Kipat Barzel

July 20, 2014 Brown Pundits Archive No Comments filed under Archived Authors

…..human
element in the operation of Iron Dome: Some crews are better than
others, and training and experience count…..American missile-defense crews get little live-fire training…..U.S. military should rethink the way it trains its missile-defense
troops…..

A valuable overview of missile defense.

To the horror of peace activists everywhere (torture never works!!, missile defense never works!!!) the Iron Dome works. However this is a cautionary tale. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) says that it needs 13-15 Iron Domes for full coverage, only nine are operational. Expense is probably not an issue, we will put on our best “Jews own the world” hat and assume that there will be a fair good number of billionaires willing to pony up for an Iron Dome with their name inscribed on it.

But it may also be the case that Israel does not take the threats too seriously and is using Hamas as a punching bag. Hamas no doubt deserves every bit of the bitter medicine but the problem is that the leaders (and even troops) are hiding in deep tunnels, while the civilians are bearing the brunt of this brutal war.

So….. if Israel has perfected missile defense, Hamas has also perfected missile offense. While Israel has attacked Gaza with tanks, Hamas has a few nifty (30m deep!!!) tunnels which are being used to launch surprise attacks inside Israel. Both sides gain from the ability to keep the water boiling at the right temperature (following what a famous Pakistani general had once said).

Worldwide muslims are living under varying degree of occupations by non-muslim powers in Kashmir, Xinjiang, Palestine and Chechnya (there are less prominent ones as well). Of course many more muslims are living under the domination of muslim dictators and tyrants. It gives us no pleasure to say that the first set seem to be better off than the second one. It is a false choice really, all muslims should be free to pray and fast (and not pray and fast as well) and get on with their lives.
………………………
Between the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth to the Romans in the first
century A.D. and the founding of Israel in 1948, Jews were remarkably
easy to kill. Not anymore.

…
Today, thanks to an innovative missile-defense system called Iron Dome (in Hebrew Kipat Barzel),
it’s harder than ever. Yet when it was first proposed, many Israeli
defense experts (and one way or another most Israelis consider
themselves defense experts) were reluctant to support the idea of a
defensive response to rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon.

….
Throughout the history of warfare there has been conflict between
those who believe in the strength of a defensive posture and those who
put their faith in the attack. Aside from the proponents of the nuclear
doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction, no one has ever seriously
claimed that an exclusively offensive or defensive strategy is viable.
Some military organizations have traditionally put more emphasis on
defense and others on offense.

….
Israel, because of its small size, has always preferred to fight
offensively. If there is going to be a war, let it happen on the other
guy’s territory. This made sense in the 1950s and ’60s. In 1973,
however, the IDF’s lightly fortified positions in the Golan Heights and
on the east bank of the Suez Canal were overwhelmed in the initial Arab
surprise attack.

….
This led to the delusion that the Bar Lev line in Sinai was somehow
an Israeli version of France’s disastrous Maginot Line at the beginning
of World War II. In fact, it was a set of positions built during the War
of Attrition (1968–70) to protect Israeli soldiers from Egyptian
artillery fire, and hadn’t been intended as a line of defense capable of
repelling a full-blown attack. The costly success of the IDF’s
offensive across the canal and the drive on Damascus in the north
convinced Israel’s military leaders that their attack-centered doctrine
was the correct one; it just needed better tanks.

….
In spite of this doctrine’s failure to work as planned during the
Lebanon war that began in 1982, Israel’s leaders remained committed to
an offensive-minded strategy. However, they knew that their enemies were
beginning to equip themselves with long-range missiles. Indeed, Egypt
had used a few early-model Scuds during the Yom Kippur War.

….
Thus, when the Reagan administration offered Israel the chance to
take part in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) missile-defense
program in 1983, a small faction inside the IDF leaped at the chance.

….
Gradually Israeli leaders came to recognize that missile defense was
just as important as other forms of air power. Thanks in part to U.S.
funding, the Arrow missile-defense system was built and deployed along
with a limited number of Patriot-missile batteries. Israelis had long
been used to having bomb shelters in their homes and neighborhoods, and
they came to accept missile defenses as just another form of homeland
protection.

….
During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein’s forces fired 42 modified
Scuds at Israel. The ensuing controversy over the effectiveness of the
Israeli and U.S. Patriot units that were hastily activated and deployed
in response taught both America and Israel some valuable lessons.
….
For
one, education and preparation count. The Israeli Patriot crews were
barely halfway through their training when the crisis broke out. Neither
Israel nor the U.S. Army had enough experience with these weapons to
understand how to effectively integrate them into a large-scale
defensive scheme. ….
The U.S. Patriot units did not arrive in Israel until
the war was already underway, and their improvised deployment has
generally been regarded as a failure.

….
Another problem was that space-based sensors on America’s Defense
Support Program early-warning satellites, which provided critical alerts
every time the Iraqis launched a Scud, were not directly hooked into
Israel’s air-defense system.
….
The satellites were designed to give early
warning of a Soviet nuclear strike, and their ability to detect Iraqi
missile launches was an unplanned side benefit. The Israelis learned the
hard way that they would need a complex, sophisticated, and extremely
fast-acting sensor system if they were to make missile defense work.

….
When the Second Gulf War broke out in 2003, Israel had deployed the
early version of its Arrow defense missile. It also had integrated
improved Patriot batteries and had developed an advanced
command-and-control organization to provide it with a multi-layered
national missile-defense system.

…
Yet when Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets at northern Israel
during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, existing missile defenses did little
or nothing to stop this attack. For some unknown reason, Israel was
unwilling or unable to obtain the American Centurion short-range
missile-defense system (based on the U.S. Navy’s Phalanx anti-missile
gun). Additionally, the proposed Nautilus chemical-laser system was seen
by experts as both too expensive and too easily overwhelmed, since it
could only fire seven or eight shots before it needed to be refueled.

….
Meanwhile, the Israeli defense firm Rafael was developing the concept
that would lead to Iron Dome. It would be based on Israel’s
longstanding expertise in radars and especially on the AESA (Active
Electronically Scanned Array) type radar. This technology uses dozens of
small transmit–receive modules to scan for targets. It does not need
any sort of mechanical sweeping apparatus, and its power output can be
easily adjusted to concentrate on any given part of the sky.
….
Israel had
first developed such radars as replacements for the older systems that
equipped its F-15s and F-16s.

…
Iron Dome uses a Multi Mode Radar (MMR) to detect and track enemy
rockets. If the rockets are going to land in an uninhabited zone, the
system does nothing; if the projectile is going to hit a neighborhood or
an area that has been designated as “protected” it will launch one or
sometimes two “Tamir” interceptor missiles in order to destroy the
incoming weapon.

….
Its rate of success, which the IDF claims is in the 85 to 90 percent
range has been challenged by, among others, Theodore Postol of MIT, a
longstanding, hardcore opponent of U.S. missile defense. …
The details of
the system’s effectiveness are closely held, but in its performance
against the improved “Grad” and other rockets that Hamas has been using,
the results speak for themselves.

….
The system is by no means perfect. When a rocket is hit, it does not
disintegrate into nothingness. Debris from both the missile and the
rocket fall to Earth and this debris can sometimes do damage, but this
is minimal compared to the damage a live warhead would do.

…..
Back in 2012 I wrote a piece
for the Gatestone Institute making the argument that the economics of
Iron Dome are not as bad for Israel as some people claim. Since then,
the price of the Tamir interceptor missiles has probably gone down
thanks to improved manufacturing techniques and the larger quantity of
weapons being built.

…..
Three points about the system are significant for Americans. First,
while the U.S. has been financing a great deal of Iron Dome’s
development and manufacturing, our military seems reluctant to take
advantage of the weapon’s availability. Second, the system is
continuously being improved; as with every military system there is a
constant need to update the hardware and software, and, thanks to Hamas,
the Israelis have a great deal of live-fire data on which to base their
upgrades.
…..
The third, not always evident, point is that there is a human
element in the operation of Iron Dome: Some crews are better than
others, and training and experience count. The technology by itself can
only go so far. American missile-defense crews get little, if any,
live-fire training. Simulators have their limits. In light of this, the
U.S. military should rethink the way it trains its missile-defense
troops.

…..
According to recent reports, Israel now has at least nine Iron Dome
units in operation. The IDF has said in the past that they need a total
of 13 to 15 units to cover the whole country. As production for Israel
winds down, the U.S. would be wise to consider buying a few units of its
own for use in South Korea and in places like Bagram Air Force Base in
Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban often use rockets similar to those
used by Hamas. We should expect that future enemies will use similar
weapons against similar targets. If an Iron Dome were to prevent the
destruction of a single U.S. C-17 transport plane, it would pay for
itself several times over.

…..
The U.S. is already scheduled to begin producing components for Iron
Dome, and there is no reason why it could not manufacture an
increasingly large part of the system. Rockets such as the Grad have
been an important part of the arsenal of insurgents in low-intensity
conflict, and are also an important weapon in more conventional warfare.
As time goes on, Iron Dome or weapons systems like it will be
integrated into the arsenals of all the major powers.
…..

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/node/382931/

……

regards

Iraq, an old post

July 20, 2014 Brown Pundits Archive No Comments filed under Archived Authors

From Dr Hamid Hussein. And old post that is still relevant

Things in the middle east are going from bad to worse….

btw, ISIS has officially stoned a woman to death in Syria. I am surprised it took them so long. Some things have an iconic status in Jihadi circles: cutting off the hands of a thief (check, ISIS has done that, in public), whipping someone for drinking alcohol (so mundane that its probably been done but not reported) and stoning a woman to death. Nothing puts the fear of God into people like watching a woman (in a shroud) being stoned to death by a mob of baying humans.

Omar

July 16, 2014

Dear All;

I don’t know why but many interested in the subject asked about changing dynamics of Iraq conflict in view of recent advances of ISIS, Shia militia response and maneuvers of Kurds. Utter barbarity and carnage and that also in the most holy Islamic month of Ramadan with indiscriminate killing, mass executions (ISIS executed close to 200 Shia air force recruits and soldiers and Shia militiamen responded by executing almost 200 Sunni prisoners) and demolishing of mosques and mausoleums by ISIS is tragic but general apathy among Muslims is truly mind boggling. Overwhelming majority is totally oblivious to the cancer eating away the body politic of Muslims.

Frankly, I have nothing more to add but refer them to an old piece written in 2006 before the surge. The question asked at that time was Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq and Kurdish context as well as impact of U.S. troops on the equation. I was personally against the surge of American troops and thought that it may give a tactical respite but not change the long term instability emanating from Iraq. I was proven wrong and surge achieved a major success although jury is still out about what was the major contributing factor. There is still debate in U.S. military community about this. U.S. mistakes were compounded by failure of Iraqi government to adjust the course regarding Sunnis and crisis in Syria ultimately unraveled the whole thing. Now a long and very painful road will be travelled by all Iraqis and I fear more china will break in the process. We have seen this horror show before in 2006-07 and it is not for the faint hearted.

Hamid

Shia-Sunni Conflict and Kurds

There are several theories and perspectives about the complex web of violence in Iraq which is rapidly expanding and with every day getting more brutal. There are several dimensions but two most important are U.S. operations and how they have evolved over three years and increased assertion of Iraqi players. I’ll briefly review both of them. From outset, one should be very clear that the spectrum in Iraq is very complex and constantly evolving. Local, regional and international players are in a contest of musical chairs where friends and foes shift like the shifting sands of the desert.

In mid 2003, violence started to gradually escalate in Iraq with very unique characteristics. First, it was almost exclusively Sunni in nature, second after the disbanding of Iraqi army, new security apparatus (National Guards, police including its commando units, paramilitary units, army) is predominantly Shia and Kurd. From operational point of view, U.S. forces were content that Shia and Kurd soldiers whose communities have most to gain from changed order will be genuine partners of U.S. troops in fighting insurgents (mainly Sunnis). Kurds were enthusiastic for the fight while Shia response was more lukewarm. In addition, with increasing violence, U.S. started to operate ‘hunter-killer’ teams which need good intelligence off course from local Iraqis. This invariably changed the dynamics of the conflict and further widened the gulf between Iraqi communities. In the violence ridden Sunni areas, patrolling of Iraqi security forces (dominated by Shia and Kurd) was invariably going to inflame passions on both sides. Two examples will show the complexity. In 2005, continued violence against Shia pilgrims near a town on the road from Baghdad to Najaf prompted dispatch of a crack Shia battalion ‘Karrar Brigade’ to the town. These soldiers very quickly earned the hatred of the population by their abuse. U.S. had to fire the commander and embed U.S. soldiers to keep an eye on Shia soldiers. In Fallujah, after the pacification Shia and Kurd dominant security forces took control of the city. City police is predominantly Sunni. Recently, Sunni police went on strike protesting high handedness of Iraqi soldiers.

Indiscriminate slaughter of Shia civilians by Sunni insurgents resulted in next wave of violence where Shia militias and security personnel went after Sunnis. Summary executions, torture and disappearances at the hands of Shia militias alarmed U.S. which is now trying to win back Sunni sympathies. Even most staunch Sunni opponents of U.S. occupation got a rude awakening when they faced the brunt of Shia vengeance. Now they see U.S. troops as a safety valve to prevent wholesale slaughter or forced migration of Sunnis from Iraq. In many places (especially urban areas), local Sunni leaders have reached an agreement that if Iraqi forces are accompanied by U.S. troops then they will not fire but if Iraqi forces come alone they will be fired upon. U.S. is also encouraging Sunnis to join security apparatus. However, increased incentives to Sunnis are unnerving Shia. U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was welcomed by Shia but now he is seen as a Sunni who is helping Sunnis to regain some political and military power (Zal was fondly called Abu Ali by Shia when he came. Now they call him Abu Omar. Those who know the Shia-Sunni rift can very easily understand the meaning of this seemingly benign comment). Shia now see that continued U.S. presence can reverse some of Shia gains of last three years. They are resisting U.S. overtures of compromise with some Sunni insurgent groups and increased Sunni representation in security forces. They have increased their demands of transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. The process has started in south of the country. We may now see some change in the nature of violence. Sunnis may even go after some foreign fighters to prove their credentials to U.S. while Shia militias tacitly approving limited attacks on U.S. forces. Many operational decisions made by U.S. in the last three years contributed to the widening of gulf between Iraqi communities. Having said that there was no other option for U.S. Shia and Kurds were their allies and without these steps, they could not continue their mission.

Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq is neither a myth nor manufactured by outsiders. Off course, in view of a very complex situation, others may use it to further their objectives, but there is a deep divide with very painful history. This has historical, doctrinal, philosophical, political and economical dimensions and these are not limited to Iraq. While the difference between two communities have existed for centuries, two major developments in last 2 decades have sharpened the dividing line. First, there is total silence among Sunni majority about historical and contemporary discrimination, repression and outright violence against Shia. Adding fuel to the fire is the rise of ‘salafi’ (a puritan and stricter version of the literalist school) trend among Sunni communities. Extremist and terrorist entities are predominantly ‘salafi’, which very liberally use their doctrine against Shia and responsible for acts of horrific violence against Shia all over the world. Second very important factor is the fact that Shia have changed their status from a passive minority to an assertive community demanding their right place in societies where they are minorities. Political empowerment of Shia is a relatively new phenomenon and they are now refusing to take any more abuse whether it is from non-Muslims or their Muslim brothers. In the context of Iraq, when insurgents changed tactics and started wholesale slaughter of Shia (both security personnel and civilians), it changed the dynamics of the conflict. Shia clerics were able to keep things in check for a while but continued violence was too much. Shia retaliated with a vengeance and embarked on a sustained campaign of wholesale executions of Sunnis. In fact, rapid rise of popularity graph of Moqtada al-Sadr is partly due to his revenge attacks on Sunnis. He has very shrewdly used this instrument of violence against Sunnis as an important part of his message that he is the only one who can protect Shia community. He is telling Shia that all powerful U.S. military, Iraqi forces and quietist Ayatollah’s hunkered down in Najaf cannot provide them security. His Mahdi militia is the answer to ‘break the Sunni nose’. Shia response has been quite broad. Badr and Mahdi militias are at the forefront of this campaign; however tactics of both are a bit different. Badr has started their log of retaliation starting from 1980s. It started target assassination of former Iraqi air force pilots (accused of indiscriminate bombing of Iranian cities during Iran-Iraq war). Former mid and high level members of Baath party (both Sunni and some Shia) have been targeted by both Badr and Mahdi militias. The catalogue of retaliation for recent outrages against Sunnis started on a wholesale scale after the February 2006 bombing of Shia shrine at Samara. Mahdi militia is at the forefront of this campaign which is quite diverse and much more brutal. Sunni youth and clerics are the main target in addition to confiscation of Sunni mosques. These Sunni opponents are dubbed ‘wahhabis’, ‘salafis’ and ‘takfiris’. Mahdi militia members are different in the sense that they have got the permission to kill ‘wahhabis’ and to confiscate their belongings. In addition, they obtain confessions under torture; a kind of mini-inquisition of their own. Even a cursory look at the doctrinal shift of extremists on both sides in their own words and publications provides sufficient evidence that the hatred has gone much deeper. Two examples of the thought process; one Sunni and one Shia give a glimpse of the coming fratricidal wars;

‘The problem is that American crimes are only a hundredth of the crimes committed by the militias. It’s like one hair compared to all the other hairs on a camel’. Omar al-Jabouri, human rights officer of Iraqi Islamic Party, July 2006

‘Wash away your sins and be forgiven with the blood of a Sunni’. A Shia militiaman, July 2006

Kurdish Angle

If the Arabs of Iraq do not have the courage to come to terms with the terrible past that we have had and make right those terrible injustices that befell my people, I would have extreme difficulty convincing the doubters in Suleimanyiya’s bazaar that Iraq is our future. Barham Salih 2005

It is no secret that Kurds want independence. Any step towards weakening of central Iraqi state is a step forward to their cherished goal of independence. If one looks at the Kurdish narrative, who can blame them for that. We all know, what was done to Kurds in Iraq. If they have concluded that a centralized state of Iraq with a strong army is a recipe for genocide, at least I can fully understand it. It is also true that a number of Kurds see deepening Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq as a positive step which can speed up the process of their own independence. However, this does not automatically translate that Kurds have their hand in this cookie jar also. Kurds are a significant component of Iraqi security apparatus including Special Forces. Israel is also helping Kurds in security sector and Israeli trainers are also training Kurdish Special Forces. Kurds as part of security apparatus participate in operations against insurgents (mainly Sunnis) which invariably increase ethnic tensions. This component of violence is quite clear, however the current graph of indiscriminate violence against both Sunnis and Shia is way beyond Kurdish capabilities and its dynamics are different. One cannot rule out also some intrigues by Kurdish leadership; however a careful analysis of the nature of violence makes it very unlikely that Kurds are directly participating or contributing to Shia-Sunni violence. My conclusion is based on evaluation of not only historical context but current dynamics and close scrutiny of the violence between two communities. Many Sunni operations against Shia civilians have been clearly suicide operations. Evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that bombings in mosques, funerals and public places where Shia gather have been predominantly suicide bombings. Insurgent communiqués, web announcements and videos claim these achievements. Shia revenge has also been quite public with no ambiguity. Shia militias rocketed Sunni mosques in broad day light. They took control of many mosques and flags were planted on minarets. Sunnis have been dragged from their homes and cars and buses on main roads and executed publicly. In one case, after a suicide bombing, Mahdi militiamen arrested a Sunni in the vicinity, charged him guilty on the spot as ‘wahhabi’ based on the evidence that his trousers was above ankles which was a conclusive proof that he was a ‘wahhabi’, sentenced him to death and even invited passerby’s to take a shot at him. All this done in public and death sentence carried out in minutes. There are dozens of such examples involving both security forces and militias. It is very hard for me to believe that Kurds will be sending suicide bombers to Shia places or killing Sunni in a Shia dominant neighborhood in a broad day light. I think that Shia-Sunni conflict has taken a momentum of its own and no help is needed from outside. If continued bloodletting between Shia-Sunni helps someone, be it an Iraqi such as Kurd or any outsider, this does not prove that the particular party is actually orchestrating the whole event. Such kind of violence is usually the result of a cancerous condition in the body politic with long history and not simply manipulation by witch doctors. A saner advice to both Kurds and Arabs is summarized by someone in following words;

I cannot blame a Kurd for feeling anger. But I can plead with him to contain his anger, because angry people often do stupid things, and they can end up hurting themselves. Arabs, on the other hand, must acknowledge the injustice that has been done to the Kurds. By acknowledging the injustice, you take the poison out of the system.

Samir Shkair Sumaide, Iraqi ambassador to U.N. 2005

Game in Iraq has long past the goal post of whether U.S. troops will stay or leave. Many uninvited guests (non-state actors, Iraqi players and regional states) have crashed into the party. We Americans now look like shocked apprentice sorcerers who are stunned by the power of the demons we helped to unleash let alone able to control them. In such situations, usually Wisdom of Solomon is needed but alas we have only chest thumping monkeys on the stage. God help us. However, last time when I checked, I was told that God has already left the Middle East. He has left it to the people to solve their problems. Civil societies of Muslim countries especially in the Middle East have to urgently address this issue. Clerics, academia, intelligentsia, government and non-government organizations have to ponder on these crucial issues to prevent fracture of their societies rather than engaging in rhetorical and meaningless debates. Off course, political issues such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Muslim minority problem in Kashmir or Chechnya need to be solved, however they should remember that the demon is not outside, it is inside. They desperately need to exorcise this demon. Voices of common people are drowned in the noise of violence;

‘I spent thirty five years of my life going from war to war. Now my hopes are for my children. We lost our future. We’re looking for the future of our children’. Shadha Mohammad Ali, an Iraqi housewife, January 2005

Regards,

Hamid Hussain

July 26, 2006

Archie the anarchist

July 20, 2014 Brown Pundits Archive No Comments filed under Archived Authors

“Archie: The Married Life Book Three” was taken off book shop shelves
following a complaint to Singapore’s Media Development Authority which
found it was not in line with social norms …..

OK Singapore is a weird place, it allows (we hope) internet porn while blocking Playboy (the interviews, people are missing out on the interviews!!!!)

But why ban Archie? Because….. presumably, just like Iran, Singapore does not have any gays. Not only that, just hearing about gays will pollute the minds of youngsters and they will turn int gays. What a nightmare.

When people talk about the positive influence of religion (which we do not deny) they should also acknowledge the immense harm that it does on both believers and non-believers alike.
…….
Singapore has banned a volume of the “Archie” comic book that featured a
same-sex marriage, adding fuel to a censorship row that erupted over a
children’s story about two male penguins hatching an egg.

“Archie: The Married Life Book Three” was taken off book shop shelves
following a complaint to Singapore’s Media Development Authority which
found it was not in line with social norms and breached their content
guidelines.

…
News of the ban, which was imposed earlier this year but came to light
late on Wednesday, comes a week after Singapore’s National Library Board
said it was to destroy three children’s books seen as being
pro-homosexual, including penguin story “And Tango Makes Three”.

…
That prompted about 400 people to turn out on Sunday for a “read in” of
the books in the national library’s atrium, while on Wednesday, three
authors resigned as judges from Singapore’s main literature prize in
protest against the move.

Singapore has tight rules on censorship, banning Playboy magazine and
blocking dozens of websites in what it has described as “a symbolic
statement of the types of content which the community is opposed to”.

However, whether homosexual content falls into that category is a thorny
issue. A growing groundswell of support for gay rights is being met
with noisy protests from religious groups, keen to maintain the status
quo of sex between two men being illegal.

Last month, a record crowd turned out for a gay-rights rally called
“Pink Dot” while several Christian and Muslim groups protested against
it by wearing white.

Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim has said he
supports the library’s stand, although unusually not all members of the
governing People’s Action Party (PAP) share that view.

“I do not believe homosexuality falls in the category of issues which
should be excluded,” said Hri Kumar Nair, a PAP member of Parliament in a
Facebook post titled Pulp Friction.

“But I think most neutrals would agree that children should read books with controversial themes supervised,” he added.

For Archie, the volume’s removal from book shelves in Singapore comes as
the redheaded American teenager is due to exit the comic world
altogether.

Next week, an issue will be released in the United States that shows him dying as he takes a bullet protecting a gay friend.

…..

Link: http://www.firstpost.com

…..

regards

Arundhati Roy = Nathuram Godse

July 20, 2014 Brown Pundits Archive No Comments filed under Archived Authors

….“The
book is extremely important for Dalits and it not right to add
footnotes to the book. We feel Arundhati Roy has diluted Ambedkar’s
writing and there is every chance that the book might be misinterpreted……Roy has always been a Maoist sympathiser and has never been vocal on
Dalit atrocities. So with that understanding, how can she write a
foreword for the book?” ….

Roy and Godse are dwellers of distant planets so one has to be careful while drawing equations. She is THE leading global thinker while he was just a deluded terrorist. But it should be highlighted that Roy is a fan of Comrade Charu Majumdar (see below), a terrorist of equal or much higher caliber than Godse.

What unites Roy, Godse and Majumdar is deep-seated Gandhi-hatred, and to mock non-violence as a way to solve (big) societal problems. Perhaps it is because deep down we are all defined by our caste. Roy, Godse and Majumdar are all Brahmins who despise the upstart Vaishya/Baniya (Gandhi).
………..
….After acknowledging that Mazumdar’s “abrasive rhetoric fetishses violence,
blood and martyrdom, and often employs a language so coarse as to be
almost genocidal”, Roy finds that despite all this blood lust Charu “was a
visionary in much of what he wrote and said. The party he founded (and
its many splinter groups) has kept the dream of revolution real and
present in India. Imagine a society without that dream. For that alone
we cannot judge him too harshly. Especially not while we swaddle
ourselves with Gandhi’s pious humbug about the superiority of ‘the
non-violent way’ …
………..
As far as blood lust is concerned, while Majumdar argued in favor of “making shoes for the poor with the skin of rick people” (Bengali- dhonir chamray goriber juto), Godse wanted a Muslim mukt Bharat (muslim free India).

Now Roy has made many Dalit activists extremely unhappy (see below). They want her to shut up about Gandhi and also shut up about Ambedkar. This is primarily because Roy (as dalit activists see her) is a forward caste celebrity trying to cash in on Ambedkar. They are not interested in her certificates because of her lack of a (caste) certificate. Throwing stones at Gandhi is not going to change that equation.

We learn that the book launch (for The Annihilation of Caste in Hyderabad by AR) was cancelled because of opposition from Dalits? We would expect S Anand (publisher) to scream out when there is attack on free speech on HIS own book. Before he and other left-liberals shout wolf again they will need to tell us why one form of censorship is bad, while others are benign.
……..
You would think, therefore, that Dalit intellectuals would only be happy
that Arundhati Roy is engaging with that text, that leading English
language magazines are telling the world about it, that we need to read
Ambedkar, and explaining why.

Strangely, some Dalit radicals and
intellectuals have a problem with Arundhati Roy reading, learning from
and expounding about Ambedkar. On March 9, Roy was to be in Hyderabad to
launch the book. But the event was cancelled because the publisher
feared protests from Dalit radicals who have been upset about the book. The Hindu quoted some of them:

“The
book is extremely important for Dalits and it not right to add
footnotes to the book. We feel Arundhati Roy has diluted Ambedkar’s
writing and there is every chance that the book might be misinterpreted.
Roy has always been a Maoist sympathiser and has never been vocal on
Dalit atrocities. So with that understanding, how can she write a
foreword for the book?” asked J. Srinivas, state co-convenor for the
Dalit Shakti programme, and a post-doctoral fellow at the University of
Hyderabad.

Renowned author and lawyer Bojja Tarakam, who
will be the guest at the event, also plans to raise objections
regarding the content. “Most of the preface is about Gandhi, rather than
Ambedkar. What is the need to write so much about him?” Mr. Tarakam
said. However, he opposed any kind of curbs on the release of the book
and felt it should be released in order to facilitate healthy discussion
on the subject.

In other words, Dalit intellectuals think
it is their right, by virtue of their caste, to decide whether a Maoist
sympathiser can write on Ambedkar; whether one can write on the Ambedkar
debate with Gandhi; or whether one is allowed to write more words in
criticism of Gandhi than in praise of Ambedkar. Annihilation of Caste was written for the upper castes, meant to be addressed to them.

……
Arundhati Roy, the Booker-prize-winning author who likes to shock us
periodically with her outlandish statements, is now in the business of
rubbishing Gandhi. She is sailing in the same boat as Babasaheb Ambedkar
– and Nathuram Godse, one might add. For Roy, Gandhi is Caste Bigot,
not Mahatma.

….
Godse put bullets into the Mahatma because he was allegedly too
pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu; Roy wants to erase the name of Gandhi from
every institution that currently carries it because, she says, Gandhi
was an out-and-out casteist.

….
According to this Times of India report,
Roy, speaking in the memory of the late Dalit leader Mahatma Ayyankali
at Kerala University, said universities named after Gandhi should be
renamed. Her reference was probably to Mahatma Gandhi University, a
leading educational institution in God’s Own Country.

….
The newspaper quotes Roy as excoriating Gandhi for an essay he wrote in
1936 titled The Ideal Bhangi to prove that Gandhi was casteist and
patronising towards Dalits. Today nobody would use the word “bhangi”
without inviting the charge of gross political incorrectness, but Gandhi
lived in politically incorrect times. Much of Ambedkar’s writings on
caste and religion too would not pass muster in today’s identity-charged
political discourse.

Arundhati Roy also despises Gandhi for his idealism.

There is some validity to the caste charge levelled against Gandhi. He
was a social conservative keen to reform caste, not annihilate it.
Ambedkar was irritated by Gandhi’s claim that caste was not central to
Hinduism but a sin committed by caste Hindus for which they must atone.
Many Dalits also see Gandhi’s decision to call “untouchables” Harijans
as condescending and obnoxious.

Gail Omvedt, another writer influenced by Marxist thinking, explains Gandhi’s approach thus:
“Gandhi was not simply a devoted Hindu, but also a fervent believer in
his idealised version of ‘varnashrama dharma.’ He felt that what he
considered to be the benign aspects of caste – its encouragement of a
certain kind of solidarity – could be maintained while removing
hierarchy and the extreme evil of un-touchability. This was in fact the
essence of his reformism.” Ambedkar saw caste as the very basis of evil,
which needed to be excised completely from the body politic.

Godse, a Brahmin, had views on caste that Gandhi would not have disapproved of. In his trial statement,
he says that he “worked actively for the eradication of untouchability
and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste
movements and maintained that all Hindus are of equal status as to
rights, social and religious, and should be considered high or low on
merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste
or profession….I used publicly to take part in organised anti-caste
dinners which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas,
Chamars and B—–s participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in
the company of each other.”

The interesting point is Godse hated Gandhi for his “appeasement” of
Muslims while Arundhati Roy criticises Gandhi for his alleged casteism.
Godse wanted Gandhi excised from this world, Roy wants Gandhi excised
from public memory for espousing the evil of caste.

Despite present-day antagonisms between Ambedkarites and Gandhians, it
is doubtful if Ambedkar himself, unlike Roy, would want Gandhi
forgotten, though he would certainly want him removed from a pedestal.

But if so far Roy’s views are analogous to Ambedkar’s, she seems to
despise Gandhi as much for his impractical idealism. In contrast, she
can forgive the murderous ideas of Naxal theoretician Charu Mazumdar for
being a visionary. This is what she wrote some years ago about her
travels in Naxal-land titled, “Gandhi, but with guns.”

After acknowledging that Mazumdar’s “abrasive rhetoric fetishses violence,
blood and martyrdom, and often employs a language so coarse as to be
almost genocidal”, Roy finds that despite all this blood lust Charu “was a
visionary in much of what he wrote and said. The party he founded (and
its many splinter groups) has kept the dream of revolution real and
present in India.”

“Imagine a society without that dream. For that alone
we cannot judge him too harshly. Especially not while we swaddle
ourselves with Gandhi’s pious humbug about the superiority of ‘the
non-violent way’ and his notion of Trusteeship: ‘The rich man will be
left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he
reasonably requires for his personal needs and will act as a trustee for
the remainder to be used for the good of society.’”

Put another way, Charu’s murderous idealism was fine, but not Gandhi’s.

Roy’s views, in fact, are in sync with what Godse himself had to say
about Gandhi, who said: “He (Gandhi) was, paradoxical as it may appear, a
violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the
name of truth and non-violence.”

Just as Roy ridicules Gandhi’s idealism about trusteeship, Godse mocks
Gandhi’s ideas of non-violence thus: “His activities for public
awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the
slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before
the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to these
slogans.”

“In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are
implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a
dream if you imagine the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become,
capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal
life…In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and
country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use
force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression
is unjust.”

Roy eulogises Charu for his revolutionary ideals, even if achieved
through violence. But Gandhi’s idealism pursued without violence is
“humbug.”

It would appear that if Godse had only been a murderous Marxist, Roy would have approved of his act.
……

Link(1): http://www.firstpost.com

Link(2): http://scroll.in/article/658279/Why-Dalit-radicals-dont-want-Arundhati-Roy-to-write-about-Ambedkar

……

regards