेत बारा हजार अधिकार्‍यांची कमतरता आहे. सेनेविषयीचे गैरसमज दूर सारून आज तरुणांनी सेनेकडे आकर्षित व्हावयास हवे. आपली सेना ही अत्यंत प्रोफेशनल आहे व जगात दुसर्‍या क्रमांकावर आहे. युद्धात जाण्यापूर्वी आम्ही सर्व सैनिकांना त्यांचे मनोबल वाढविण्याकरिता त्यांना प्रोत्साहित करतो. माझी बटालियन २ मराठा आहे व यात सर्व सैनिक हे महाराष्ट्राचे आहेत. युद्धात जाण्यापूर्वी आम्ही त्यांना बोलावतो व म्हणतो व्हा पुढे आम्हा धनाजी, बाजी, सांगाती, वीर हो उठा कडाडतात नौबती विजयघोष दुमदुमे पुन्हा दिगंतरी पूर्वजा परी आम्ही अजिंक्य सत्वरी घेऊ शत्रूवरी झेप वाघापरी मृत्यू आम्हापुढे घाबरे मर्द आम्ही मराठे खरे भारतीय सेनेला आज सेना दिवशी त्रिवार वंदन. - कर्नल सुनील वासुदेवराव देशपांडे (निवृत्त)

A War Between Two Worlds

A War Between Two Worlds Geopolitical WeeklyJanuary 13, 2015 | 09:00 GMT Print Text Size  Stratfor By George Friedman The murders of cartoonists who made fun of Islam and of Jews shopping for their Sabbath meals by Islamists in Paris last week have galvanized the world. A galvanized world is always dangerous. Galvanized people can do careless things. It is in the extreme and emotion-laden moments that distance and coolness are most required. I am tempted to howl in rage. It is not my place to do so. My job is to try to dissect the event, place it in context and try to understand what has happened and why. From that, after the rage cools, plans for action can be made. Rage has its place, but actions must be taken with discipline and thought. I have found that in thinking about things geopolitically, I can cool my own rage and find, if not meaning, at least explanation for events such as these. As it happens, my new book will be published on Jan. 27. Titled Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, it is about the unfolding failure of the great European experiment, the European Union, and the resurgence of European nationalism. It discusses the re-emerging borderlands and flashpoints of Europe and raises the possibility that Europe's attempt to abolish conflict will fail. I mention this book because one chapter is on the Mediterranean borderland and the very old conflict between Islam and Christianity. Obviously this is a matter I have given some thought to, and I will draw on Flashpoints to begin making sense of the murderers and murdered, when I think of things in this way. Let me begin by quoting from that chapter: We've spoken of borderlands, and how they are both linked and divided. Here is a border sea, differing in many ways but sharing the basic characteristic of the borderland. Proximity separates as much as it divides. It facilitates trade, but also war. For Europe this is another frontier both familiar and profoundly alien. Islam invaded Europe twice from the Mediterranean — first in Iberia, the second time in southeastern Europe, as well as nibbling at Sicily and elsewhere. Christianity invaded Islam multiple times, the first time in the Crusades and in the battle to expel the Muslims from Iberia. Then it forced the Turks back from central Europe. The Christians finally crossed the Mediterranean in the 19th century, taking control of large parts of North Africa. Each of these two religions wanted to dominate the other. Each seemed close to its goal. Neither was successful. What remains true is that Islam and Christianity were obsessed with each other from the first encounter. Like Rome and Egypt they traded with each other and made war on each other. Christians and Muslims have been bitter enemies, battling for control of Iberia. Yet, lest we forget, they also have been allies: In the 16th century, Ottoman Turkey and Venice allied to control the Mediterranean. No single phrase can summarize the relationship between the two save perhaps this: It is rare that two religions might be so obsessed with each other and at the same time so ambivalent. This is an explosive mixture. Migration, Multiculturalism and Ghettoization The current crisis has its origins in the collapse of European hegemony over North Africa after World War II and the Europeans' need for cheap labor. As a result of the way in which they ended their imperial relations, they were bound to allow the migration of Muslims into Europe, and the permeable borders of the European Union enabled them to settle where they chose. The Muslims, for their part, did not come to join in a cultural transformation. They came for work, and money, and for the simplest reasons. The Europeans' appetite for cheap labor and the Muslims' appetite for work combined to generate a massive movement of populations. The matter was complicated by the fact that Europe was no longer simply Christian. Christianity had lost its hegemonic control over European culture over the previous centuries and had been joined, if not replaced, by a new doctrine of secularism. Secularism drew a radical distinction between public and private life, in which religion, in any traditional sense, was relegated to the private sphere with no hold over public life. There are many charms in secularism, in particular the freedom to believe what you will in private. But secularism also poses a public problem. There are those whose beliefs are so different from others' beliefs that finding common ground in the public space is impossible. And then there are those for whom the very distinction between private and public is either meaningless or unacceptable. The complex contrivances of secularism have their charm, but not everyone is charmed. Europe solved the problem with the weakening of Christianity that made the ancient battles between Christian factions meaningless. But they had invited in people who not only did not share the core doctrines of secularism, they rejected them. What Christianity had come to see as progress away from sectarian conflict, Muslims (and some Christians) may see as simply decadence, a weakening of faith and the loss of conviction. There is here a question of what we mean when we speak of things like Christianity, Islam and secularism. There are more than a billion Christians and more than a billion Muslims and uncountable secularists who mix all things. It is difficult to decide what you mean when you say any of these words and easy to claim that anyone else's meaning is (or is not) the right one. There is a built-in indeterminacy in our use of language that allows us to shift responsibility for actions in Paris away from a religion to a minor strand in a religion, or to the actions of only those who pulled the trigger. This is the universal problem of secularism, which eschews stereotyping. It leaves unclear who is to be held responsible for what. By devolving all responsibility on the individual, secularism tends to absolve nations and religions from responsibility. This is not necessarily wrong, but it creates a tremendous practical problem. If no one but the gunmen and their immediate supporters are responsible for the action, and all others who share their faith are guiltless, you have made a defensible moral judgment. But as a practical matter, you have paralyzed your ability to defend yourselves. It is impossible to defend against random violence and impermissible to impose collective responsibility. As Europe has been for so long, its moral complexity has posed for it a problem it cannot easily solve. Not all Muslims — not even most Muslims — are responsible for this. But all who committed these acts were Muslims claiming to speak for Muslims. One might say this is a Muslim problem and then hold the Muslims responsible for solving it. But what happens if they don't? And so the moral debate spins endlessly. This dilemma is compounded by Europe's hidden secret: The Europeans do not see Muslims from North Africa or Turkey as Europeans, nor do they intend to allow them to be Europeans. The European solution to their isolation is the concept of multiculturalism — on the surface a most liberal notion, and in practice, a movement for both cultural fragmentation and ghettoization. But behind this there is another problem, and it is also geopolitical. I say in Flashpoints that: Multiculturalism and the entire immigrant enterprise faced another challenge. Europe was crowded. Unlike the United States, it didn't have the room to incorporate millions of immigrants — certainly not on a permanent basis. Even with population numbers slowly declining, the increase in population, particularly in the more populous countries, was difficult to manage. The doctrine of multiculturalism naturally encouraged a degree of separatism. Culture implies a desire to live with your own people. Given the economic status of immigrants the world over, the inevitable exclusion that is perhaps unintentionally incorporated in multiculturalism and the desire of like to live with like, the Muslims found themselves living in extraordinarily crowded and squalid conditions. All around Paris there are high-rise apartment buildings housing and separating Muslims from the French, who live elsewhere. These killings have nothing to do with poverty, of course. Newly arrived immigrants are always poor. That's why they immigrate. And until they learn the language and customs of their new homes, they are always ghettoized and alien. It is the next generation that flows into the dominant culture. But the dirty secret of multiculturalism was that its consequence was to perpetuate Muslim isolation. And it was not the intention of Muslims to become Europeans, even if they could. They came to make money, not become French. The shallowness of the European postwar values system thereby becomes the horror show that occurred in Paris last week. The Role of Ideology But while the Europeans have particular issues with Islam, and have had them for more than 1,000 years, there is a more generalizable problem. Christianity has been sapped of its evangelical zeal and no longer uses the sword to kill and convert its enemies. At least parts of Islam retain that zeal. And saying that not all Muslims share this vision does not solve the problem. Enough Muslims share that fervency to endanger the lives of those they despise, and this tendency toward violence cannot be tolerated by either their Western targets or by Muslims who refuse to subscribe to a jihadist ideology. And there is no way to distinguish those who might kill from those who won't. The Muslim community might be able to make this distinction, but a 25-year-old European or American policeman cannot. And the Muslims either can't or won't police themselves. Therefore, we are left in a state of war. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has called this a war on radical Islam. If only they wore uniforms or bore distinctive birthmarks, then fighting only the radical Islamists would not be a problem. But Valls' distinctions notwithstanding, the world can either accept periodic attacks, or see the entire Muslim community as a potential threat until proven otherwise. These are terrible choices, but history is filled with them. Calling for a war on radical Islamists is like calling for war on the followers of Jean-Paul Sartre. Exactly what do they look like? The European inability to come to terms with the reality it has created for itself in this and other matters does not preclude the realization that wars involving troops are occurring in many Muslim countries. The situation is complex, and morality is merely another weapon for proving the other guilty and oneself guiltless. The geopolitical dimensions of Islam's relationship with Europe, or India, or Thailand, or the United States, do not yield to moralizing. Something must be done. I don't know what needs to be done, but I suspect I know what is coming. First, if it is true that Islam is merely responding to crimes against it, those crimes are not new and certainly didn't originate in the creation of Israel, the invasion of Iraq or recent events. This has been going on far longer than that. For instance, the Assassins were a secret Islamic order to make war on individuals they saw as Muslim heretics. There is nothing new in what is going on, and it will not end if peace comes to Iraq, Muslims occupy Kashmir or Israel is destroyed. Nor is secularism about to sweep the Islamic world. The Arab Spring was a Western fantasy that the collapse of communism in 1989 was repeating itself in the Islamic world with the same results. There are certainly Muslim liberals and secularists. However, they do not control events — no single group does — and it is the events, not the theory, that shape our lives. Europe's sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction. Paradoxically, this will be exactly what the radical Muslims want because it will strengthen their position in the Islamic world in general, and North Africa and Turkey in particular. But the alternative to not strengthening the radical Islamists is living with the threat of death if they are offended. And that is not going to be endured in Europe. Perhaps a magic device will be found that will enable us to read the minds of people to determine what their ideology actually is. But given the offense many in the West have taken to governments reading emails, I doubt that they would allow this, particularly a few months from now when the murders and murderers are forgotten, and Europeans will convince themselves that the security apparatus is simply trying to oppress everyone. And of course, never minimize the oppressive potential of security forces. The United States is different in this sense. It is an artificial regime, not a natural one. It was invented by our founders on certain principles and is open to anyone who embraces those principles. Europe's nationalism is romantic, naturalistic. It depends on bonds that stretch back through time and cannot be easily broken. But the idea of shared principles other than their own is offensive to the religious everywhere, and at this moment in history, this aversion is most commonly present among Muslims. This is a truth that must be faced. The Mediterranean borderland was a place of conflict well before Christianity and Islam existed. It will remain a place of conflict even if both lose their vigorous love of their own beliefs. It is an illusion to believe that conflicts rooted in geography can be abolished. It is also a mistake to be so philosophical as to disengage from the human fear of being killed at your desk for your ideas. We are entering a place that has no solutions. Such a place does have decisions, and all of the choices will be bad. What has to be done will be done, and those who refused to make choices will see themselves as more moral than those who did. There is a war, and like all wars, this one is very different from the last in the way it is prosecuted. But it is war nonetheless, and denying that is denying the obvious

Fortify defence framework to combat threats-Kanwal Sibal

Fortify defence framework to combat threats Kanwal Sibal Jan 14 2015 http://www.tribuneindia.com/ news/comment/fortify-defence- framework-to-combat-threats/ 29687.html Part-3 Excerpts from the presentations at the Roundtable on National Security Key Challenges Ahead organised by The Tribune National Security Forum in collaboration with the Indian Council of World Affairs See also www.tribuneindia.com To be able to deal with threats, we have to first identify them. Historically, the threat to us has been from the west. Today, Pakistan has become the embodiment of that threat. We had no historical threat from the north, but now China embodies it. The eastern part of the country remains disturbed, with local insurgencies there having some external connections even now. Southwards, seaborne threats are rising. The 1993 Mumbai attack and the subsequent 26/11 attack were staged from the sea, opening a new area of vulnerability. As our Home Minister has pointed out, while our major ports are well secured, there are over 200 minor ports and 1,500 landing points which still appear vulnerable. Further south, with the Chinese presence growing in the Indian Ocean area, we have to increasingly contend with a new threat to our security. India is, therefore, uniquely challenged as the threats are from all directions. India's territorial integrity is threatened. Two countries claim Indian territory: Pakistan and China. No other example exists of unsettled borders involving a country of India's size in an environment of conflict and competition. Both Pakistan and China collaborate with each other against India, presenting us with a two-front situation. Both countries do not accept the territorial status quo, which alone could be the basis of eventual compromises. But Pakistan wants a part of Kashmir and China, at the minimum, wants Tawang. China has neutralised us strategically in South Asia by transferring nuclear and missile technologies to Pakistan. Consequently, despite acquiring nuclear capability, India has not been able to deter sufficiently territorial and other pressures from China and Pakistan. Under cover of its nuclear capability, Pakistan uses the instrument of terror against us. As is the case with its nuclear capability that Pakistan is constantly augmenting without any serious countervailing action from the West despite its nonproliferation phobias, the Western powers have been remarkably tolerant of Pakistan's terrorist affiliations too. This is a problem for us. The argument that putting pressure on an ailing state like Pakistan will push it towards failure, raising the danger of its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of extremists, is unconvincing when the US and EU are willing to impose punishing sanctions on a major nuclear power like Russia and seek its economic collapse. India has not found an adequate answer to the terrorist menace from Pakistan as the option of serious punitive action carries great risks. In our neighbourhood, the Taliban remains a disruptive force and ideology. The future of Afghanistan is uncertain, with the planned withdrawal of US/NATO forces as well as the pursuit of Pakistan's strategic ambitions there. The rise of ISIL potentially adds to the menace of religious extremism that India faces. The question is whether this ideology will creep ever closer to India. We do not know how many Indians have joined ISIL. It is difficult to assess how many in India are vulnerable to this ideology. We cannot overlook the connection between this threat and extremist Muslim groups in India, which points to the need to properly manage our internal communal situation. China is undermining our security in the south through its thrust in the Indian Ocean directed at Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Its submarines docked at Colombo very recently, signifying an increasing Chinese naval presence near our shores. China has repackaged its so-called String-of-Pearls strategy as the maritime silk route project. In the north, the economic belts it is promoting are intended to link other countries in the region economically to China, assisting the flow of Chinese goods. China will thus become the centre to which the periphery is tied. It has vastly improved its military infrastructure in Tibet. We are feeling the pressure of this through its periodic intrusions into our territory. While additional border mechanisms to maintain peace and tranquility on the border are being agreed to by both sides, ironically, the military dispositions of both in the border regions are being simultaneously expanded. China wants to keep us under pressure on the border and not lose this leverage by resolving the border issue. It does not even want to clarify the Line of Actual Control so that it can have a free hand to engage in power play with us as needed. It is undermining our influence in our neighbouring countries, whether Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and even Bhutan. To counter us even more effectively in our own region, it is now seeking membership of SAARC. Defence manufacturing We have neglected our defences and failed to develop indigenous defence manufacturing capacities. We cannot be really secure if we remain import-dependent, or be a big power without some autonomy in defence manufacturing. We need to accelerate our strategic programmes to better ensure our security, as the military gap between India and China is growing. We need to consider whether to partially revise our nuclear doctrine in view of Pakistan's decision to introduce tactical nuclear weapons in the region. Our borders are porous, especially with Nepal and Bangladesh. Both countries have been used by Pakistani agencies against our security. We need to control these borders better, but how to do it without destroying the “special relationship” with Nepal? How to integrate Bangladesh increasingly with our economy and simultaneously tighten border movement? Cyber security has become a major concern. How do we protect our critical infrastructure against cyber attacks? Chinese companies have entered our telecom and power sectors in a big way. We are now inviting them into our railway sector. How do we manage the cyber threat even as we seek more Chinese involvement in the economy? The social media has become the instrument of many kinds of threats to our security, especially terrorism and incitement of social conflict from outside our borders. How we monitor the social media without infringing on privacy and freedom of expression is a challenge. China has acquired formidable economic power that is now translating itself into political influence and military strength. We should, however, not engage in an arms race with China. Our focus should be to build our defence capacities as rapidly as possible. The ‘Make-in-India’ policy, increasing the ceiling of FDI in the defence sector and opening it to the private sector are steps in the right direction. We have to develop our sea-based deterrent rapidly. We have to preserve our strategic autonomy but enhance politico-military cooperation with the US, Japan, Australia and Vietnam to the extent that serves our interests and does not disturb the overall balance of our policies. The platforms for engaging China should be preserved but other platforms and relationships that hedge against China's aggressive behaviour should not be spurned. India has not been able to take advantage of the situation to build our defence capabilities against China when the latter has remained under a western arms embargo, but arms from those sources have been available to us. Russia had earlier become more reticent about arms sales to China, but is now releasing advanced arms to it, including the S-400 air defence system. Russia is also preparing to sell attack helicopters to Pakistan in a bid to pressure us to obtain more defence contracts. Despite concerns about overdependence on Russia, it is strategically important for us to maintain a stable defence relationship with Russia, as it remains the source of defence equipment and technologies not easily available elsewhere. Our strategic autonomy, and hence our security, requires strong ties with Russia, which is currently under huge pressure from the West, reminiscent of Cold War years. The assumption that we have no option but to have a dialogue with Pakistan, and that without good relations with our neighbours we cannot act on the world stage credibly has to be revised. Our neighbours need us more than we need them. Because our biggest problem with Pakistan is terrorism, we should insist on a link between dialogue and terrorism. Our threats from Pakistan will not be diminished by making concessions to it. We should not hold any discussion with Pakistan on Siachen. Opening up of LoC links in Kashmir and encouraging the idea of a united Kashmir is dangerous to our security as we do not fully control the ground situation inside Kashmir, especially its orientation away from Sufi Islam. We should raise the issue of Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir more forcefully and not miss any occasion to protest at China-Pakistan agreements pertaining to that territory, just as China does with regard to Arunachal Pradesh. We have to be tougher with Sri Lanka on the issue of China’s naval vessels docking in its ports, and about its advocacy of China, even within SAARC. We should also be more forthright with Nepal and the Maldives on this count. Ties with Gulf, East We should maintain a balance between our relations with the Gulf states and Iran, even though we have greater financial, trade, manpower and energy interests with the former. The Gulf states are the source of destabilising extremist ideologies that threaten us. The Al-Qaida has announced a new outfit for targeting South Asia. The Look-East policy strengthens our security in various ways by giving us an enhanced role in developing an Asian security architecture and countering Chinese north-south connectivities with the east-west connectivities that we are promoting. This policy has now been upgraded to ‘Act East’, which essentially means better implementation of our initiatives and policies. Building a stronger relationship with Japan is important as it contributes to our security. A strong relationship with Israel serves our security interests, but it should be balanced with attention to the Arab world to maintain a degree of balance. The relationship with the US should be strengthened as much as possible but without any illusion that the US will get involved on our side in India-Pakistan or India-China differences. Good relations with the US, however, open diplomatic space for us in all directions. These relations should not be threat-linked, but interest-linked

AVINASH CHANDER DRDO-डीआरडीओ) प्रमुख अविनाश चंदर :युवापिढीला संधी देण्यासाठी चंदर यांची उचलबांगडी

डीआरडीओ) प्रमुख अविनाश चंदर :युवापिढीला संधी देण्यासाठी चंदर यांची उचलबांगडी : पर्रिकर १४ जानेवारी संरक्षण संशोधन आणि विकास संस्थेचे (डीआरडीओ) प्रमुख अविनाश चंदर यांना बडतर्फ करण्यात वादाचा कोणताही विषय नसून, युवापिढीला संधी देण्यासाठी आपण स्वत: अशी शिफारस केली होती, असे संरक्षण मंत्री मनोहर पर्रिकर यांनी स्पष्ट केले आहे. अविनाश चंदर यांचा कार्यकाळ गेल्यावर्षीच्या नोव्हेंबर महिन्यातच संपुष्टात आला होता आणि आधीच्या सरकारने कंत्राटी पद्धतीने त्यांचा कार्यकाळ वाढविला होता. अशा वरिष्ठ पदांवरील नियुक्ती ही कंत्राटी पद्धतीने होता कामा नये. या पदावर नियुक्तीसाठी अनेक जण पात्र आहेत आणि त्यापैकी एकाची या पदावर नियुक्ती झाली पाहिजे, असे मनोहर पर्रिकर यांनी पत्रकारांशी बोलताना सांगितले आणि यामध्ये वाद निर्माण करण्यासारखे काहीही नसल्याचे स्पष्ट केले. कंत्राटी पद्धतीने नियुक्त केलेली व्यक्ती या पदावर नसावी, अशी शिफारस मी स्वत: केली होती. आता विज्ञान जगात आम्ही युवापिढीला संधी दिली पाहिजे, असे पर्रिकर यांनी नॉर्थ ब्लॉकबाहेर बोलताना सांगितले. या पदावर कुणाची नियुक्ती होईल, असे विचारले असता सध्या संस्थेत वरिष्ठ असलेल्या व्यक्तीची या पदावर अस्थायी नियुक्ती केली जाईल. आम्ही डीआरडीओमध्येच विकासाची दूरदृष्टी असलेली एखादी व्यक्ती शोधून त्याची नियुक्ती करू, असेही पर्रिकर यांनी सांगितले. संरक्षणाच्या भात्यात ५ हजार किलोमीटर लांब पल्ल्याचे अग्नि क्षेपणास्त्र विकसित करून भारताला पाच प्रगत देशांच्या पंक्तीत बसविण्याचा मान दिल्याबद्दल संरक्षण साधनसामग्री संशोधन व विकाससंस्थेचे (डीआरडीओ) प्रमुख अविनाश चंदर यांची 'अग्नि-मॅन' अशी ख्याती झाली. आज मात्र केंद्र सरकारच्या एका आदेशाच्या फटकाऱ्याने या अग्नि-मॅनची विहित कराराच्या सव्वा वर्षे अगोदरच उचलबांगडी झाली आहे. देशाच्या संरक्षण साधनसामग्री विकासात महत्त्वाची भूमिका बजावलेल्या पद्मश्रीने सन्मानित शास्त्रज्ञाला त्याची सरकारीसेवा व इतक्या मोठ्या संस्थेचे प्रमुखपद अचानक संपुष्टात आणल्याचे सन्मानपूर्वक कळविलेही जाऊ नये, हे अजिबातच भूषणावह नाही. १९७२ पासून डीआरडीओमध्ये कार्यरत असलेले चंदर नोव्हेंबर २०१४ मध्ये ६४ व्या वर्षी निवृत्त होणार होते. त्यानंतर त्यांना २०१६ पर्यंत १८ महिन्यांच्या करारावर मुदतवाढ देण्यात आली. चंदर हे संरक्षणमंत्र्यांचे विज्ञानविषयक सल्लागार व संरक्षण संशोधनविषयक सचिव ही पदेही भूषवित होते. मात्र, दोनच दिवसांपूर्वी पंतप्रधान नरेंद्र मोदी यांच्या अध्यक्षतेखालील नियुक्ती समितीने चंदर यांचा करार जानेवारीअखेरच गुंडाळण्यावर स्वाक्षरी केली. आश्चर्य म्हणजे अगदी कालपर्यंत चंदर यांच्याशी कोणताही पत्रव्यवहार झाला नव्हता व ते नेहमीप्रमाणेच संस्थेत आले. साहजिकच सभ्यतेचे संकेत धुडकावून 'डीआरडीओ प्रमुखां'ना असे जावे लागावे, याचे तीव्र प्रतिसाद उमटले. त्यानंतर तरुण रक्ताला वाव देण्यासाठीच आम्ही हा निर्णय घेतला, असे स्पष्टीकरण संरक्षणमंत्री मनोहर पर्रीकर यांनी दिले. म्हणजेच पर्रीकर यांनीही या निर्णयाच्या जबाबदारीचा वाटा उचलला. पंतप्रधान मोदी यांनी ऑगस्ट महिन्यात डीआरडीओच्या भेटीत संस्थेच्या कार्यपद्धतीवर जे कोरडे ओढले, त्याची पार्श्वभूमी या निर्णयास असावी. आता 'चलता है' वृत्ती सोडून द्या, असे त्यांनी सुनावले होते. गेल्या अनेक वर्षात डीआरडीओ संस्था कमालीचा विलंब आणि फुगलेला खर्च यामुळे टीकेची धनी ठरली आहे. तेजस लढाऊ विमाने, त्यांची नौदलासाठीची आवृत्ती, हलक्या वजनाचे प्रगत पाणतीर, लांब पल्ल्याची हवेतून हवेत मारा करणारी क्षेपणास्त्रे, कावेरी हे तेजस विमानांसाठीचे इंजिन असे अनेक प्रकल्प कित्येक वर्षे रखडले होते. डीआरडीओचा कारभार गेल्या काही वर्षात प्रचंड विस्तारला, परंतु 'डिलिव्हरी'चे गणित पार बिघडले. एकदा तर सामाजिक जबाबदारीचा भाग म्हणून डीआरडीओने महाराष्ट्रातल्याच एका मंदिरासाठी बॅटरीवर चालणारा रथ तयार केला आणि वेळ-पैसा-कौशल्य यांचा हा अपव्यय कशाला हवा, अशा रास्त टीकेचे मोहोळ उठले. क्षेपणास्त्र, विमाने यांच्याव्यतिरिक्त डीआरडीओकडे अशा अनेक वृथा कामांची जंत्री आहे, ज्या जबाबदाऱ्या खासगी क्षेत्राकडे सहज सोपविता येतील व त्याने गोपनीयतेचा मुळीच भंग होणार नाही. या प्रशासकीय अराजकापुरतीच चंदर यांची एक्झिट होती की त्यामागे आणखी काही कारण दडले आहे ? की 'मेक इन इंडिया'च्या मोदी सरकारच्या व्याख्येत चंदर यांचे जमत नव्हते? चंदर यांच्या वैज्ञानिक कौशल्याची सगळेच जण प्रशंसा करतात व भारतावर आर्थिक निर्बंध असतानाच्या काळात त्यांनी आपला क्षेपणास्त्र विकास कार्यक्रम सुरळीतपणे राबविला, याचे श्रेय त्यांना आहे. मग त्यांची प्रशासकीय कुशलता कशामुळे कमी पडली, याचेही विश्लेषण व्हायला हवे. गेल्या काही महिन्यात अनेक शास्त्रज्ञांना निवृत्तीनंतर मुदतवाढ दिली गेल्यामुळे तरुण पिढीमध्ये नाराजी होती. चंदर यांची उचलबांगडी करताना पंतप्रधानांनी किंवा संरक्षण खात्याने या संस्थेच्या पुनर्रचनेची कोणतीही योजना जनतेला सांगितलेली नाही. संरक्षणसिध्दतेच्या बाबतीत इतर अनेक सरकारी उपक्रमांच्या बाबतीतही हेच चित्र आहे. आता सरकारने संस्थात्मक पुनर्रचनेच्या कामाला लागावे, हेच बरे. डीआरडीओप्रमुखांच्या अवमानकारक गच्छन्तिने चुकीचा संदेश गेला आहे, एवढे मात्र निश्चित.

पोलिसांचे काम हे सध्याच्या काळात जनतेला सुरक्षा देण्यापेक्षा सरकारची म्हणजे धन्याची सेवा करणे हेच झाले आहे

पोलिसांचे काम हे सध्याच्या काळात जनतेला सुरक्षा देण्यापेक्षा सरकारची म्हणजे धन्याची सेवा करणे हेच झाले आहे. आमच्या देशात न्याययंत्रणा स्वतंत्र राहिलेली नाही तेथे पोलीस यंत्रणा तरी कशी राहणार? पण मांजराच्या गळ्यात घंटा बांधायची कोणी? मांजरेही मोकाट सुटली आहेत. मांजरे मोकाट सुटली! शंभर अपराधी सुटले तरी चालतील, पण एकाही निरपराध्यास सजा होऊ नये असे बोलले जाते. त्यामुळे आपला कायदा म्हणा किंवा पोलीस म्हणा, अनेकदा ताकही जरा जास्तच फुंकून पिताना दिसतात. त्याचा फायदा गुन्हेगारी प्रवृत्तीचे लोक घेत असतात व अनेक गुन्हे पुराव्याअभावी अनिर्णीत अवस्थेत अधांतरी लटकलेले दिसतात. त्यामुळे हायकोर्टाने सरकारला धारेवर धरले आहे. दिवसाढवळ्या खून पडताहेत, पण सरकारला खुनी का सापडत नाहीत, असा सवाल हायकोर्टाने सरकारला विचारला आहे. डॉ. नरेंद्र दाभोलकरांचा खून दिवसाढवळ्या पुण्यात झाला. त्यांचे मारेकरी अद्यापि मोकाट आहेत. लोणावळ्याचे आर.टी.आय. कार्यकर्ते सतीश शेट्टी, पुण्याचे निखिल राणे यांचेही मारेकरी अद्यापि सापडू शकलेले नाहीत. या लोकांचे मारेकरी हवेत विरून गेले की जमिनीत गडप झाले? हा प्रश्‍नच आहे. आता उच्च न्यायालयाच्या निर्देशानुसार या मारेकर्‍यांचे काय झाले व पोलिसांनी काय तपास केला याबाबत सरकारला प्रतिज्ञापत्र सादर करायचे आहे. गुन्हेगार व खुन्यांचा तपास लागला नाही तर जनता सुरक्षित राहणार नाही असे मत उच्च न्यायालयाने व्यक्त केले आहे. सध्या न्याययंत्रणेने राज्यकर्त्याची भूमिका स्वीकारली आहे. न्यायव्यवस्थेत कुणाला ढवळाढवळ करता येणार नाही, पण अलीकडे न्याययंत्रणा कुठेही घुसते व ढवळाढवळ करते. लोकनियुक्त सरकारचे अधिकार न्याययंत्रणेच्या हाती गेले तर अराजक माजेल व लोकशाही, निवडणुका तसेच लोकप्रतिनिधींना काहीच किंमत राहणार नाही यावर सगळ्यांचे एकमत असले तरी न्यायदेवतेचा अवमान होईल म्हणून सगळेच चिडीचूप असतात. न्यायालयांनी सरकारला दंडुका मारला आहे; पण सध्या न्यायालयात खरोखरच न्याय मिळतो काय? जो मिळतो त्याला ‘न्याय’ म्हणता येईल काय? ‘शहाण्याने कोर्टाची पायरी चढू नये’ अशी जी परंपरागत म्हण आहे त्यात बदल व्हावा असे काही घडणार की नाही! प्रकरण न्यायालयात नेऊ नका, खालच्या खालीच चिरीमिरी देऊन मिटवा असे तडजोडीचे माहात्म्य पोलीस ठाण्यात शिकवले जाते. कारण कोर्टाच्या गुंत्यात अडकला तर सात जन्म न्याय मिळणार नाही. तारखांच्या ओझ्याखाली गरीब गुदमरून मरतो. न्यायव्यवस्थेत पंचवीस पंचवीस वर्षे निकाल लागत नसतील तर पोलिसांनी झटपट गुन्हेगार पकडून उपयोग काय? पुन्हा तुमचे ते राजकीय दबाव वगैरे आहेतच. काही प्रमाणात राजकीय सूडापोटी गुन्हे लादले जातात व एखाद्यास त्याच दबावाखाली साधा जामीनही मिळू दिला जात नाही. कायमचे तुरुंगात सडत पडावे इतका मोठा गुन्हा नसतानाही सुरेशदादा जैन यांना अनेक महिने सडवत ठेवले ते कुणाच्या तरी सूडापोटीच ना? मग छडा न लागलेल्या गुन्ह्यांचे काय? असा जो प्रश्‍न कोर्टाला पडतो तसा प्रश्‍न नाहक सडवत ठेवलेल्या व्यक्तींचे काय? या पद्धतीनेही विचारला जाऊ शकतो. अनेकदा खुनातले व दहशतवादी कृत्यातले आरोपी पुराव्याअभावी सुटतात; पण हे पुराव्याचे कागदोपत्री सोपस्कार पोलीस मंडळीच करीत असतात व त्यावर न्यायालये आपली मोहोर उठवीत असतात. म्हणजे जेथे लावायचे तेथे छडे लावून इतर ठिकाणी शांतता तपास चालू आहे असे दंडुके आपटले जातात. पुण्यात दाभोलकरांचा खून कसा झाला याचे रहस्य कायम आहे. लोणावळ्यातील सतीश शेट्टी व पुण्यातील निखिल राणे प्रकरणात पोलीस, सीआयडी, सीबीआय असे सगळेच कामाला लागूनही सत्य हाताशी येत नाही. गुन्हेगार पोलिसांपेक्षा दोन पावले पुढे असतो व अनेकदा पोलिसांपेक्षा उत्तम यंत्रणा तो राबवीत असतो. मुंबईत ‘२६-११’चा हल्ला आणि बॉम्बस्फोटांच्या घटना घडूनही पोलीस आधुनिक शस्त्रांनी सज्ज नाहीत असा निष्कर्ष न्यायालयाने काढण्याची गरज नाही. कारण हे भोग शेवटी सामान्य जनतेच्या नशिबीच येत असतात. पोलीस यंत्रणाही अनेकदा राज्यकर्त्यांच्या टाचेखाली असते. शिवाय पोलिसांचे काम हे सध्याच्या काळात जनतेला सुरक्षा देण्यापेक्षा सरकारची म्हणजे धन्याची सेवा करणे हेच झाले आहे. आमच्या देशात न्याययंत्रणा स्वतंत्र राहिलेली नाही तेथे पोलीस यंत्रणा तरी कशी राहणार? पण मांजराच्या गळ्यात घंटा बांधायची कोणी? मांजरेही मोकाट सुटली आहेत.