How to resolve the contradiction between combating terrorism and protecting human rights

By Dr Subramanian Swamy

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms entitled to any person. These basic rights are the right to life, freedom, equality, justice, and freedom of thought and expression.

Terrorism affects human rights in three ways. The terrorist attacks deprive citizens of their lives, limbs and properties and hence their human rights.

To combat these terrorists we place restrictions on human rights of the citizens, on privacy, freedom of travel and association, so the victims of attacks suffer both ways.

Moreover, human rights questions are raised when the terrorists are apprehended, on such issues as torture, deprivation of their "human dignity", the right to a free trial etc., which are regularly raised in defence of the LTTE, in Kashmir under AFSPA, and for crypto Maoists.

Hence, there is a fundamental question to answer in any democratic society, even when such a society is under siege from murdering terrorists, which is: how to protect basic human rights while effectively combating terrorism.

In 1948, the UN codified these basic human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Human Rights Law was framed in a number of core international human rights treaties and in customary international law. These treaties include in particular the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.

India has ratified these two Covenants 21 years later during the Janata Party Government tenure (1977-79) but the Protocols which establish the procedures for investigating human rights violation have not yet been adopted by subsequent governments.

In the Indian Constitution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, human rights were codified as Fundamental Rights.

However, in the Constitution of India, all human rights including religious rights, are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Since these restrictions are not enumerated, hence the courts under Article 32 and 226 decide it in a case to case basis. There is in India today a wealth of human rights case laws by which everyone is bound to obey.

Security of the individual, I contend, is also a basic human right and the protection of a citizen's security is, accordingly, a fundamental obligation of Government. 

States therefore have an obligation to ensure this human right, of their nationals and others, by taking positive measures to protect them against the threat of terrorist acts and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice. But then what is terrorism?

The UN Security Council, in its Resolution No.1566 (2004), referred to terrorism as "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, to intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do, or to abstain from doing, any act".

The fundamental question is thus: Is there a trade-off between the two human rights, that is some reasonable restriction on right of freedom for the right to security, both of which being human rights.

Or whether sacrificing human rights beyond a point is in itself counterproductive to, and undermines national and international security in combating terrorism?  Thus, the relationship between the two is not "linear", but "non-linear".

That is, it is not true that the less we protect human rights, the more we can combat terrorism. The converse is also not true.

Therefore, there is an "optimum combination" of measures to combat terrorism and the level of safeguards that ensure human rights.   The law of diminishing return operates on this trade-off.

That is, after a point, the more and more we sacrifice human rights the less and less we are able to combat terrorism.

Hence, we in a democratic society are required to constantly monitor what is a reasonable sacrifice or restriction of rights for combating terrorism, and what is excessive in the measures adopted to fight terrorism.

Every nation hence is being called upon today to resolve this conflicting demand of the restriction on human rights that is reasonable and tolerable for effectively combating terrorism and while protecting basic human rights. This is a tough dilemma for any democratic nation.

India today is the most terrorism afflicted country in the world. The principal terrorist threat is however from Wahabi Islamic exhortation for jihad to establish Darul Islam in India by hook or crook.

When I wrote the DNA newspaper Op-ed "How to Wipe Out Islamic Terrorism", the synthetic anger of the bleeding heart liberal secularist, the neo-Nehruites to be exact, was directed against my alleged painting all Muslims with one brush for combating Islamic terror.

Just as we did not paint all Germans in the Nazi regime by the same brush, I do not lump all Muslims together. Bareillvis, Sufis, Shias, Ahmediyas who are the overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims are  different. For instance, they all, unlike the Wahabi driven terrorists, accept the reality that their ancestors are Hindus.

Reality? Yes, because the recent genetic studies published in India and abroad show that DNA structure of Hindus and Muslims are the same. Those who do accept this reality, that is, their lineage is Hindu cannot be terrorists. They become part of the Brihad Hindutva family. Hindus will willingly defend and protect the human rights of such Muslims, since they are family.

The Wahabi Sunni Muslims in India who are led by the fundamentalist clergy are the exception because they reject this reality. They think that they are of Arabic culture and also descendents of Ghazni and Ghori, the two original terrorists who traumatised the civilised Hindus unprepared for their brutality. This fanatic group is the breeding ground for home grown terrorists in India.

The political nature of Fundamentalist Wahabi Islam becomes apparent to all if we learn from four paradoxes in Wahabi Muslim behaviour.

First paradox is—what these Muslims demand as rights when in a minority in any society, they nevertheless vehemently deny to other minorities when they are in majority, e.g., freedom to practice religion. Can Hindu minority in such Muslim majority countries, as Saudi Arabia, build temples, celebrate Deepavali, or carry a picture of Sri Ram in their pockets?

Second paradox is—what these Wahabi Muslims permit when in majority, they vociferously refuse to permit when in minority. Thus, in majority they permit demolition of mosques stating that Masjids are buildings to facilitate reading of namaz, and hence can be subject to demolition to construct a road, for example.

Third paradox is—what such Muslims accept while as a minority in a society where the majority is united, they refuse when that majority is not united. For example, in Australia where the Christian majority is united the Muslims willingly accept Uniform Civil Code. This  is termed as Al Taqqiya, while in flabby, wobbly, amorphous Hindu majority India, they refuse it, because India is Darul Harab.

Fourth paradox is—what methods Muslims in majority use to debunk, brutalise, or to convert non-believers to embrace Islam or reduce them to "Dhimmitude", or to religiously cleanse them out as in Kashmir and Bangladesh, they protest violently in a jihad when the same method is used by a non-Muslim majority against them.

Thus, we in India need to keep these four paradoxes in mind when formulating the trade-off between necessary measures to combat Islamic terror and protecting human rights. Accordingly our security forces in the field must be given clear guidelines on how to deal with Islamic terrorism. 

(The writer is former Union Law Minister and also the Convenor of the Legal and Parliamentary Cells of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha)

The Hindu : Columns / Vijay Nagaswami : The Shrinking Universe - The more the merrier?

Shrinking Universe - The more the merrier?

Is our society ready for multiple partner relationships?

My last column on extra-marital affairs generated a fair bit of email. Not just from those who agreed with my position, but mainly from those who didn't. The general theme of what most of my interlocutors had to say centred around the belief that since multiple partner relationships are successful in many parts of the world, they should, therefore, be acceptable in our country as well. Although my research hasn't provided me any convincing data that such relationships actually work in the short or long-term, I thought it may be politic to examine some of the dynamics in some clearly delineable prototypes of multiple partner relationships.

Open relationships

The first of these are what are usually referred to as ‘open relationships', wherein both partners are free to get emotionally and sexually involved with other people without needing the partner's consent every time. In other words, consent is a given. There is also no restriction on the degree of emotional or sexual closeness you can experience with the ‘paramour'. It is quite conceivable that you may end up having a committed relationship with the ‘ paramour' if this is indeed what you want to do, but then, you will have an open relationship with the ‘paramour' too, thereby permitting you to still maintain a relationship with your original partner. In other words, the element of exclusivity gets taken out of your open relationship, although commitment is still inherent.

This is different from ‘swinging' and ‘spouse-swapping' in which the focus is more on sexual rather than emotional intimacy. You're still married to your spouse, but both of you, by mutual consent, engage, from time to time, in sexual romps with other swinging couples. The idea here seems to be to provide both partners some sexual variety, but in a reasonably controlled situation, so that some degree of exclusivity is retained, and when both partners tire of sexual frolic, they retire to lives of companionable monogamy.

And in recent times, there is the new phenomenon called polyamory or simply, poly, sometimes described as ‘responsible non-monogamy'. While the definition of polyamory is not always absolutely clear, and can include open relationships as well in its ambit, it is distinguished from swinging, because it's seen as encompassing sexual, emotional, romantic and spiritual dimensions. The basic understanding here is that anyone is capable of having simultaneous, multiple, deep, intimate relationships, and that the ‘ distracting' elements of marriage, like jealousy, exclusivity, power imbalances etc., are squarely removed from the equation, thereby creating opportunities to grow as human beings.

However, jealousy does appear every now and again, and the successful poly is one who has been able to conquer this emotion and replace it with what is referred to as compersion (the opposite of jealousy, where you experience genuine happiness that your partner finds fulfilment or joy from somebody or something other than yourself). Fidelity, loyalty, honesty, equality, respect and transparency are big virtues among polys, for, no relationship takes place in the absence of consent and consensus. If ever consent is withheld, the reasons have to be substantial.

Polyamorists may engage in long-term relationships in triads, quads or networks. They would still tend to have a ‘primary' relationship and one or several ‘secondary relationships'. They are a growing movement in the United States (apparently there're about half a million polyamorists there) and also participate in Pride parades to highlight the legitimacy of their cause. Polyfidelity is a more controlled method of engaging in multiple relationships. The partners that one can choose from are limited to members of a group, network or commune. And fidelity to this group is demanded at all costs. Otherwise, the dynamics are similar to polyamorous relationships.

And finally, there is the old faithful — polygamy, which, in our country, was not uncommon in the past, but confined, since we live in a patriarchal environment, primarily to the male of the species (polyandry, which refers to a woman having multiple husbands, is too rare to even mention). Polygamy refers to having multiple socially, even if not legally, sanctioned spouses. This means that the polygamist takes responsibility for all of his wives and whatever children may be born of these liaisons. However, in the last few decades, polygamy, whether on account of inflation, recession or just an increasing belief in monogamy, is certainly on the decrease, even in religious denominations or sub-cultures where it used to be acceptable.

Viable alternative?

Some research into multiple marriages is under way in the west, but it's too early to tell whether it is a viable and sustainable alternative to monogamy. However, the fundamental issue is whether such multiple partner relationships could actually be considered to fall under the rubric of ‘marriage', which, by and large, has been a monogamous institution. The general clamour of my email interlocutors has been to expand the institution of marriage to cover multiple partner relationships as well. But, my question is, why? If one is comfortable with monogamy, one gets married. If one is not, one can opt for one of the ‘poly' alternatives. And then one can really understand whether more is actually merrier or whether three is indeed a crowd.

"It's a story of human triumph"

The story of mathematician genius Srinivasa Ramanujan is a story of human triumph and an example of what genius can accomplish against the odds, Robert Kanigel, Ramanjuan's biographer said on Monday.

Delivering a lecture hosted by the Organising Committee of Ramanujan 125, TNQ Books and Journals and the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Mr. Kanigel said that while illuminating the genius of Ramanujan, "we should also momentarily hold the spotlight briefly" on the scores of people who did not make it due to adverse circumstances.

After giving a bare-bone account of the Ramanujan story, Mr. Kanigel who for his research visited India, which remains a jumble of mostly happy experiences and memories, and the beautiful but slightly forbidding Cambridge, took several questions from the audience.

Responding to a question on the everyday applicability of Ramanujan's theorems, Mr. Kanigel pointed out that Ramanujan's work was in pure mathematics and he took delight in exploring numbers without attaching any larger purpose.

Saying that he felt good when his book was translated into German, Italian or Greek, Mr. Kanigel also admitted to a certain sadness that it was not available yet in Tamil. His delight would know no end if "The Man Who Knew Infinity" were to be available in Ramanujan's own language, he said.

Offering his reasons for the title of the book, Mr. Kanigel said it defined though in a narrow sense the intimacy with which Ramanujan worked with numbers and theorems; it was as if "he knew infinity as his homeland."

Mr. Kanigel was amused by a suggestion to get Italian filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci to make a film based on his biography and to a questioner, who wanted to know whether Ramanujan would have felt more comfortable and enjoyed greater creative freedom in the U.S. than in Cambridge, he said he would like to think that Ramanujan in the U.S. might have felt more at home and a little "less stiff."

When someone wanted to know whether working on the biography on Ramanujan had in any way changed him as a person, he remarked in a lighter vein that the impact would have been more on his wife when he got immersed in work.

N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, said Mr. Kanigel's biography on Ramanujan, which was first published in 1991 and has undergone several printings, was perhaps his best and most influential works.

Among the many features of this book was its perfectly legitimate practice of the art of narrative journalism, or the use of a novelistic imagination in bringing a story alive without ever crossing the line between fact and fiction, he said.

The biography counters the flatness of the picture of Ramanujan's origins and life in 19 century south India, locates him in everyday life, brings alive the emotional geography of family relationships and the imprint on a young man of the cultural ethos, religious values and rituals of the times.

Mariam Ram (TNQ Books and Journals) and Balasubramanian of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences also participated.

Putin Presidency welcome news for India

By M D Nalapat

President Dimitry Medvedev of Russia declared at the United Russia Party Congress on September 24 that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will be the party's nominee in the 2012 Presidential elections. Given the immense popularity that Putin enjoys in Russia, the expectation is that he will once again become the Head of State of the world's largest country, four years after stepping down in favour of Medvedev.

The NATO powers define "democratic leaders" as being those who obey their orders.Those who refuse to surrender their independence are referred to in NATO media such as CNN and BBC as "authoritarian", even if they have been legally elected by huge majorities.Thus,Vladimir Putin is almost always referred to as being less than a democrat, even though he has won three national elections in succession. In 2008, he could easily have got his supporters to change the Russian Constitution and permit a third term for himself, rather than surrender the presidency after two terms, in the way that takes place in the US and China as well. However, he refused to tinker with the Constitution just to give himself a third successive term, and stepped aside in favour of Medvedev. Now that the latter's term in office is almost over, there is no legal bar to Putin once again contesting the presidential elections, the way that has just been announced. Of course, it needs to be borne in mind that in those other large countries, China and the US, the convention is that the leader who completes two terms does not take up any other office, but takes on the role of Elder Statesperson.
However, there are strong reasons why Putin did not retire in 2008 but took over as Prime Minister under his former subordinate, Medvedev. The reason is the fact that the period in office of Boris Yeltsin led to unpredented chaos in Russia, and to a collapse of living standards and future prospects. It needs to be remembered that US diplomats such as Strobe Talbott and others were open about the fact that both Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin in effect followed policies that were recommended to them by the US. As they point out, then President Reagan made suggestions directly or through assistants to.
Gorbachev, who adopted them and told the Soviet politbureau that they were his own policies, concealing the fact that they had been formulated in Washington and New York. When Boris Yeltsin took over in 1993, not only did he listen to policymakers in Washington and New York. He also adopted the suggestions of those in London, Paris and Berlin. As these capitals were interested only in their own objectives and not in the welfare of Russia, it was no surprise that the externally originating policies of Yeltsin led to much misery for the people of Russia.It was only after Putin took over at the beginning of the 21st century that matters began to improve.
Although for about two years (till 2003),Vladimir Putin thought that France and Germany would allow Russia entry into Europe on the terms that the great nation of Russia deserves, he finally accepted that this would never happen, and that the intention of the major EU powers was to push Russia into a subordinate and dependent relationship. He, therefore, changed Moscow's policy from the total adoption of US-EU advice that had characterised Gorbachev and Yeltsin and changed to an independent policy that placed the interests of the people of Russia first, the way any government ought to do. He ignored pressure to allow religious fanatics in Chechnya to form their own state, aware that if this were to happen, they would export fanaticism and terror to other parts of Russia, beginning with the moderate, peaceful province of Dagestan. While Yeltsin failed to subdue the Chechen fanatics (who were being given hundreds of millions of dollars from inhabitants in countries in the Middle East to set up a Wahabbi state that would break away from Moscow, President Putin resisted NATO pressure until he had broken the back of the fanatics and ensured that the spectre of terror was weakened rather than reach the proportions of a monster.
The seeds of the decline of the Soviet Union were planted during the time when Leonid Brezhnev was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Unlike in China, where major changes in policy were brought about, chiefly the Deng Xiaoping economic reforms of the 1980s and the global rise of China in the first decade of the 21st century, the Brezhnev-led CPSU converted the administrative machinery into an inefficient nightmare that caused severe shortages of consumer goods in the country. Even in the field of defense,the approach of Brezhnev was timid and oriented to the status quo, so that the vast military power of the USSR was never used to defend its interests. Even in the rare instances where the military was used, it was subjected to limits on its functioning that robbed it of success.This can be contrasted with the US, which has never backed away from using military force vigorously,even in situations where peaceful means would have yielded greater rewards.
When  Mikhail Gorbachev took office in the mid-1980s, he publicly gave up the use of the military in any situation. As its defense forces were the strongest component of the state, the USSR very soon fell under attack both internally as well as in East Europe, leading to the collapse of itself and its allied regimes by the close of 1992. This was followed by Boris Yeltsin, who is hailed by the NATO media as a great democrat, even though he used artillery against the Parliament soon after taking office, in order to silence his critics in that venerable institution. Far from being a democrat,Yeltsin functioned through a small clique of individuals,many of them with external linkages,and followed a policy of always doing what the US, France, Germany and the UK wanted him to do. This, he withdrew all military assistance to President Najibullah in Afghanistan, thereby condeming him and his government to death against a forces that was created in Pakistan and assisted by the US, the Taliban. He broke an agreement to supply India with cryogenic rocket engines after Bill Clinton personally called him to block the transfer to a country outside the charmed circle of NATO powers but still the world's largest democracy. By the time Yeltsin retired towards the close of the last century, Russia was in a chaotic state, with popular misery reaching levels last seen during World War II.
Under the eight years when Vladimir Putin was President of Russia, the average monthly income of citizens of his country had gone up by ten times, and the Gross Domestic Product rose by more than six times since 1999. Religious extremism and terrorism were suppressed, and once again, Russia became a major force in world affairs. Once he understood that France and Germany would never permit Russia to challenge their hegemony in the EU, Putin began a policy of concentrating not only on the NATO powers (the way Gorbachev and Yeltsin had) but on Asia in particular. Relations with India and China improved substantially,  as also ties with important blocs such as the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Within Russia, the Yeltsin policy of surrendering Russian interests to foreign companies based in the NATO countries was reversed, so that Russian companies were given preference, and unequal deals signed in the past were re-negotiated. Of course, all this has made Putin very unpopular in the NATO group of countries.They seek leaders who will obey them and smooth the path for their companies to dominate local markets.
However, this very nationalism of Vladimir Putin will accelerate his drive to bring Russia closer to the rest of the BRICS bloc. To India, China, Brazil and South Africa. It will lead to closer diplomatic and economic cooperation with the entire globe, rather than just a section of it. Putin has shown that he is strong enough to ensure the independence of Russia,and to resist pressure designed to push his country into a subordinate position.This is good news for Asia,which can look forward with confidence to a return of the Putin Presidency in 2012.