Don’t spare terror-sponsoring states

Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau says democracies should jointly fight terror

As the Arab Spring turns cold and bitter, threatening to break the fragile peace that has somehow held together the vast and disparate region of West Asia, Israel has watched its position turn precarious in this past year. With its peace treaty with Egypt under threat, the crucial Sinai pipeline repeatedly bombed and sworn enemy Iran on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb, these are uncertain times for the Jewish nation.

But, for a country that has fought at least six major wars for its survival and is surrounded by adversaries, Israel remains more than prepared and vigilant to handle any future crisis. In an exclusive interview to The Pioneer, Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau explains how his country is preparing to face the challenges that lie ahead.

With elections bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power, in post-Mubarak Egypt, the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which Mr Landau rightly describes as the “cornerstone for stability and future peace in West Asia”, now hangs in balance. Only late last week, at least two senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political wing now heads the Egyptian Parliament, threatened to “review” the treaty with Israel if the US cuts aid to Egypt. On his part, Mr Landau insists that Israel “will do whatever is possible to continue with the peace agreement and use it as a base to develop other peace agreements in the area,” but expresses deep concerns at the manner which events are unfolding across Arabia.

Mr Landau remarks, “However, and I hate to say ‘however’, when I look around West Asia, I see this huge span of territory from the Atlantic in the west to the Persian Gulf and beyond in the east convulsing in an earthquake which is bringing down regimes that until now had been stable, such as the ones in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and even Yemen.” He points to the “terrible undercurrents” in Syria and elsewhere and notes that “under the guise of democracy and free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamist elements are making their way to the helm of affairs.”

This is a matter of great concern especially since “the more civil parts of society that came to the streets in order to have a free and more democratic country find themselves pushed to the back.” Mr Landau’s comparison of the anti-Government protests in West Asia with the Iranian revolution of 1978 that brought the radical regime of Ayatollah Khomeini to power is interesting.

Those still in doubt must take note of the fact that the Sinai pipeline which runs through Egypt and delivers gas to Israel as well as Jordan was bombed for the 12th time in this past year — on February 5. Since the protests in West Asia began, gas supplies to Israel had come to a halt. They were renewed only in January. “We are doing whatever we possibly can to renew the flow,” Mr Landau says, emphasising that the natural gas agreement with Egypt is perhaps the most important economic agreement between the two countries. But at the same time, he adds, Israel is also looking to “offset this lack of natural gas by other sources of energy.” Unfortunately, his options — coal and heavy oil — are limited, more expensive and bad for the environment.

Luckily for Israel, new offshore gas fields have been found and Mr Landau believes that there is enough to meet the country’s needs for the next 50 to 60 years, if not more. Additionally, Israel is also developing and diversifying its own sources of energy. “In a worst case scenario, if something happens to hamper natural gas supply for certain period of time, we have others ways to sustain ourselves,” says Mr Landau. Then, as an after thought, he adds, “Please note, I am coming from, as it is described in the Bible, the land of milk and honey. But, it doesn’t say anything about natural gas, or energy.”

Yet, in this context, energy security is perhaps everybody’s greatest concern. Especially with the ongoing global standoff with Iran, West Asia’s energy equations with the rest of the world will possibly have to be re-formulated. This, however, Mr Landau does not see as a problem. He reasons that “Iran’s many enemies including Saudi Arabia might actually be more than eager to offset the losses incurred by those previously buying Iranian oil with their own oil. It simply needs time to adjust to a system.”

The oil sanctions against Iran that have been recently imposed by the US and the European Union have had a crippling effect on that country’s economy although is still unclear if they will actually prevent Tehran from pursuing its controversial enrichment programme. Mr Landau agrees, “I am not sure if the sanctions will work,” he says, but adds, “They should be stepped to make clear to the Iranian Government that no one is prepared to see a nuclear Iran.”

If Mr Landau strikes a pragmatic posture here, he is equally clear in his mind that his country will not hesitate to take affirmative action if such a need arises. He insists that Iran is a “major exporter of terrorism” and that it is linked to various terror organisations such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Al Qaeda.

After all, if Iran goes nuclear, it will only set in motion another nuclear arms race, with Saudi Arabia immediately looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Given the latter’s vast financial resources and close ties with Pakistan, the development will have worrying consequences for India. Moreover, as Mr Landau asks, “What kind of world is this going to be? Remember, you are not speaking of responsible regimes. You are speaking of those who couldn’t care any less.”

So how does the world deal with such rogue regimes that terrorise the world? To that, Mr Landau counters, “Why does terror exist? Because it works; because terrorists see that they can go ahead and have some benefits.”

He adds, “Only if terrorists and terror-sponsoring states are met head on, and shown that terror will never pay, will this mindless violence stop. I think this really should be the policy of every free country.”

It is but natural for the conversation, while on terror, should veer towards the recent attacks on Israeli embassy cars in New Delhi and Tbilisi — and towards the alleged role of Iran in the attacks. When asked how Israel responds to such attacks, Mr Landau points out that his country has been under attack ever since it came into existence. There have been wars, terror attacks, bombings and more at regular intervals. “But we continue our day to day routine, giving up nothing.” This, he says, is as much a challenge as successfully combating terrorists in the battlefield and elsewhere is.

With India facing much of the same challenges as Israel, Mr Landau hopes that this country too will be able to fight terror without compromising on its core principles of equality, liberty, freedom and democracy. “We both live in difficult neighbourhoods and yet we maintain our democracies. Our Parliaments are still functioning,” he remarks. This in itself should form the basis of a strong relationship between India and Israel.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 23, 2012.)

Nothing honourable about this delay

Despite receiving suggestions on how to check ‘honour killings’, the UPA has failed to act

Every year, women across the country are sacrificed in the name of family honour. A young woman is believed to be the repository of her family’s social values, and any perceived violation of the same — a love affair with one who belongs to a lower caste or another religion or even the allegation of unfaithfulness in marriage — is reason enough for cold-blooded premeditated murder. Hence, fathers have killed their daughters, brothers have murdered their sisters and entire villages have watched while one of their own has been beaten, thrashed, strangled, tortured, stoned, hanged or shot to death.

For all of India’s stellar economic credentials and its census statistics showing a marked improvement in literacy and education, several parts of the country are yet to emerge from their regressive mindsets that chain their society to the middle ages. The situation is made worse by the murderous role of the khappanchayats who often officiate over such killings and thus endow them with a sense of legitimacy even though they themselves have no legal standing. Entire communities have shown little remorse in having participated in honour killings.

And as if that was not enough, it now seems like more are joining the dark side with reports of honour killings now emerging even from the southern States. In November 2011, an entire village in Karnataka’s Mandya district stood quietly as 22 year old Suvarna was beaten to death by members of her immediate family for falling in love with a Dalit boy, who too was tortured before he was allowed to escape with his life. Add to this the constant stream of reports that have routinely come out of the northern States, particularly, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, especially in the last  two years, and there is no denying that the scourge of honour killings today is a pan-Indian issue.

Yet, the Union Government has done precious little to tackle the menace. It has gone through the motions of constituting task forces and expert panels — there is a working group under the Planning Commission and a Group of Ministers led by Union Minister for Finance Pranab Mukherjee assigned to deal with the issue — but that’s been the end of it. Take for instance, the Government’s panel headed by the Women and Child Development Secretary. Earlier this month, it recommended that a separate law be promulgated to exclusively deal with the issue of honour killings. But nobody has cared to respond. This is, of course, not entirely surprising, given that the Government had earlier effectively ignored the draft of the Prevention of Crimes in the Name of ‘Honour’ and Tradition Bill, 2010, piloted by former Minister for Women and Child Development Girija Vyas.

Ms Vyas’s Bill is a fairly broad-ranging one that brings under its purview all kinds of harassment that couples who seek to marry without the approval of their immediate family or society may face, such as threats of economic sanctions and social ostracisation, physical attacks and public support to such threats and actions. It also gives significant credence to even verbal complaints lodged by couples, with punishment of those convicted ranging from one to 10 years of imprisonment.

However, in one of its more contentious clauses, the Bill suggests an amendment to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to put the burden of proof on the accused instead of the accuser. This is in reversal of the universally accepted principle of criminal justice that  an accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. It is perhaps for this clause  why the Bill has been all but dumped for good.

Yet, India’s anti-dowry laws already allow for such an exception. Indeed, it is pertinent to note that it was only after the Government amended Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code  to bring about anti-dowry laws, that it has gradually seeped into the country’s social conscience that dowry deaths are a crime and there is no sanction, definitely no legal sanction, for such acts. Of course, the laws have not wholly obliterated every instance of dowry death but at least, they have contained the menace to some extent. A law against honour killings could have a similar impact.

Indeed, the Bill also calls for an introduction of a fifth clause to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which defines murder. This would make honour killings a distinct offence and anybody who participates in it, including community members supporting the khap panchayat diktat and not just those who actually carry out the murder, could be held responsible — similar to laws regarding Sati.

But, in early January, the Law Commission of India rejected all proposals to amend Section 300 on the ground that the current laws are adequate enough to deal with all sorts of killings, honourable or otherwise. It also warned against adding to unnecessary legalese and overturning established principles of jurisprudence.

Instead, the commission has presented its own Bill. The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011, proposes that no person or group of persons shall assemble with an “intention to deliberate on, or condemn any marriage, not prohibited by law, on the basis that such marriage has dishonoured the caste or community tradition or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming part of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.” This effectively makes illegal khappanchayats that meet to interfere in legally valid marriages. Additionally, it also charges all those present at such assemblies with non-bailable offences, a two-year jail term and a fine of up to Rs 30,000.

These are only a few instances of concrete recommendations that have come in from various quarters but the Government remains blissfully oblivious to them. It is perhaps because the khaps are a politically powerful lot and their influence extends across various political parties.

The Supreme Court had said back in May 2011 that honour killings are the rarest of rare crimes and perpetrators deserve nothing less than the death sentence.

It noted, “In our opinion, honour killings, for whatever reasons, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.”

Is anybody listening?

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 16, 2012.)

Turbulence in Indian Ocean

Coup rocks political stability in Maldives as Islamists gain strength

"Be vigilant of what not only might happen in the Indian peninsula, in the islands but also of what may happen in the wider Indian Ocean,” then President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed had warned cadet officers at the Sri Lanka Military Academy on December 27, 2011. His words rang true on Tuesday when mutinous factions within the police and the Army joined hands to remove him, the country’s first democratically elected President, from power.

Since Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening, he has been held by the military at an undisclosed location, reportedly against his will, while his former Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, has positioned himself at the helm of affairs. He is expected to preside over a national unity Government until the end of the ongoing presidential term in 2013 after which general election are supposed to be held, although how free or fair they will be is anybody’s guess.

Maldives is a young democracy, barely four years old. The past three decades it was under the autocratic rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under his reign, Mr Nasheed, a journalist by profession emerged as the country’s best known dissident. A staunch rights activist and champion of democracy and civil liberties, he tirelessly campaigned to end dictatorial rule in Maldives. His activism led to his being imprisoned 16 times; he even spent eight months in solitary confinement undergoing immense physical and mental torture. Eventually, his campaign brought global attention to Mr Gayoom’s abusive regime. Growing international pressure ultimately forced the Maldivian strongman to allow free and fair elections in 2008, in sharp contrast to the electoral shams he had overseen over the past decades.

Mr Nasheed emerged victorious in the 2008 general election and took office on November 11 with a huge popular mandate. From day one, he was committed to taking his fight against autocracy to its logical conclusion by establishing a strong democratic framework in his country. But his transition from activist to President, no matter how well-meaning, was far from smooth. Mr Gayoom was gone but his party was still active and elements from the old regime remained deeply entrenched in the system — be it in Parliament, within the police or the Army — and fighting them off proved impossible.

Along with the Islamists, the old guard was determined to thwart the Nasheed Government’s every effort to reform and restructure the country’s socio-political institutions, and sadly, it seems to have succeeded. The situation was made worse in part by the fact that Mr Nasheed despite his popularity and goodwill, did not have a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, known as Majlis. He was, therefore, heavily dependent on the Opposition to pass any major reform or legislation. And while he did have the support of some Opposition parties at the start of his tenure, much of that eroded in the course of the next few years as Mr Nasheed embarked on a political campaign to weed out all elements of the old regime.

But given the kind of influence still wielded by Mr Gayoom and his supporters, this was a strategic mistake. With the Opposition becoming ever more critical of his rule, Mr Nasheed found it impossible to conduct even the daily business of governance. In recent times, the Majlis was in a complete deadlock as the Opposition refused to let it function. The most obvious fall out of such a political logjam was the corrosion of popular support. A governance deficit meant the prices of essential commodities soared while unemployment too was on the rise. Add to this the Islamists’ slander campaign against Mr Nasheed, and his presidency was ripe for a coup.

Indeed, for months before Tuesday’s virtual coup, the Islamists had been out on the streets attacking Mr Nasheed’s religious views and policies, such as his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Unfortunately, the former President failed to bring these rabble-rousers under control as he dawdled between appeasement and punishment. For instance, the Government first gave in to the Islamists’ demand to ban spas across the country in December 2011, but overturned the decision at a later date.

The final straw, of course, came with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the criminal court. Like many other members of the judiciary who are believed to be in Mr Gayoom’s pockets, Justice Abdulla Mohamed had refused to prosecute members of the old regime and had been stalling cases of graft and rights abuses brought against them. His political bias was vitiating the system and making it impossible for Mr Nasheed to deliver on his promise of an independent judiciary. However, the judge’s arrest led to a constitutional crisis which prompted the Supreme Court to step in and order his release.

But as the Government ignored the order, Mr Nasheed’s critics were quick to  accuse him of browbeating his opponents much like his predecessor. But the fact remains that he had been pushed to the wall and had to retaliate.

As the controversy raged on, the past three weeks saw street protests break out throughout the densely populated capital of Male. On Monday, the headquarters of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party came under attack and overnight, vandals captured the offices of the state television broadcaster MNBC. They also renamed it TV Maldives, as it was called during Mr Gayoom’s regime. The situation deteriorated on Tuesday when soldiers fired rubber bullets at revolting police officers and other demonstrators who had laid siege to the Maldives National Defence Force headquarters in Republic Square.

With the possibility of large-scale violence looming and the military holding a gun to his head, Mr Nasheed was faced with a choice to either crack down on the protesters or leave office. Ever the rights activist, Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening saying that, “It will be better for the country, if I resign. I don’t want to run the country with an iron fist”. His departure speech is a testimony to the kind of leader he aspired to be and only serves to underline what a tremendous blow this has been to Maldives’ infant democracy. Thankfully, he seems determined to fight back as his call to President Waheed on Wednesday to resign stands proof.

Mr Nasheed had once said that Maldives has shown the world that, “You don’t have to bomb a Muslim country for regime change.” And indeed, the Indian Ocean archipelago could have been an apt precursor to the Arab Spring. That the old guard is gaining power in Maldives at a time when Islamist-back Governments are taking over across Arabia is perhaps a telling comment.

Nonetheless, it is still too early to comment on how the recent developments in Maldives will eventually play out. On its part, India whose relations with Maldives go back a long time, will do well to ensure that its neighbour’s democratic credentials are upheld and that the Islamists who have already reared their ugly head are not allowed to run amock.

India had come out in Mr Gayoom’s support back in 1988 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sent out military support to buttress the Maldivian dictator’s faltering regime. New Delhi should have stood by Mr Nasheed in his hour of crisis.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 09, 2012.)