Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[feverpitch]

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070730&fname=Haneef+(F)&sid=1

AUSTRALIA/UK: INDIAN SUSPECTS

Howard's Ends

Will Dr Haneef be a pawn in the whole terror scare on in Oz?

Janaki Bahadur Kremmer

Once the newshounds in Australia were convinced about the seemingly weak case against terror suspect Mohammed Haneef, they began to speculate furiously on why Prime Minister John Howard's government was obstinately hung up on detaining the 27-year-old doctor from Bangalore. And they did have ample reason to look for ulterior motives—here was a man who was interrogated in detention for 14 harrowing days before being charged for "recklessly" supporting a terrorist group in the UK; someone who had been granted bail on rigorous conditions, including a surety bond of 10,000 Australian dollars. Even as these formalities were being completed, he found his immigration visa had been revoked, that he was to be held in Brisbane's high security prison—and that too in solitary confinement for 23 hours everyday—because he had been tagged as a "terrorist prisoner". So what the Brisbane magistrate's court found safe—that Dr Haneef could face trial while on bail—the government thought was extremely risky.

The Howard government's motive, according to conspiracy theorists, is age-old, one which has often inspired even Indian politicians to play sinister games. Yes, it's about the Howard government's determination to raise the spectre of a security threat to bolster its flagging position in the opinion polls prior to the national elections later this year. Howard's own past has imparted credibility to the theory. In August '01, his government refused to allow 433 people, picked up from a leaking boat by a Norwegian vessel, to land on the Australian mainland, insinuating that they may be potential terrorists and stoking fears of the country being swamped by foreign hordes. The issue was still in focus when 9/11 happened which gave a massive boost to the government's stand. Months later, Howard won the election.

This time, though, the conspiracy theory has gained currency among common Australians as well. One letter to the editor in The Australian newspaper cites the Haneef case to say, "It is an act of persecution. Simply, this government shames us all." A second read, "Seems somebody is clutching at straws to justify two weeks of very expensive investigation." And yet a third described Haneef as a "fat worm on the hook" with an election coming up, adding, "The liberals won't let him go now as he is to be the bait they will use to try to capture the voting public." Adding heft to these letters from aghast readers is Peter Bailey, a legal expert at the Australian National University, Canberra, who lamented to Outlook, "It's the bloody government up to its tricks again, trying to whip up things just before the elections."

But it's unlikely Howard will succeed this time around. An editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) said as much, "If opinion polls are to be believed, voters have a diminishing appetite for political stunts. In an election year, when politics cannot be avoided, that may be the ultimate verdict." The opposition Labor party has refused to be sucked into the Haneef debate, merely saying it gives support to the government, in principle, on the issue—and is letting the tussle between the judiciary and the executive play itself out in the media. At one stage, though, Queensland premier Peter Beattie, who belongs to Labor, exclaimed, "I don't mean to be critical of them other than to say, for God's sake, explain to the Australians why you have taken this course of action."

An explanation of the accusations against Dr Haneef was reported by Outlook last week.

He was detained at the Brisbane airport on July 2 because he had a one-way ticket to India, "incriminating" because his cousin Kafeel had the previous day driven a flaming jeep into a Glasgow airport terminal; he was subsequently charged for "recklessly" supporting the terror group because he had, before leaving the UK for Australia, given his SIM card to Kafeel's brother, Sabeel Ahmed, who had been picked up from Liverpool. One of Haneef's lawyers, Peter Russo, says the word "reckless" isn't appropriate to describe what Haneef did.

Still, the Haneef issue could have blown away but for immigration minister Kevin Andrews revoking the Bangalore doctor's visa.

The minister justified the act saying he had a responsibility to ensure that people on an immigration visa did not breach requirements that they be of "good character"; and that he had "reasonable suspicion" about Haneef's links to terrorists. A miffed Russo told Outlook, "Without going into the very complex and complicated legal process, suffice to say we have
decided to challenge the government's decision to revoke Haneef's visa and have accused it of misusing its discretionary powers in doing so." The hearing on the visa issue is due on August 8.

Justice Jeffrey Spender, who heard the visa case, questioned Andrews' definition of good character. The SMH reported that Justice Spender even told government counsel Roger Derrington that "he (Spender) himself had associated with persons involved in criminal activity (during his days as a lawyer). 'I have defended them, charged with murder. Unfortunately, I wouldn't pass the character test...,' he said."

Other legal experts too have expressed outrage, saying the government's decision to detain Haneef will jeopardise his chances for a fair trial.
"There are several places where the government may be seen to be in contempt of court," explains legal expert Bailey. "No minister to my knowledge has disregarded a court order in this way, and to take away his visa without sufficient reason is an attempt to exclude the court from the Migration Act. It's not enough for Andrews to say that he is satisfied that Haneef poses a terror threat to society here without explaining why." (The terror case is in the Brisbane magistrate's court, the visa case is in a federal court.)

Similarly, Tim Bugg, president of the Law Council of Australia, representing the country's 50,000 lawyers, told the SMH, "We're very critical of the position the minister (Andrews) has adopted. The procedure he followed was cloaked in secrecy. It's one in which the doctor had no ability to represent his position...." John Dowd, president of the executive committee of the International Commission of Jurists Australia, has been quoted saying, "Governments ought to respect decisions by the courts...the world now knows this government waited until the release on bail to do it (revocation of the visa). And you don't have to be terribly bright to work out the sequence of events."

Meanwhile, the Indian government's response has been deplorably passive. Considering its own dubious record of detaining terror suspects for years without trial, it came as no surprise that though New Delhi hauled up the Australian high commissioner John McCarthy to express dismay over the revocation of Haneef's visa, its 'criticism' was more rhetorical than substantial.

Asked to explain what the Indian government expected of Canberra, a senior source in the India mission here said, "We request that Haneef, who has been linked by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to the failed terrorist plots in London and Glasgow, be given a fair and just trial under Australian law." The source didn't even express outrage at a case that is becoming more bizarre by the day, and instead chose to talk about the possible backlash against the Indian community here.

One of the strange twists to the case has been The Australian newspaper publishing the text of the AFP's taped interview of Haneef. In it, Haneef denied he had ever been asked "to take part in jehad or anything that could be considered similar to jehad". He further told the AFP that he had, at his father-in-law's bidding (after his cousins were arrested in the UK), called the British police to tell them about the SIM card he'd given to Sabeel. But these calls went unanswered. Stephen Keim, Haneef's barrister, leaked the report to the press because he said he was tired of the selective leaks by the police and the government to bias the public against the Indian doctor.

Ironically, some now feel the Haneef case has come as a boon for Indo-Aussie relations. Says Rory Metcalfe, India expert at the Lowy Institute, an independent think-tank in Sydney, "The two countries have talked a lot about counter-terrorism cooperation, but other than posting an AFP officer there some time last year, neither country has made a big effort. This could be the shock to the system that actually makes things happen." Adds Hugh White, head of the strategic affairs institute at the Australian National University, "Both countries share growing concerns about Islamic terrorism and traditional expectations on both sides are not that diverse," thereby indicating that things need to become a bit worse before it can affect bilateral ties.

Back in the UK, Sabeel has been charged under the Terrorism Act with possessing information which he "knew or believed may be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another of an act of terrorism". The police charge does not specify as yet just what they say Sabeel knew. A court will now have to consider what he knew or could have done to stop brother Kafeel. (He is yet to be formally charged as he is convalescing from the burns injuries in hospital.)

For the present, the abortive terror jobs have become a bit of a joke. The Sun has even called it 'Moron Terror'. Says Rachel Briggs, terrorism expert at the Demos think-tank, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist—or a doctor—to know that driving a jeep into an airport is never going to cause much damage. There's nothing you can do to harm a terrorist more than point at their inadequacies. There's actually been a quite humorous side to this." An explosion of Islamic rage has become a matter of mirth for people—and needlessly tragic for poor Haneef in Australia.


By Janaki B. Kremmer in Sydney with inputs from Sanjay Suri in London

[feverpitch]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?id=c8b2f97b-68f5-406c-889e-e13cc66d01e0indiandocsinukterrorplot_Special&MatchID1=4500&TeamID1=2&TeamID2=6&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1122&PrimaryID=4500&Headline=Haneef%3a+India%e2%80%99s+hypocrisy

Haneef: India’s hypocrisy

Barkha Dutt

New Delhi, July 21, 2007

   
      
Our schizophrenia as a people is astounding. Right now we are consumed with self-righteous indignation over how Mohammed Haneef, an Indian citizen and an initial suspect in the Glasgow bomb blast, is being treated by the Australians. In his humiliation, we see a sinister attack on our national pride. In the decision to scrap his visa, we see the premature death of our own emigration dreams. We want our government to be less effete in its intervention. We think this is about racism, not terrorism.

In itself, this is a worthy (if slightly selfish) and laudable emotion. By all accounts, the 27-year-old doctor from Bangalore is being victimised, hounded and tortured. A magistrate has already ruled that there is no evidence to link Haneef with the bombing conspiracies in either Glasgow or London. And yet, an innocent man continues to be held in solitary confinement with the ludicrous explanation that the solitude is actually designed to give him more ‘privacy’. Haneef has eloquently argued his own innocence, describing himself as a “Muslim with moderate views” who believes that “every drop of blood is human”. When Australian Prime Minister John Howard still goes on to declare grandly that he is “not uncomfortable” with the young doctor’s continued detention our outrage is spontaneous and entirely legitimate.

But, what if Haneef had been arrested in Bangalore instead of Brisbane? What if a suicide bomber had rammed his explosives-laden car into the airport at Srinagar, instead of Scotland? And what if our investigating agencies had then told us that Haneef was a dreaded terrorist because he had loaned his mobile sim card to one of the men involved in the attack? Would we have been as concerned then about whether an innocent man had been locked away? Would we have demanded transparency from our judicial process on the grounds that the evidence was sketchy? Or would we have simply ranted about how India is a soft State and Islam a factory for fundamentalists? We have branded the Australians as racist, but would we have called ourselves communal?

The overwhelming anger at Haneef’s arrest would be a lot more reassuring, were it not underlined by a distinct double standard.

Turn your mind back to the Parliament attack of 2001. It was indisputably an attack on the nerve centre of India, and the desire for visible justice was entirely understandable. But, in a case eerily similar to Haneef’s, didn’t our investigating agencies almost put an innocent man on death row? The special Pota court trying the case in its early stages convicted a Delhi-based college teacher along with the other accused and sentenced him to death. The entire case against Professor S.A.R. Geelani was based on the fact that he had some telephonic contact with the prime accused in the days before the attack. It was left to the Supreme Court to conclusively throw out the case against the professor and acquit him of all charges. But even today, intelligence officials and investigating officers insist that their case against him was foolproof and they had been let down by the courts. I don’t remember any public outrage defining the national response to the Professor Geelani case. If anything most people seemed willing to believe the police and were impatient and dismissive of the do-gooder human rights activists campaigning for his release.

More recently, Tariq Dar, a Kashmiri model who made it big in Bangladesh was locked away on charges of terrorism. Accused of playing a role in the Delhi blasts of 2005, he spent three months in custody. Finally, the police were forced to concede in court that they did not have enough evidence to build any case against him, and he was able to walk free. The judge who acquitted him was passionate in her ruling. “It’s astonishing,” she wrote that “without an iota of evidence against him, Dar was kept in custody for 90 days which could be a lifetime for any common citizen.” But do you remember anyone you know sharing her anger? Today will be the 19th day Haneef has spent in custody, and we find that appalling. Yet, we were distinctly unmoved, when someone closer home, spent much longer in prison. How can we possibly explain this hypocrisy?

According to the Herald Sun, an Australian citizen, Roy Somerville, who has never met Haneef emerged as an unlikely benefactor and offered to post the ten thousand dollars in bail because he believes in a ‘fair go’. The newspaper quotes the Brisbane resident as saying that if the police only charged Haneef for giving his cousins an old sim card, then it was “bull*”. Can you imagine anyone in India bailing out a stranger implicated in a case of terrorism?

Of course, it is true that Australia has never known what it feels like to live in the shadow of militant violence and so its civil society may find it much easier to be benevolent compared to us. It is also true that the involvement of Kafeel Ahmed, an engineer from Bangalore in the Glasgow attack, has busted several myths we have about ourselves.

Readers of this column may remember that just a fortnight ago, I argued that political correctness on the left and religious bigotry on the right had strangulated honest conversation about the linkages between modern-day Islam and terrorism. There is an undeniable need to stop candy-flossing the impact of fundamentalism. India cannot pretend anymore that none of its citizens fancy membership to the Global Jehad club. We need to examine where our secularism has failed.

But equally, we still need to keep our democracy healthy. This means that as citizens of a progressive modern country we should be able to demand transparency from our investigating agencies. It also means that when people are locked away on flimsy charges, we owe it them and to ourselves to speak up, even if their politics and antecedents make us uncomfortable.

Seventy per cent of the men and women in India’s prisons are still awaiting trial — that’s a staggering 300,000 people. Some have already spent more time in jail just waiting for a court date than they would have had they been found guilty.

So, as we galvanise public opinion against the arrest of an innocent Indian in Australia, how about sparing some of that anger for the innocent Indians in India?


Barkha Dutt is Managing Editor, NDTV 24x7

[feverpitch]

http://www.counterpunch.org/kampmark07182007.html

July 18, 2007

The Inventiveness of John Howard

The SIM Card Terror Case

By BINOY KAMPMARK

I am satisfied that the cancellation is in the national interest.

Australian Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, July 16, 2007

No one can accuse Australia's John Howard (and his rather dreary acolytes) for being uninventive. Yes, he was a touch obsessed with a consumer tax in his second term ('I will never have a Goods and Consumer Tax' John), the baby of most liberal market economies; and yes, he was obsessed with muzzling trade unions.

For a time, it all seemed rather tedious and uninventive. Howard was bathing in the same waters Thatcher and Reagan had dipped their spears in. But in what sounds more like an item you would purchase at a dollar shop, GWOT (Global War on Terror) came along to rescue us from the mediocrity of just another social policy, stolen from every economy which has succeeded in increasing inequality.

We were, thankfully, rescued from comfortable, easy, likeable John, defender of that fond fetish: the hardy, sun-burnt Australian battler. In his stead came the paternal, worried John, concerned that Australia's 'way of life' was being threatened by shadowy warriors in a country that might, just might have weapons of mass destruction. (Sadly, Saddam, before he left this life, proved almost as inventive, calling his bluff.)

In terrorism, the Howard government shows innovation to rank with J.K. Rowling. It has sent Potter-like packages to the Australian public for bed time reading, though they are mercifully less long and less widely read. Let's Look out for Australia, distributed in 2003, was side-splitting fun. Be alert, not alarmed. Ring a hotline if anything suspicious could be found, or seen, or sniffed. The section on veiled Muslim girls and Chinese (in Australia, they are still called 'Asian', whatever that means) was placed alongside a beach cricket scene. Evidently, terrorists don't play cricket, though recent evidence, vide India, Pakistan and England, would suggest otherwise.

And now, citizens, or rather immigrants, must be careful to lend their SIM cards to their relatives. The reasons might be honourable enough ­ to use the rest of the credit at some future date. The suggestion in Canberra is different: They might end up in a global conspiracy to target civilians, stretching from Scotland to Queensland, consumed in a Glaswegian fireball at a rather ugly looking airport or plotting to blow up nightclubs.

Then, in Australia, the accessory might actually be charged, as Indian doctor Haneef Mohammad was, for providing 'reckless support' to a terrorist organisation (or to be more exact, Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed). Relatives should know better, though I am sure all readers must know everything their second cousins get up to. Naturally, not doing so renders you culpable.

The charge against Haneef, whose visa has now been revoked after bail was actually granted by a magistrate, is not merely an assault on the legal system but a gem of creativity. Magistrate Jacqui Payne claimed that the prosecutors had failed in providing evidence directly linking Haneef to a terrorist organisation. But Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews had his thinking cap on.

The genius of this government move is obvious once you realise that a terrorist suspect must, by virtue of this, be able to provide 'responsible' assistance to an organisation. What that could be is hard to know, though Canberra might be willing to supply a précis.

The Howard government's factory of linguistic turns was certainly working overtime to spin the product. Justice Jeffrey Spender of the Federal Court, who will hear Haneef's appeal on August 8, was puzzled by the character test used by Andrews in revoking the visa. 'Unfortunately I wouldn't pass the character test on your statement because I've been associated with people suspected of criminal conduct'. Such is the inventiveness of the rodent and his associates.

Republican Senator Vandenberg once told President Harry S. Truman that a sure way of getting money through Congress for a first (or was it second?) round bout with the Soviets in Greece and Turkey was 'to scare the hell out of the American people'. He did. Howard's sense of history is often confused, but on the score of cunning ­ one of his current front bench did call him a 'rodent' ­ he scores highly. He will have to. Labor's Kevin Rudd is breathing down his neck.

The grand old man of Australian politics is feeling the strain. It is an election year, and election years usually bring with them leaky boats (remember August 2001), veiled warriors and terrorist 'sleepers'. This year, David Hicks, confined to otherwise decay in the luxurious surroundings of a padded cell in 'Gitmo', was returned to South Australia. Then that nasty thing called the climate reared its ugly, drought-stricken head.

But in the foreseeable months, the importance of such wonders of the oft-abused word of 'civilisation' such as habeas corpus and a bill of rights might be finally seen as important. For a government keen to defend a certain way of life, overriding the court order granting bail suggests an unsavoury vision.

With Australian 'intelligence' authorities apparently investigating an Indian newspaper report claiming Haneef belonged to the banned Student Islamic Movement of India, one can rest well. We can continue being alert and not alarmed.


Binoy Kampmark is a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.com

[feverpitch]

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070730&fname=Col+Saeed+Naqvi&sid=1

The Messenger Shoots

Can the vent of democracy ease the Muslim's daily humiliations on live TV?

Saeed Naqvi

The implication of the Bangalore trio in the Glasgow bombing has caused people to wonder if terrorism has taken root among Indian Muslims. This rush to paint 150 million Muslims in lurid colours is itself a malaise which deserves examination. Why this willing suspension of disbelief about them? Because a) Communalism, cricket, cinema and crime being the guiding "Cs" of Indian TV, the media found the notion of high-voltage communalism taking root in the mecca of Indian IT irresistible; b) Over the years, an uninstitutionalised apartheid system has expanded. Hindus and Muslims rarely visit each other’s homes nor do they have occasion to meet, except at the prime minister’s Iftaar party. In this separateness, demonisation is easy if the only connecting system is an insensitive media; c) Also, the simultaneous focus in the electronic media on lives shattered in the Mumbai blasts. (Were there no Muslim lives, shattered in the Mumbai/Gujarat riots, deserving of a media review?); d) That the traumatic events in Glasgow and Lal Masjid happened at the same time aggravated the image of galloping terrorism, some of it finding roots in India.

Over the years, the "unity in diversity" model has come under strain on various counts, increasingly even on issues of foreign policy. This brings us to a paradox. The Muslim is internally divided into many cultures (Malayali, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu-speaking), but his worldview has always been similar. The idea of the Ummah does play a role when it comes to events concerning Muslims outside the country. *hiji was sensitive to this when he supported the Khilafat, although events in Turkey took a turn he didn’t anticipate. This worldview has been rather dramatically solidified since the first Gulf War when CNN showed for the first time in history live coverage of war. From that day, Muslim defeat and humiliation was to become staple fare on live TV.

The Muslim elite in Delhi and Oudh had been decimated during 1857. Globally, they were smashed when the Ottoman empire was liquidated in the wake of World War I. None of that was on TV. But in March ’91, Muslims in particular saw with their own eyes the defeat and humiliation of a Muslim state, Iraq, with roots in one of the world’s great civilisations. Then followed the two "intifadas", the four-year-long brutalisation of Bosnian Muslims, Srebrenica, rape camps, the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, the continuing occupation of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, desecration of the holiest of shrines in Samara—and all on live TV.

Any wonder, then, that the Muslim world is in a state of rage? Just as the workers of the world had nothing to lose but their chains, a section of Muslims feel they have nothing to lose but their daily humiliations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza etc. This is the way it comes across to them, riveted as they are on a diet of live TV. But responses of the world’s Muslims vary. Indian Muslims belong to an exceptional category for a simple reason: the world’s second largest Muslim population has the good fortune to operate in a multicultural, secular democracy. Remember, a massive demonstration at Ramlila grounds thwarted US President George Bush from addressing a joint session of Parliament. The vent of democracy keeps Indian Muslims from terrorism.

But our democratic ventilators will work only in conditions where there is some, minimal consensus across the board on issues. It is remarkable that for the first time in my experience, issues of foreign policy are leaving even the liberal Hindus and liberal Muslims on opposite sides. We ignore this only at our peril. A friend of mine, a scholar of some distinction, startled me with this observation, "These things have been happening throughout history, why are Indian Muslims so excessively concerned about events taking place thousands of miles away?"

Well, it was thousands of miles away that Hitler sent millions of Jews to the gas chambers. Hiroshima was even further away. And those tragedies were played out when information was transmitted at snail’s pace. Today’s atrocities are on live TV. Of course, if the US neocons evaporated miraculously, if the Arab dictatorships were removed, the world would become much more wholesome. But contrary to the scaremongers, the situation in India is more realistically manageable. Our democracy protects, among its billion, the world’s second largest Muslim population. Any initiative, even in foreign policy, must be sensitive to the centrality of internal social harmony. I doubt if Muslims want a break with America. All they want is a condemnation of atrocities—not an unreasonable expectation.

Of course, there will be occasion when the state, in the interest of statecraft, will not be able to raise its decibel level on, say, US misdemeanours worldwide, to match popular expectation. But the state can facilitate the addition of other ventilators to our democracy. One such ventilator can be a genuine public service media (as distinct from government media) which informs and alerts but does not demoralise.

[feverpitch]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2136093,00.html

Australia drops terror charge against Haneef

Barbara McMahon in Sydney
Friday July 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Australia's top prosecutor today dropped a terrorism charge against the Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef, accused of supporting the failed bombings in London and Glasgow.

Shortly afterwards, the country's immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, who had revoked the 27-year-old's visa on character grounds, also backtracked on a decision to keep him in detention.

He said that he would grant the junior doctor a "residential determination" that will allow Dr Haneef to return to his home on the Gold Coast or to stay at another private address while investigations into his case continued.

Both decisions are being seen as an embarrassing climbdown for the Australian authorities who have been under fire for their handling of the case.

The Indian-born Muslim doctor, who moved to Australia from Britain last year, has been in prison since July 2. He had been accused of recklessly supporting terrorism by giving his mobile phone sim card to a second cousin Sabeel Ahmed, whose brother allegedly drove rammed a jeep full of petrol and gas canisters into the main terminal building at Glasgow airport.

Two weeks ago, a magistrate ordered Dr Haneef to be freed on bail as prosecutors had failed to show direct evidence of his involvement in the failed terror plot. But Mr Andrew's overturned the decision, saying that he had also revoked the doctor's work visa on character grounds. The move prompted an outcry from legal and civil rights groups, who claimed the government was interfering with the judicial process.

During today's hearing in Brisbane, prosecutor Alan MacSporran told the court that there would be "no reasonable prospect of a conviction of Dr Haneef being secured" and said prosecutors had made two mistakes at the bail hearing.

One was that Dr Haneef's sim card had been found in the burning jeep at Glasgow airport, when in fact it had been found in the possession of his second cousin in Liverpool. The second error was that they had alleged Dr Haneef had once lived with some of the UK bombing suspects when he had not. Speaking afterwards at a joint press conference with the Australian federal police (AFP) commissioner, Mick Keelty, the country's director of public prosecutions, Damian Bugg, acknowledged that mistakes had been made but said he had no intention of resigning.

Mr Keelty was also defiant and refused to issue an apology. "The AFP has acted professionally, thoroughly and lawfully throughout this investigation and my officers and staff have my full confidence and support," he said. He added that investigations in Australia into the failed UK bombings would continue.

Speaking in Bali, the prime minister, John Howard, distanced his government from the collapse of the case. "Bearing in mind that the detention of the man was undertaken by the police, and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the government, and the case was prepared and presented by the director of public prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons," he said.

"Prime ministers don't conduct prosecutions, nor do attorneys-general - directors of public prosecutions do."

Dr Haneef's cousin Imran Siddiqui said he was overjoyed at his relative's impending release and added that the doctor's family would fight to clear his name completely.

[feverpitch]

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070730&fname=Col+Saeed+Naqvi&sid=1

The Messenger Shoots

Can the vent of democracy ease the Muslim's daily humiliations on live TV?

Saeed Naqvi

The implication of the Bangalore trio in the Glasgow bombing has caused people to wonder if terrorism has taken root among Indian Muslims. This rush to paint 150 million Muslims in lurid colours is itself a malaise which deserves examination. Why this willing suspension of disbelief about them? Because a) Communalism, cricket, cinema and crime being the guiding "Cs" of Indian TV, the media found the notion of high-voltage communalism taking root in the mecca of Indian IT irresistible; b) Over the years, an uninstitutionalised apartheid system has expanded. Hindus and Muslims rarely visit each other’s homes nor do they have occasion to meet, except at the prime minister’s Iftaar party. In this separateness, demonisation is easy if the only connecting system is an insensitive media; c) Also, the simultaneous focus in the electronic media on lives shattered in the Mumbai blasts. (Were there no Muslim lives, shattered in the Mumbai/Gujarat riots, deserving of a media review?); d) That the traumatic events in Glasgow and Lal Masjid happened at the same time aggravated the image of galloping terrorism, some of it finding roots in India.

Over the years, the "unity in diversity" model has come under strain on various counts, increasingly even on issues of foreign policy. This brings us to a paradox. The Muslim is internally divided into many cultures (Malayali, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu-speaking), but his worldview has always been similar. The idea of the Ummah does play a role when it comes to events concerning Muslims outside the country. *hiji was sensitive to this when he supported the Khilafat, although events in Turkey took a turn he didn’t anticipate. This worldview has been rather dramatically solidified since the first Gulf War when CNN showed for the first time in history live coverage of war. From that day, Muslim defeat and humiliation was to become staple fare on live TV.

The Muslim elite in Delhi and Oudh had been decimated during 1857. Globally, they were smashed when the Ottoman empire was liquidated in the wake of World War I. None of that was on TV. But in March ’91, Muslims in particular saw with their own eyes the defeat and humiliation of a Muslim state, Iraq, with roots in one of the world’s great civilisations. Then followed the two "intifadas", the four-year-long brutalisation of Bosnian Muslims, Srebrenica, rape camps, the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, the continuing occupation of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, desecration of the holiest of shrines in Samara—and all on live TV.

Any wonder, then, that the Muslim world is in a state of rage? Just as the workers of the world had nothing to lose but their chains, a section of Muslims feel they have nothing to lose but their daily humiliations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza etc. This is the way it comes across to them, riveted as they are on a diet of live TV. But responses of the world’s Muslims vary. Indian Muslims belong to an exceptional category for a simple reason: the world’s second largest Muslim population has the good fortune to operate in a multicultural, secular democracy. Remember, a massive demonstration at Ramlila grounds thwarted US President George Bush from addressing a joint session of Parliament. The vent of democracy keeps Indian Muslims from terrorism.

But our democratic ventilators will work only in conditions where there is some, minimal consensus across the board on issues. It is remarkable that for the first time in my experience, issues of foreign policy are leaving even the liberal Hindus and liberal Muslims on opposite sides. We ignore this only at our peril. A friend of mine, a scholar of some distinction, startled me with this observation, "These things have been happening throughout history, why are Indian Muslims so excessively concerned about events taking place thousands of miles away?"

Well, it was thousands of miles away that Hitler sent millions of Jews to the gas chambers. Hiroshima was even further away. And those tragedies were played out when information was transmitted at snail’s pace. Today’s atrocities are on live TV. Of course, if the US neocons evaporated miraculously, if the Arab dictatorships were removed, the world would become much more wholesome. But contrary to the scaremongers, the situation in India is more realistically manageable. Our democracy protects, among its billion, the world’s second largest Muslim population. Any initiative, even in foreign policy, must be sensitive to the centrality of internal social harmony. I doubt if Muslims want a break with America. All they want is a condemnation of atrocities—not an unreasonable expectation.

Of course, there will be occasion when the state, in the interest of statecraft, will not be able to raise its decibel level on, say, US misdemeanours worldwide, to match popular expectation. But the state can facilitate the addition of other ventilators to our democracy. One such ventilator can be a genuine public service media (as distinct from government media) which informs and alerts but does not demoralise.

[colonel]

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070730&fname=Col+Saeed+Naqvi&sid=1

The Messenger Shoots

Can the vent of democracy ease the Muslim's daily humiliations on live TV?

Saeed Naqvi

The implication of the Bangalore trio in the Glasgow bombing has caused people to wonder if terrorism has taken root among Indian Muslims. This rush to paint 150 million Muslims in lurid colours is itself a malaise which deserves examination. Why this willing suspension of disbelief about them? Because a) Communalism, cricket, cinema and crime being the guiding "Cs" of Indian TV, the media found the notion of high-voltage communalism taking root in the mecca of Indian IT irresistible; b) Over the years, an uninstitutionalised apartheid system has expanded. Hindus and Muslims rarely visit each other’s homes nor do they have occasion to meet, except at the prime minister’s Iftaar party. In this separateness, demonisation is easy if the only connecting system is an insensitive media; c) Also, the simultaneous focus in the electronic media on lives shattered in the Mumbai blasts. (Were there no Muslim lives, shattered in the Mumbai/Gujarat riots, deserving of a media review?); d) That the traumatic events in Glasgow and Lal Masjid happened at the same time aggravated the image of galloping terrorism, some of it finding roots in India.

Over the years, the "unity in diversity" model has come under strain on various counts, increasingly even on issues of foreign policy. This brings us to a paradox. The Muslim is internally divided into many cultures (Malayali, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu-speaking), but his worldview has always been similar. The idea of the Ummah does play a role when it comes to events concerning Muslims outside the country. *hiji was sensitive to this when he supported the Khilafat, although events in Turkey took a turn he didn’t anticipate. This worldview has been rather dramatically solidified since the first Gulf War when CNN showed for the first time in history live coverage of war. From that day, Muslim defeat and humiliation was to become staple fare on live TV.

The Muslim elite in Delhi and Oudh had been decimated during 1857. Globally, they were smashed when the Ottoman empire was liquidated in the wake of World War I. None of that was on TV. But in March ’91, Muslims in particular saw with their own eyes the defeat and humiliation of a Muslim state, Iraq, with roots in one of the world’s great civilisations. Then followed the two "intifadas", the four-year-long brutalisation of Bosnian Muslims, Srebrenica, rape camps, the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, the continuing occupation of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, desecration of the holiest of shrines in Samara—and all on live TV.

Any wonder, then, that the Muslim world is in a state of rage? Just as the workers of the world had nothing to lose but their chains, a section of Muslims feel they have nothing to lose but their daily humiliations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza etc. This is the way it comes across to them, riveted as they are on a diet of live TV. But responses of the world’s Muslims vary. Indian Muslims belong to an exceptional category for a simple reason: the world’s second largest Muslim population has the good fortune to operate in a multicultural, secular democracy. Remember, a massive demonstration at Ramlila grounds thwarted US President George Bush from addressing a joint session of Parliament. The vent of democracy keeps Indian Muslims from terrorism.

But our democratic ventilators will work only in conditions where there is some, minimal consensus across the board on issues. It is remarkable that for the first time in my experience, issues of foreign policy are leaving even the liberal Hindus and liberal Muslims on opposite sides. We ignore this only at our peril. A friend of mine, a scholar of some distinction, startled me with this observation, "These things have been happening throughout history, why are Indian Muslims so excessively concerned about events taking place thousands of miles away?"

Well, it was thousands of miles away that Hitler sent millions of Jews to the gas chambers. Hiroshima was even further away. And those tragedies were played out when information was transmitted at snail’s pace. Today’s atrocities are on live TV. Of course, if the US neocons evaporated miraculously, if the Arab dictatorships were removed, the world would become much more wholesome. But contrary to the scaremongers, the situation in India is more realistically manageable. Our democracy protects, among its billion, the world’s second largest Muslim population. Any initiative, even in foreign policy, must be sensitive to the centrality of internal social harmony. I doubt if Muslims want a break with America. All they want is a condemnation of atrocities—not an unreasonable expectation.

Of course, there will be occasion when the state, in the interest of statecraft, will not be able to raise its decibel level on, say, US misdemeanours worldwide, to match popular expectation. But the state can facilitate the addition of other ventilators to our democracy. One such ventilator can be a genuine public service media (as distinct from government media) which informs and alerts but does not demoralise.

It is precisely dishonest hypocricy like this that spewed in this article that provides scum such as Togadia or Bush their ammunition. The first three sentences in the bolded portion are classic.

[feverpitch]

http://telegraphindia.com/1070731/asp/frontpage/story_8128950.asp

Howard disposes, Haneef proposes

OUR BUREAU

Bangalore/Melbourne, July 30: Mohammed Haneef today said he wanted Canberra to say sorry to India, if not specifically to him, after the Australian Prime Minister ruled out an apology to the Indian doctor.

“I don’t expect an apology from the Australian government or the authorities but I would appreciate it if they apologise to my peace-loving country and citizens,” the 27-year-old, who flew back to Bangalore yesterday after Australian police dropped terror charges against him, told a news conference.

Earlier, Prime Minister John Howard had said in Sydney that “Australia will not be apologising to Dr Haneef”.

Haneef, detained for 25 days in Brisbane in a case that the authorities later admitted did not stand, said: “I am not a victim of (an) international conspiracy, but (an) Australian conspiracy. My family suffered a great deal.”

Asked if he had been victimised because he was an Asian Muslim, he replied: “There might be an element of truth in it... I suspect.”

But Howard said: “Dr Haneef was not victimised and Australia’s international reputation has not been harmed by this misstart to its new anti-terrorism laws.”

Haneef would not say if he would sue the Australian government. “I have not sought legal advice on this. That will be later on,” he said. “(But) I would like to return. I want the visa back. I will fight for that.”

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who has said Haneef’s job would wait for him, today appealed to overseas doctors not to avoid Australia following Haneef’s ordeal.

The Indian said he had no idea why Australian immigration minister Kevin Andrews had cancelled his work visa. “I would like him to come forward and let out the facts.”

Andrews is expected to reveal some of the secret information based on which he took the decision, an Australian news channel said.

Asked if he might accept an Indian job, Haneef said he had kept all options open.