Urdunama: Jaish-e-Mohammed

Pakistan’s Dawn reported on January 27 that Maulana Masood Azhar, founder of the terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, held a rally in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, where he criticized India of “killing Kashmiri Muslims” and warned India of “dreaded revenge” for its execution of Afzal Guru.   This was Masood Azhar’s first public rally in years after Pakistan ostensibly banned Jaish-e-Mohammed, first  after the 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament and subsequently after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in 2008.

However, while this may have been his first major public rally since 2008, Masood Azhar appears to have been reactivated as far back as at least 2011, per a report in the Islam Times.  Masood Azhar’s return to his headquarters in Bahawalpur and  the resumption of terror training camps had the blessings of the Pakistani establishment.

Azhar’s resurfacing should give pause to those who believe that Pakistan, after the recent transitions in political and military leadership and very public debates on terrorist groups targeting the state, was any closer to reining in its terrorist assets targeting India.  Exerpts of the September 2011 article in the Islam Times follow:

When India, in December 2008 declared Maulana Masood Azhar, Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed as wanted men, Pakistan was forced to ban the Jaish-e-Mohammed.  Under pressure from Islamabad, Masood Azhar moved out of his Model Town headquarters in Bahawalpur –where hundreds of fighters were being trained — and relocated to South Waziristan.

Islam Times’ military source now reports that Masood Azhar has returned his Bahawalpur headquarters and resumed the training of militants there.  Masood Azhar also openly operates madrasas where hundreds of children are being instructed in new interpretations of Islam.

According to our source, Masood Azhar is constructing bunkers and tunnels similar to those that existed  in the madrasas of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza before they are destroyed by Pakistani military action in 2007.   Masood Azhar has been granted permission by the Pakistani establishment to resume his activities in Bahawalpur.

Masood Azhar’s associate Rashid Rauf escaped while under trail in Pakistan and ended up in Europe.  After flying to London in August 2007, he was involved in a failed attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight.  It is alleged that Rashid Rauf was killed in a drone attack in North Waziristan in November 2008.

Pakistan’s senior security officers indicate that Jaish-e-Mohammed has ties with al-Qaeeda, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network and is working with these outfits to target kaafirs (presumably U.S. and NATO troops) along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.  After being released by India (as part of a swap for hostages aboard a hijacked IC-814 flight) in 1999, Masood Azhar organized a rally in Karachi with over 10,000 participants and declared that Muslims will not rest until India and the U.S. were dismembered and destroyed.

When the trajectory of talks between India and Pakistan slowed in 2007, Jaish-e-Mohammed lauched many successful attacks in “Occupied Kashmir” under the leadership of Mufti Abdul Rauf, Masood Azhar’s younger brother.  Mufti Abdul Rauf was subsequently also given facilities in Rawalpindi to train terrorist organizations from South Punjab.

Jaish-e-Mohammed has the support of many prominent Deoband organizations in Pakistan, including Jamia Binori’s Mufti Nizamuddin and Sipah-e-Sahaba’s Yusuf Ludhianvi.  British intelligence agencies investigating the 2005 terrorist attack in London indicate that two of the suicide bombers were known associates of Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Faisalabad trainer Osama Nazir.  [اسلام ٹائمز]

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Quickpost: Thoughts on Republic Day

What constitutes the most sacred duty of the government and citizens in a republic?

The meteoric rise of the Aam Admi Party in Delhi tells us that democracy is alive and well in India.  AAP rode on the wave of an anti-corruption sentiment and vanquished a hitherto well-entrenched Congress party from the seat of power in Delhi.  However, the party’s use of methods bordering on political vigilantism to address the legitimate concerns of the electorate tells us that while India the democracy is thriving, India the republic is hurting.

In the congress of developing nations, India distinguishes itself for its sustained commitment to pluralistic, democratic traditions.  At the same time however, the use of unconstitutional methods for seeking social, economic and political justice continues to be accepted.  The degree to which these methods are employed differentiates an unhealthy republic from a healthy one.

Many of us are familiar with B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding speech on the floor of the Constituent Assembly on achieving social and economic justice through methods provided by the Constitution of the land.  For any healthy, functioning republic, adherence to these methods is not just important, but essential.   The responsibility to ensure the adherence of constitutional methods, then, becomes the duty of both the government and citizens.

Indeed, as Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of the American Republic, explained in a letter in the Federalist Papers, it constitutes the “most sacred duty,” and is the greatest source of security to the republic:

If it were to be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and the powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty — operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers and demagogues, are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny.

Were it not that it might require too long a discussion, it would not be difficult to demonstrate that a large and well organized Republic can scarcely lose its liberty from any other cause than that of anarchy, to which a contempt of the laws is the high road.

But without entering into so wide a field it is sufficient to present to your view a more simple and a more obvious truth, which is this:  that a sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle the sustaining energy of a free government.

[Alexander Hamilton, Letter No. III in the American Daily Advertiser, August 28, 1794]

Let us hope this serves as food for thought as India celebrates its 65th Republic Day today.

 

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Stepping up on Afghanistan

India must use its good offices to ensure that the U.S. and Afghanistan sign a bilateral security agreement.

If the world was in need of a preview of things to come in a post-2014 Afghanistan, it got one on Friday.  A Taliban attack on a popular Lebanese restaurant in Kabul claimed 21 lives. Those killed included the International Monetary Fund’s chief for Afghanistan, a senior political official at the UN and a British candidate in the upcoming elections for the European parliament.

The insurgency in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of many of its citizens as well as those of NATO’s security forces.  But as the New York Times notes, attacks against foreign soft targets have been relatively less frequent.  The Kabul Hotel Inter-Continental was attacked in 2011; U.S. and Indian embassies have been hit in Kabul and in other parts of Afghanistan.  The more recent attacks have involved operations with the use of suicide bombers to breach perimeter security followed by commando-style assaults with the use of RPGs and assault rifles.

The Taliban have historically relied on suicide attacks against Western military targets, but the use of commando-style assaults in and around Kabul may point to a collaboration with Pakistan-sponsored groups like the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba, loosely referred to as the “Kabul Attack Network.”

The goal, ultimately, is to weaken the will of the West to remain in Afghanistan after 2014.  The U.S. and NATO winding down operations in Afghanistan will undoubtedly create a perilous security situation in that country.  Afghan president Hamid Karzai has refused to enter into a status of forces agreement with the U.S., even as the Afghan National Army remains ill-equipped to deal with a raging insurgency coupled with terrorist assaults on the capital.

Mr. Karzai is throwing caution to the wind by tying the signing of a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) to the U.S. facilitating “peace talks” with the Taliban.  He may get neither.  The U.S.’s ability to facilitate a negotiation with the Taliban remains in question, particularly when the Taliban and their sponsors in Pakistan have been working towards the goal of ensuring a total exit of U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan all along.  Mr. Karzai, whose presidency ends in April 2014, may have little to lose, but the burdens of his action or inaction will be borne by Afghanistan’s future governments.

Meanwhile, anyone in New Delhi still under the delusion that events in Afghanistan have no bearing on the security of India would do well to reach for their history books.  It is precisely the sort of Pakistan-supported, Taliban-operated environment that could prevail in a post-2014 Afghanistan that allowed for India’s surrender of Maulana Masood Azhar (who was languishing in an Indian jail) in Kandahar in exchange for passengers hijacked onboard IC-814 in 1999.

As a result of our capitulation, Azhar returned to Pakistan to regroup members of the terrorist group Harkat ul-Mujahideen (HuM) and formed the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in 2000.  A year later, JeM attacked the Indian parliament, killing 12 civilians.  Our members of parliament, rather miraculously, escaped unharmed.

A similar situation may present itself when the U.S. departs Afghanistan.  Although many of us have called for India to deploy hard power in Afghanistan, or at least play a more active role in training and supplying weapons to Afghan security forces, New Delhi has chosen to only limit its involvement to economy and institution-building.  Laudable endeavors undoubtedly, but insufficient to ensure the security of India and her interests in that country.

India has already rebuffed Mr. Karzai’s request for weaponry during his December 2013 visit.  But if India is disinclined to deploy hard power in Afghanistan, it must, at the very least, ensure that a U.S. security presence remains in the country to prevent it from being engulfed in yet another civil war that could render twelve years of development and progress to naught.

Indeed, India is most uniquely positioned — as a friend to both the U.S. and Afghanistan — to use its good offices to ensure that a version of the BSA agreeable to both Afghanistan and the U.S. is signed.  Almost every other country is viewed with suspicion by either DC or Kabul.  Last week, U.S. Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan-Pakistan visited India to discuss the furture of Afghanistan.  U.S. intelligence officials also met an Indian delegation led by Joint Intelligence Chief Ajit Lal to urge India’s influence with Mr. Karzai to conclude the BSA.

There is no doubt that India is in the midst of domestic political upheaval.  The economy is sagging and political stewardship is found wanting in almost every aspect of governance.  However, facilitating a status of forces agreement between Afghanistan and the U.S. must become a national security priority for India.

A U.S.-Afghanistan BSA cannot prevent attacks such as the one this past Friday, but it may stave off a total collapse of the state to the Taliban.  Ultimately, it is simply not in India’s interests to see Afghanistan relapse into the laboratory of terrorism that it once was under Pakistan’s influence. (And on a separate note, New Delhi’s assistance in facilitating a BSA could also demonstrate that both India and the U.S. are committed to putting the very unseemly squabble over Devyani Khobragade behind them).

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Guestpost: Do we care about privacy?

India’s privacy policy cannot be formulated only in the privacy of the corridors of power.

Ranjeet Rane, Research Assistant with Takshashila Institution’s Cyber Security Team, argues for an urgent debate between the government and citizens on privacy rights and limitations in India, given the recently implemented Centralized Monitoring System

While Mr. Edward Joseph Snowden gets to spend a year in Russia thanks to political asylum granted to him by the Russian president, the world is still recovering from the aftermath of the diplomatic quagmire his revelations of the U.S. Mass Surveillance Project brought in its wake.  To some, Mr. Snowden is a hero who exposed the machinations of Big Brother.  Regardless, the irony in Mr. Snowden’s choice of Russia as the staging ground for his apparent war against clandestine surveillance should not be lost on us.

If one looks beyond the news articles on clandestine surveillance,  it would be fair to say that the Snowden incident has now made it necessary to initiate a debate on balancing the concerns of privacy and security in India.  Indeed, the need for such is debate is even more pressing given the recent announcement of the Government of India to implement a Centralized Monitoring System (CMS) for the “lawful interception and monitoring” of electronic communication channels in the country comes at a time when the contours of a Privacy law are ill-defined in the country.

The Takshashila Institution’s discussion paper on the CMS highlights important concerns about the nature of privacy in the country. These concerns have found voice in recent news reports as well.

In the absence of laws that provide for the safeguarding of privacy and regulating data retention, ordinary citizens lack clarity on how their personal information is collected, stored, used and shared. Such practices are contradictory to the various interpretations of Article 19 & Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court that indirectly uphold the Right to Privacy.

At present, lawful interception is vaguely defined within various Sections of the colonial-era Telegraph Act 1885. Among the more recent laws, Sections 69 & 69B of the Information Technology Act 2008 further expand the mandate for lawful interception, which may be exercised “when [the authorized officers] are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient” to do so in the interest of:

  1. The sovereignty or integrity of India;

  2. defense of India;

  3. security of the State;

  4. friendly relations with foreign States;

  5. public order;

  6. preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above; or

  7. for investigation of any offence.

The directions under Section 69 can be issued by officers both at the central and state level, directions under Section 69B can only be issued by the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology under the Union Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. The analogous wording in the section coupled with the lack of exact definitions makes the nature of the powers of the Intercepting Officers synonymous with “discretionary.”

As for Data Retention, Section 67C of the Information Technology Act requires ‘intermediaries’ to maintain and preserve information. The nature of this information and the duration for the same was to be specified in a separate set of Rules to be issued by the Central Government. Apart from the Cyber Café Rules 2011 no such rules have been framed.  These Rules have led to a vast database of photo-copies of “ID proof” documents getting collected with cyber cafes across the country. Incidents of such documents been used for acquiring mobile SIM cards have also been highlighted by news reports.

It is clear from the examples above that there is complete lack of accountability and responsibility when it comes to the government controlling private data of the citizens. If the Government of India plans to implement the CMS or is already using Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) systems, then there is an urgent need for public discourse on this issue.

While current controls and accountability around lawful interception of personal data are not assuring, the ‘voluntary’ collection of citizen data through UID programs require further security provisions and clarity on how such data collected will be stored, which agencies will have access to it and with whom it will be shared. While a one-size-fits-all rule cannot be applied for data collected through interception systems or data voluntarily provided by citizens to avail various government benefits, it doesn’t take away the need to address the issues of privacy associated with both the categories.

Indeed, concerns of privacy cannot be wished away merely by citing vague threats to national security.  National security, can of course, trump concerns of privacy in extraordinary circumstances, but these ought to be the exception rather than the rule.  The status quo will only add to the rapidly escalating trust-deficit between the Government and its citizens.  While the draft of the Right to Privacy Bill has been making the rounds for quite some time, it hasn’t yet been opened for public consultation.

Policies on privacy cannot be formulated only in the privacy of the corridors of power.  Ultimately, it is imperative that the Government involve and consider the views of a much wider spectrum of stakeholders while formulating legislation on the basic rights of 1.2 billion people to own, control and share information about themselves.

 

Read full story · Comments { 3 }