Day: January 14, 2012

The Financial Times in London recently changed its policy of using Burma to using Myanmar when referring to the country. Burma expert Bertil Lintner, the author of numerous books on Burma, wrote to the newspaper, saying the words are synonymous, but other changes involving the names of ethnic towns have more sinister implications. His letter to the newspaper was published on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.
The following is an expanded version of the letter and goes into more details about the importance of names in identifying a country or city:

Dear Sirs,
You claim that you have adopted the name “Myanmar” for Burma “on the grounds of neutrality” and because it “smacks less of domination by a majority ethnic group.” (January 5, 2012). This is linguistically and historically incorrect. It is correct that today’s Burmese rulers claim that Burma, or bama, is a colonial name while Myanmar is more indigenous and encompasses all the many nationalities of the country. But it was not the British who “named Myanmar Burma.” The once British colony has always been called Burma in English and bama or myanma in Burmese. The best explanation of the difference between the two names is found in the old Hobson-Jobson Dictionary of “Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases,” which despite its rather unorthodox name remains a very useful source of information:

“The name (Burma) is taken from Mran-ma, the national name of the Burmese people, which they themselves generally pronounce Bam-ma, unless speaking formally and empathically.” (Col. Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell, New Edition Edited by William Crooke, Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical Discursive. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1979, originally published in 1903, p. 131.) Both names have been used interchangeably throughout history, with Burma being the more colloquial name and Myanmar a more formal designation.

If Burma meant only the central plains and Myanmar the Burmans and all the other nationalities, how could there be, according the Myanmar Language Commission, a “Myanmar language”? Its official Myanmar-English Dictionary also mentions a “Myanmar alphabet.” Clearly, Burma and Myanmar, and Burmese and Myanmar, mean exactly the same thing, and it cannot be argued that the term “Myanmar” includes any more people within the present union than the name “Burma” does.

But the confusion is an old one and when the Burmese independence movement was established in the 1930s, there was a debate among the young nationalists as to what name should be used for the country: bama or myanma. The nationalists decided to call their movement the Dohbama Asiayone instead of the Dohmyanma Asiayone. The reason, they said, was that:

“Since the dohbama was set up, the nationalists always paid attention to the unity of all the nationalities of the country…and the thakins (Burmese nationalists) noted that myanma meant only the part of the country where the myanma people lived. This was the name given by the Burmese kings to their country. Bama naing-ngan is not the country where only the myanma people live. Many different nationalities live in this country, such as the Kachins, Karens, Kayahs, Chins, P-Os, Palaungs, Mons, Myanmars, Rakhines and Shans. Therefore, the nationalists did not use the term myanma naing-ngan but bama naing-ngan. That would be the correct term…all nationalities who live in bama naing-ngan are called bama.” (A Brief History of the Dohbama Asiayone (in Burmese). Rangoon: Sarpay Beikman, 1976, p. 215)

Thus, the movement became the Dohbama Asiayone and not the Dohmyanma Asiayone .The Burmese edition of The Guardian monthly, another official publication, also concluded in February 1971: “The word myanma signifies only the myanmars whereas bama embraces all indigenous nationalities.”

In May 1989, however, the present government decided that the opposite was true and changed the name in English to Myanmar — although it had been myanma naing-ngan, “the State of Burma,” in formal Burmese since independence in 1948. The bitter truth is that there is no term in Burmese or in any other language that covers both the bama/myanma and the ethnic minorities since no such entity existed before the arrival of the British. Burma with its present boundaries is a colonial creation, and successive governments of independent Burma have inherited a chaotic entity which is still struggling to find a common identity. But “changing” the name of the country to what it has always been called in formal Burmese is unlikely to make any difference. Burma has been in a state of revolt since independence in 1948, with no lasting solution to its ethnic and political problems in sight.

Rangoon or Yangon is another reflection of the same kind of misunderstanding. Rangoon begins with the consonant “ra gaut”, or “r”, not “ya palait” or “y”. In English texts, Rangoon is therefore an etymologically more correct spelling. The problem is that the old r-sound has died out in most modern Burmese dialects and softened to a “y” — but not in Arakanese and Tavoyan, which both have a very distinct r-sound. Further, there is another dimension to the recent “name changes” in Burma. It was not only the names of the country and the capital which were “changed”; in the minority areas new names were also introduced as well, and here it was a real change. A few examples from Shan State: Hsipaw became Thibaw, Hsenwi became Theinli or Thinli, Kengtung became Kyaingtong, Mong Hsu became Maing Shu, Lai-Hka became Laycha, Pangtara became Pindaya and so on.

The problem here is that the original names all have a meaning in the Shan language; the “new” names are just Burmanised versions of the same names, with no meaning in any language. This undermines the argument that the changes were done in order to make them “more indigenous” and not only reflecting the majority Burmans. This has prompted Gustaaf Houtman, a Dutch Burma scholar, to coin the term “Myanmafication” to refer to the top-down programme of replacing “unity in diversity” — which had been Aung San’s vision of an independent Burma — with a more ethnically streamlined nation state. (Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics: Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1999, pp. 15ff.) Others would claim it is just a concerted drive to Burmanise the whole country and wipe out the separate identities of the ethnic minorities.

Bertil Lintner is a former correspondent with the Far Eastern Economic Review and author of the forthcoming “Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier.”

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/burma-and-myanmar-mean-exactly-the-same-thing/

By Bibhu Prasad Routray
Myanmar’s recent policy to politically reform itself might have excited many analysts outside the country, but its objective of achieving peace with the ethnic rebels is progressing slower than expected. Suspicion regarding the government’s real intentions remains the key factor.

Policy to end Isolation
On 18 August 2011, the new government in Myanmar called for peace talks with armed ethnic rebel groups along its borders with Thailand and China. The new approach came three weeks after opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi wrote an open letter to President Thein Sein offering to mediate between the government and the rebels. The government went on to form a negotiating panel for peace to work on a formula of achieving peace in the entire country in the next three to four years.

By all means, the present strategy is directed at ending the country’s pariah status. Bringing the war with the rebels to an end is one of the conditions set by the West for improvised relations with the Myanmarese government. This was further emphasized by US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during her visit to Myanmar in early December 2011.

Peace Talks
On 29 November 2011, high ranking Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) leaders held discussions with a Myanmarese government delegation in the border town of Ruili in China’s Yunnan Province. KIO insisted that the political dialogue needs to continue whereas the government underlines the need to ink a ceasefire agreement. The KIO incidentally had signed a ceasefire with the military junta in 1994, becoming one of the first ethnic armed groups to do so.

Similarly, the first round of peace talks were held on 22 December 2011 between a Myanmarese government delegation headed by the Minister for Railways Aung Min and a delegation from the Mon armed group, the New Mon State Party (NMSP) led by its secretary, Nai Hang Thar. The talks took place in Sangkhalburi in Thailand’s Kanchanaburi Province. The government offered to favourably consider the possibility of granting the right to teach the Mon language in Mon State and also to assist NMSP leaders in developing business opportunities. While the government side said it hopes to conclude a ceasefire agreement during the second round of talks scheduled for January 2011 in the Mon state, the NMSP too, like the Kachins, insisted on a political dialogue.

Hindrances
Suspicion regarding the government’s real intentions remains a hurdle in the actualization of the peace talks. There is a widely held belief that the government is using the twin strategy – military offensive as well as peace talks – to subdue the rebels. Since June this year, armed offensives are continuing with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), the armed wing of the KIO. President Thein Sein made a statement during the November 2011 ASEAN summit in Bali that the security forces could annihilate organizations like the KIO/KIA “within a day”. Reportedly more than 100 infantry battalions and three divisions of forces are being used against the rebels, who have since lost many of its camps along the Myanmar-China border. The President on 10 December 2011 ordered an end to the fighting. Skirmishes, however, continue as the directives are yet to reach the troops.

Whether a ceasefire agreement should precede political talks is the second area of contention. The government obviously is in a hurry to showcase its ability to achieve total peace in the country, where as its past records of procrastinating political dialogue with the groups which had signed the ceasefire agreement in the 1990s, remains a negative point of reference for the groups. For example, the NMSP observed a ceasefire agreement with the government between 1995 and 2010 and the entire 15 year period remained bereft of a single round of political dialogue.

Thirdly, government’s moves to individually hold negotiations with the groups rather than talking to the umbrella body United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) has contributed to the suspicion that the government is adopting a “divide and rule” strategy. The 11-member UNFC merging the loyalties of the Mon, Shan, Karenni, Chin, Arakan, Karen, Kachin and Pa-O ethnicities had been formed in February 2011. The UNFC demands that the government deals directly with it rather than individually with the groups. The government, on the other hand, insists that political talks with the UNFC will be the “third step” of its peace process. As a result, the UNFC’s Peace Talk Group formed in the last week of August 2011 remains idle. The UNFC has gone ahead to form a Federal Army during its 16-17 December emergency meeting on the Thai-Burma border.

For obvious reasons, the government will have to walk that extra mile to create confidence among the alienated ethnicities. The excitement in certain quarters about the process of reform underway in Naypyidaw notwithstanding, the rebellious ethnicities will need to be given time to internalize the process of reformation. Honesty and transparency rather than rapidity in achieving peace would have to be the key principle behind the government’s policy. 

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/talks-with-the-kachin-and-mon-rebels-in-myanmar-strategy-motives-and-hurdles/

By Ajay Shah
Suppose we go back to 1870 and envision future scenarios for four interesting and promising countries.

Britain: The incumbent, the pioneer of the industrial revolution, home of Newton and Darwin, with a head start on building institutions, with sound economic policy and deep integration with a global empire.

Germany: The rising power of Europe, rapidly catching up with the frontier (and ahead of Britain in some fields). More centralisation of power, which perhaps gave an edge in certain things.

The US: A vast country blessed with a great constitution, inhabited by a colourful cast of characters drawn from the mavericks, misfits, nutcases and adventurers of Europe.

Argentina: A vast country with boundless prospects, sound policies after 1852, and tightly integrated into globalisation on both trade and capital.

You’re probably thinking: ‘Argentina?’ But in the middle of the 19th century, there were many people who thought that Argentina had better prospects than the US. From 1850 to 1930, Argentina did astonishingly well. In particular, from 1880 to 1905, GDP growth averaged 8% over 25 years, which was unheard of in those years.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know what happened. Argentina collapsed into illiberal populism (first into socialism/fascism (1930) and then into Peronism (1946)). Germany collapsed into nationalism and militarism. The US and the UK managed to build liberal democracies.

With this framing, let’s ask about how India and China will work out in coming decades.

Will India make it to good institutions, like the UK or the US? Or will India collapse into illiberal populism, much like Argentina did? All too often, the Indian elite tends to take good outcomes in the deep future for granted. I am not so sure and it is worth worrying about the foundations of liberal democracy and a market economy.

Given the weak foundations of liberal ideas in India, political freedom is not something to take for granted. Given the weak foundations of market economics in India, economic freedom is not something to take for granted. Argentina’s binge of welfare programmes and populism is uncomfortably close to the instincts of most Indian politicians.

Will China make it to good institutions, like the UK or the US? Or will China descend into nationalism and militarism, much like Germany did?

The story of Argentina and Germany, from 1870 to 1914, reminds us that what works in a country for a short time is often not enough to carry the country through to a happy ending. Germany did very well from 1870 to 1914 (a full 44 years). Argentina did very well from 1850 to 1930 (a full 80 years) of which 50 years had really high growth.

To many people, the sustained success that we have seen in India has generated complacence. We have started trusting in our governance DNA, thinking that it has delivered results after 1979 and particularly after 1993. This complacence hinders the process of identifying incipient problems, criticising the status quo, and changing course.

The fact that a economic/political recipe worked well for a few decades does not mean that this recipe will continue to deliver. For a country to work out in the long run, it has to constantly nurture the foundations of liberal democracy and the market economy, and repeatedly reinvent itself.

In the late 19th century, growth rates were low in absolute terms, other than outlandish episodes like Argentina (1880-1905). Germany was the star performer of Europe over 1870-1914, with GDP growth of 2.9%. The UK did just 1.9% in this period. At 2.9% growth, GDP doubles each 24 years. In other words, the economy and the political system need to be reinvented in each generation.

At 7% growth, in India, we are getting a doubling of GDP every decade. This requires a reinvention of the economy and the political system every decade. But India presents a stark contrast with what’s required: we have grossly failed on modifying laws, government agencies, policy frameworks and world views at a rapid pace.


Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/will-india-go-the-argentina-way-toward-populist-decline/

By Ajay Shah
Suppose we go back to 1870 and envision future scenarios for four interesting and promising countries.

Britain: The incumbent, the pioneer of the industrial revolution, home of Newton and Darwin, with a head start on building institutions, with sound economic policy and deep integration with a global empire.

Germany: The rising power of Europe, rapidly catching up with the frontier (and ahead of Britain in some fields). More centralisation of power, which perhaps gave an edge in certain things.

The US: A vast country blessed with a great constitution, inhabited by a colourful cast of characters drawn from the mavericks, misfits, nutcases and adventurers of Europe.

Argentina: A vast country with boundless prospects, sound policies after 1852, and tightly integrated into globalisation on both trade and capital.

You’re probably thinking: ‘Argentina?’ But in the middle of the 19th century, there were many people who thought that Argentina had better prospects than the US. From 1850 to 1930, Argentina did astonishingly well. In particular, from 1880 to 1905, GDP growth averaged 8% over 25 years, which was unheard of in those years.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know what happened. Argentina collapsed into illiberal populism (first into socialism/fascism (1930) and then into Peronism (1946)). Germany collapsed into nationalism and militarism. The US and the UK managed to build liberal democracies.

With this framing, let’s ask about how India and China will work out in coming decades.

Will India make it to good institutions, like the UK or the US? Or will India collapse into illiberal populism, much like Argentina did? All too often, the Indian elite tends to take good outcomes in the deep future for granted. I am not so sure and it is worth worrying about the foundations of liberal democracy and a market economy.

Given the weak foundations of liberal ideas in India, political freedom is not something to take for granted. Given the weak foundations of market economics in India, economic freedom is not something to take for granted. Argentina’s binge of welfare programmes and populism is uncomfortably close to the instincts of most Indian politicians.

Will China make it to good institutions, like the UK or the US? Or will China descend into nationalism and militarism, much like Germany did?

The story of Argentina and Germany, from 1870 to 1914, reminds us that what works in a country for a short time is often not enough to carry the country through to a happy ending. Germany did very well from 1870 to 1914 (a full 44 years). Argentina did very well from 1850 to 1930 (a full 80 years) of which 50 years had really high growth.

To many people, the sustained success that we have seen in India has generated complacence. We have started trusting in our governance DNA, thinking that it has delivered results after 1979 and particularly after 1993. This complacence hinders the process of identifying incipient problems, criticising the status quo, and changing course.

The fact that a economic/political recipe worked well for a few decades does not mean that this recipe will continue to deliver. For a country to work out in the long run, it has to constantly nurture the foundations of liberal democracy and the market economy, and repeatedly reinvent itself.

In the late 19th century, growth rates were low in absolute terms, other than outlandish episodes like Argentina (1880-1905). Germany was the star performer of Europe over 1870-1914, with GDP growth of 2.9%. The UK did just 1.9% in this period. At 2.9% growth, GDP doubles each 24 years. In other words, the economy and the political system need to be reinvented in each generation.

At 7% growth, in India, we are getting a doubling of GDP every decade. This requires a reinvention of the economy and the political system every decade. But India presents a stark contrast with what’s required: we have grossly failed on modifying laws, government agencies, policy frameworks and world views at a rapid pace.


Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/will-india-go-the-argentina-way-toward-populist-decline/

By Anil Bhat
Shortly after media reports about China trying to unite North East terrorist groups and the entry of one in Assam to launch attacks around Independence Day, terrorists struck in Imphal.

On August 01, 2011, five persons including two girl students were killed and many were injured as a powerful bomb exploded at about 1.40 pm in front of a grocery shop and a barber`s shop, opposite Sangakpham Keithel (bazaar).

The two girls studying in Class III together at Chingmeirong Primary School  were returning home when the bomb exploded, flinging their  bodies, one of which was found inside the grocery store and the other’s in the barber shop, where the barber and his son were also killed. Another man’s body was found in front of the shop. The impact of the blast was so powerful that it ripped and charred human flesh, pulverised some vehicles and reduced the place to scattered debris.

While there are reports of this being a failed attempt by National Socialist Council of Nagaland/Nagalim-Issac – Muivah group (NSCN-IM) at targeting members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC) who are housed in a nearby guest house complex, Chief Minister Okram  Ibobi Singh and Union Home Minister P Chidambaram are reported to have endorsed the same.

A press note from the state Home Department said, “Government of Manipur has received concrete and convincing evidence which establishes the direct involvement of NSCN-IM in the series of recent violent incidents which left several innocent civilians dead and many seriously injured in various parts.” According to the Home Department one Anthony, son of Bonkulung of Sadu Koireng killed in this blast was an active NSCN-IM cadre.

Apparently, the explosion occurred moments after some vehicles of ADC members went past the blast site. The government stated that these acts of terror are quite clearly designed to thwart the democratic process taken up be the government of Manipur to introduce democratic decentralization by successfully conducting elections to the six district councils which had remained dormant for over two decades.

It may be recalled that last year the, it was on the this issue that All Manipur Naga Students Union had caused a blockade of National Highway 39, Manipur’s main artery, which had extended to three months by Thuingaleng Muivah timing his visit his home town in Manipur after almost forty years.

Almost all the schools located in the valley districts of Manipur staged protest demonstrations and rallies decrying the Sangakpham bomb attack. On Tidim Road, thousands of school students took out a joint protest rally.

One group which has been most vocal is the All Manipur United Clubs’ Organisation (AMUCO), which, while listing a number of violent incidents allegedly involving the NSCN -IM, including the recent bomb blast, accused both the Central and State Governments of being soft towards this rebel group. Contending that inaction against the NSCN (IM), inspite of its involvement in various incidents of violence clearly suggests indirect support of both the Governments to the NSCN-IM, AMUCO president KT Rahman demanded that effective measures be initiated to curb activities of the outfit in Manipur. Speaking to media he is reported to have stated that as the ongoing ceasefire between the Government of India and the NSCN-IM does not cover Manipur, not only should the illegal activities of the NSCN (IM) need to be dealt with according to law but also all that its camps in the State should be shut-down.

He further  stated that the ongoing peace parleys between the NSCN (IM) and Govt of India have been reduced to a mockery as the NSCN-IM is still involved in acts of terrorism, highway extortion, destruction of public properties and intimidation. Mentioning the Sangakpham blast, killing of a couple in Lungphu village of Phungyar sub-division (Ukhrul) and slaying of security personnel of Phungyar AC MLA’s escort party as recent cases involving the terrorist group, he blamed the Govt of Manipur by recounting a particular incident when weapons seized by State security forces near Pallel were returned to the outfit along with its apprehended cadres.

Rahman, while asserting that terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Manipur should be measured by the same yardstick and  grimly noting failure of the Home Minister to visit Manipur and assess the overall situation following the Sangakpham blast, commented  that that such an attitude demonstrated the Govt of India’s step-motherly treatment to the people of Manipur.

Chronicling a number of attacks by NSCN-IM since at least April this year, the Home Department said that the state government is seriously considering taking up the matter with the Central government to revoke the ceasefire with NSCN-IM due to these continuous and open acts of terrorism being committed by it.

While violence by the number of Meitei terrorist groups in Manipur has been reported much since the arrest of United National Liberation Front’s boss-man, RK Meghen, many of its cadres earlier in Bangladesh and now in Burma/Myanmar are being rallied together by Chinese intelligence, there is no saying how and when they will strike again.

In Assam, as the pro talk faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)’s seven-member team of seasoned hit-men led by its ‘chairman’ Arabinda Rajkhowa submitted the charter of demands prepared by the Sanmilito Jatiya Abhivartan (SJA) under the leadership of noted intellectual Dr Hiren Gohain, to Ministry of Home Affairs, their anti-talks colleague Paresh Baruah is all set to keep Assam on the boil yet again.

ULFA’s bid to strike came to light when the Assam Rifles apprehended hardcore ULFA leader Rwittick Hazarika in Sonitpur district bordering Arunachal Pradesh recently. He confessed before police that a group of harcore ULFA cadres have come down to Assam to strike at the instance of Paresh Baruah. Hazarika ‘second lieutenant’ in the ULFA’s 27 battalion, was arrest was a day after the Union Home Ministry’s advisory to Assam to step up security in view of the ULFA’s martyrs’ day on July 27.

The seven-member ULFA team met Home Minister P Chidambaram in the presence of Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi, Home Secretary R K Singh and other senior officials and the as reported in media quoting a source, “The meetings will give fresh impetus to the peace process in Assam as the charter of demands will be the basis of dialogue with the ULFA.”.

Although the contents of the charter have not been disclosed, as earlier reported, the SJA charter demands Constitutional amendments to give Assam, and thereby its people greater control over their own future by strengthening the State`s power to control the revenues generated, the natural resources, and the planning process and ensure a secure demographic situation as well as accelerated and balanced development. Gohain had earlier said, “If the government of India and the ULFA honour the Charter in letter and spirit and do not undersell it, we may look forward to untroubled peace, true development, and vigorous growth of democracy in the region.” SJA noted that the present calm does not at all mean the return of peace.

One aspect of the charter about ensuring a secure demographic situation, ironically stands greatly compromised, thanks to the ULFA, who during the stay of its top honchos in Bangladesh for almost two decades had actually aided and speeded up the illegal migration from Bangladesh, contradicting the very basis of its rise following the bloody Assam agitation of 1983.

This writer’s book Assam Terrorism and the Demographic Challenge (Knowledge World and Centre for Land Warfare Studies) elaborates on how ULFA became an effective tool of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence organisation’s set-up (based in Bangladesh during Kheleda Zia’s tenure), pursuing its aim of inducting and settling illegal Bangladeshi migrants in various parts of Assam; of raising new madrassas and controlling old ones; trying to convert ethnic Assamese Muslims to fundamentalism; creating communal tension; circulating fake Indian currency; trafficking arms and narcotics; sabotaging installations and generally spreading terror.

Talks with terrorists are fine but must meaningfully lead to permanent eradication of violence by the group and must be undertaken after securing all its weapons and ammunition.  In both the cases of NSCN-IM and ULFA that has not been done. Besides, both these groups have factions / leaders / members already guilty of anti-Indian activities and more expected, that too now with China’s support in addition to Pakistan military’s. Both these groups are also involved in supplying arms to Naxal-Maoists. In the case of talks with ULFA, if Anup Chetia is going to be handed over by Bangladesh as part of Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government’s goodwill, then the Centre may consider waiting till Paresh Baruah is caught-he must be caught, interrogated and disarmed- and then hold talks purposefully.

Last but certainly not least, what about ULFA leaders/cadres guilty of heinous crimes against innocent people? If merely their ‘apologies’ are to be accepted and they overnight turn in good ‘mainstream’ citizens, then we might as well free all murderers in death-rows.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/what-do-talks-with-terrorists-mean-with-violence-on-and-arms-still-held/

By Anil Bhat
Shortly after media reports about China trying to unite North East terrorist groups and the entry of one in Assam to launch attacks around Independence Day, terrorists struck in Imphal.

On August 01, 2011, five persons including two girl students were killed and many were injured as a powerful bomb exploded at about 1.40 pm in front of a grocery shop and a barber`s shop, opposite Sangakpham Keithel (bazaar).

The two girls studying in Class III together at Chingmeirong Primary School  were returning home when the bomb exploded, flinging their  bodies, one of which was found inside the grocery store and the other’s in the barber shop, where the barber and his son were also killed. Another man’s body was found in front of the shop. The impact of the blast was so powerful that it ripped and charred human flesh, pulverised some vehicles and reduced the place to scattered debris.

While there are reports of this being a failed attempt by National Socialist Council of Nagaland/Nagalim-Issac – Muivah group (NSCN-IM) at targeting members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC) who are housed in a nearby guest house complex, Chief Minister Okram  Ibobi Singh and Union Home Minister P Chidambaram are reported to have endorsed the same.

A press note from the state Home Department said, “Government of Manipur has received concrete and convincing evidence which establishes the direct involvement of NSCN-IM in the series of recent violent incidents which left several innocent civilians dead and many seriously injured in various parts.” According to the Home Department one Anthony, son of Bonkulung of Sadu Koireng killed in this blast was an active NSCN-IM cadre.

Apparently, the explosion occurred moments after some vehicles of ADC members went past the blast site. The government stated that these acts of terror are quite clearly designed to thwart the democratic process taken up be the government of Manipur to introduce democratic decentralization by successfully conducting elections to the six district councils which had remained dormant for over two decades.

It may be recalled that last year the, it was on the this issue that All Manipur Naga Students Union had caused a blockade of National Highway 39, Manipur’s main artery, which had extended to three months by Thuingaleng Muivah timing his visit his home town in Manipur after almost forty years.

Almost all the schools located in the valley districts of Manipur staged protest demonstrations and rallies decrying the Sangakpham bomb attack. On Tidim Road, thousands of school students took out a joint protest rally.

One group which has been most vocal is the All Manipur United Clubs’ Organisation (AMUCO), which, while listing a number of violent incidents allegedly involving the NSCN -IM, including the recent bomb blast, accused both the Central and State Governments of being soft towards this rebel group. Contending that inaction against the NSCN (IM), inspite of its involvement in various incidents of violence clearly suggests indirect support of both the Governments to the NSCN-IM, AMUCO president KT Rahman demanded that effective measures be initiated to curb activities of the outfit in Manipur. Speaking to media he is reported to have stated that as the ongoing ceasefire between the Government of India and the NSCN-IM does not cover Manipur, not only should the illegal activities of the NSCN (IM) need to be dealt with according to law but also all that its camps in the State should be shut-down.

He further  stated that the ongoing peace parleys between the NSCN (IM) and Govt of India have been reduced to a mockery as the NSCN-IM is still involved in acts of terrorism, highway extortion, destruction of public properties and intimidation. Mentioning the Sangakpham blast, killing of a couple in Lungphu village of Phungyar sub-division (Ukhrul) and slaying of security personnel of Phungyar AC MLA’s escort party as recent cases involving the terrorist group, he blamed the Govt of Manipur by recounting a particular incident when weapons seized by State security forces near Pallel were returned to the outfit along with its apprehended cadres.

Rahman, while asserting that terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Manipur should be measured by the same yardstick and  grimly noting failure of the Home Minister to visit Manipur and assess the overall situation following the Sangakpham blast, commented  that that such an attitude demonstrated the Govt of India’s step-motherly treatment to the people of Manipur.

Chronicling a number of attacks by NSCN-IM since at least April this year, the Home Department said that the state government is seriously considering taking up the matter with the Central government to revoke the ceasefire with NSCN-IM due to these continuous and open acts of terrorism being committed by it.

While violence by the number of Meitei terrorist groups in Manipur has been reported much since the arrest of United National Liberation Front’s boss-man, RK Meghen, many of its cadres earlier in Bangladesh and now in Burma/Myanmar are being rallied together by Chinese intelligence, there is no saying how and when they will strike again.

In Assam, as the pro talk faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)’s seven-member team of seasoned hit-men led by its ‘chairman’ Arabinda Rajkhowa submitted the charter of demands prepared by the Sanmilito Jatiya Abhivartan (SJA) under the leadership of noted intellectual Dr Hiren Gohain, to Ministry of Home Affairs, their anti-talks colleague Paresh Baruah is all set to keep Assam on the boil yet again.

ULFA’s bid to strike came to light when the Assam Rifles apprehended hardcore ULFA leader Rwittick Hazarika in Sonitpur district bordering Arunachal Pradesh recently. He confessed before police that a group of harcore ULFA cadres have come down to Assam to strike at the instance of Paresh Baruah. Hazarika ‘second lieutenant’ in the ULFA’s 27 battalion, was arrest was a day after the Union Home Ministry’s advisory to Assam to step up security in view of the ULFA’s martyrs’ day on July 27.

The seven-member ULFA team met Home Minister P Chidambaram in the presence of Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi, Home Secretary R K Singh and other senior officials and the as reported in media quoting a source, “The meetings will give fresh impetus to the peace process in Assam as the charter of demands will be the basis of dialogue with the ULFA.”.

Although the contents of the charter have not been disclosed, as earlier reported, the SJA charter demands Constitutional amendments to give Assam, and thereby its people greater control over their own future by strengthening the State`s power to control the revenues generated, the natural resources, and the planning process and ensure a secure demographic situation as well as accelerated and balanced development. Gohain had earlier said, “If the government of India and the ULFA honour the Charter in letter and spirit and do not undersell it, we may look forward to untroubled peace, true development, and vigorous growth of democracy in the region.” SJA noted that the present calm does not at all mean the return of peace.

One aspect of the charter about ensuring a secure demographic situation, ironically stands greatly compromised, thanks to the ULFA, who during the stay of its top honchos in Bangladesh for almost two decades had actually aided and speeded up the illegal migration from Bangladesh, contradicting the very basis of its rise following the bloody Assam agitation of 1983.

This writer’s book Assam Terrorism and the Demographic Challenge (Knowledge World and Centre for Land Warfare Studies) elaborates on how ULFA became an effective tool of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence organisation’s set-up (based in Bangladesh during Kheleda Zia’s tenure), pursuing its aim of inducting and settling illegal Bangladeshi migrants in various parts of Assam; of raising new madrassas and controlling old ones; trying to convert ethnic Assamese Muslims to fundamentalism; creating communal tension; circulating fake Indian currency; trafficking arms and narcotics; sabotaging installations and generally spreading terror.

Talks with terrorists are fine but must meaningfully lead to permanent eradication of violence by the group and must be undertaken after securing all its weapons and ammunition.  In both the cases of NSCN-IM and ULFA that has not been done. Besides, both these groups have factions / leaders / members already guilty of anti-Indian activities and more expected, that too now with China’s support in addition to Pakistan military’s. Both these groups are also involved in supplying arms to Naxal-Maoists. In the case of talks with ULFA, if Anup Chetia is going to be handed over by Bangladesh as part of Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government’s goodwill, then the Centre may consider waiting till Paresh Baruah is caught-he must be caught, interrogated and disarmed- and then hold talks purposefully.

Last but certainly not least, what about ULFA leaders/cadres guilty of heinous crimes against innocent people? If merely their ‘apologies’ are to be accepted and they overnight turn in good ‘mainstream’ citizens, then we might as well free all murderers in death-rows.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/what-do-talks-with-terrorists-mean-with-violence-on-and-arms-still-held/

The urination video does not shock me so much as the public’s tolerance of these immoral wars that make criminals of marines
By Ross Caputi (guardian.co.uk)
The video of US marines urinating on Afghan corpses does not shock me. Though their behavior is disgusting and unacceptable, I find the public’s reaction to this video far more troubling. People are not outraged that there are dead Afghans; they are outraged at the manner in which the dead are treated. This is indicative of our culture’s tolerance for war and war crimes – as long as they are done in a gentlemanly fashion.

During the second siege of Fallujah, blatant war crimes were committed, yet the corporate media reported them with indifference. The siege itself was a war crime, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross Summary of International Law, because indiscriminate tactics were used, constant care was not taken to protect the civilian population, proper distinction between civilians and combatants was not made, medical personnel and medical units were not protected, indiscriminate weapons were used, and recent research about the current health crisis in Fallujah suggests that poisonous weapons may have been used as well.

Many of these war crimes were reported by the corporate media, though they were not described as such. For example, the New York Times reported on 8 November 2004 that American forces “seized” the Fallujah general hospital. An incident that I witnessed, as did Paul Wood and Robbie Wright from the BBC, was when my unit fired grenades into a house until it collapsed – with full knowledge that there were two resistance fighters and a young boy (roughly 10 years old) inside. Paul Wood interviewed the lieutenant at the scene, and he acknowledged that they had killed the young boy. In both of these reports, war crimes and Geneva Conventions were never mentioned, and the façade of honorable conduct was preserved.

What did not make it into the news was my behavior in Fallujah and the behavior of others in my unit, which I am certain would have elicited outrage equal to that elicited by this video of the urinating marines. I believe that the second siege of Fallujah can correctly be characterised as an “atrocity-producing situation”. Our false beliefs about who we were fighting, our dehumanisation of Fallujans, our desire to “see combat” (a cute euphemism) and to get a confirmed kill, and our longing for revenge for lost comrades against a faceless enemy all conspired to create a bloodthirsty and lawless atmosphere.

I witnessed marines stealing from the pockets of dead resistance fighters and looting houses. I’ve heard firsthand accounts of marines mutilating dead bodies, of a marine who murdered a civilian, and of a marine who slit a puppy’s throat. As the days of the siege passed, we used increasingly indiscriminate and illegal tactics – like “reconnaissance by fire”, which is when you fire into a house to see if anyone is inside. The violence, the hate and our distorted sense of morality made many of us sick, including myself. I stole a black ski mask out of someone’s home, because I wanted to take it home as a trophy, as evidence that I had fought against the “terrorists”.

My behavior and the behavior of others in my unit was despicable, as was the behavior of these marines urinating on corpses. But we shouldn’t let ourselves be fooled that an immoral mission and immoral war could ever be conducted in an honorable manner. War crimes were implicit in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and they are abundant in the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

Yet, many of us choose not to see these war crimes, even though they are right in front of our faces. Only when a shocking YouTube video comes along, do we choose to look. And even then, what we see is the urinating, not the dead bodies.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/the-marines-urination-video-doesnt-show-the-real-war-crime/

The urination video does not shock me so much as the public’s tolerance of these immoral wars that make criminals of marines
By Ross Caputi (guardian.co.uk)
The video of US marines urinating on Afghan corpses does not shock me. Though their behavior is disgusting and unacceptable, I find the public’s reaction to this video far more troubling. People are not outraged that there are dead Afghans; they are outraged at the manner in which the dead are treated. This is indicative of our culture’s tolerance for war and war crimes – as long as they are done in a gentlemanly fashion.

During the second siege of Fallujah, blatant war crimes were committed, yet the corporate media reported them with indifference. The siege itself was a war crime, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross Summary of International Law, because indiscriminate tactics were used, constant care was not taken to protect the civilian population, proper distinction between civilians and combatants was not made, medical personnel and medical units were not protected, indiscriminate weapons were used, and recent research about the current health crisis in Fallujah suggests that poisonous weapons may have been used as well.

Many of these war crimes were reported by the corporate media, though they were not described as such. For example, the New York Times reported on 8 November 2004 that American forces “seized” the Fallujah general hospital. An incident that I witnessed, as did Paul Wood and Robbie Wright from the BBC, was when my unit fired grenades into a house until it collapsed – with full knowledge that there were two resistance fighters and a young boy (roughly 10 years old) inside. Paul Wood interviewed the lieutenant at the scene, and he acknowledged that they had killed the young boy. In both of these reports, war crimes and Geneva Conventions were never mentioned, and the façade of honorable conduct was preserved.

What did not make it into the news was my behavior in Fallujah and the behavior of others in my unit, which I am certain would have elicited outrage equal to that elicited by this video of the urinating marines. I believe that the second siege of Fallujah can correctly be characterised as an “atrocity-producing situation”. Our false beliefs about who we were fighting, our dehumanisation of Fallujans, our desire to “see combat” (a cute euphemism) and to get a confirmed kill, and our longing for revenge for lost comrades against a faceless enemy all conspired to create a bloodthirsty and lawless atmosphere.

I witnessed marines stealing from the pockets of dead resistance fighters and looting houses. I’ve heard firsthand accounts of marines mutilating dead bodies, of a marine who murdered a civilian, and of a marine who slit a puppy’s throat. As the days of the siege passed, we used increasingly indiscriminate and illegal tactics – like “reconnaissance by fire”, which is when you fire into a house to see if anyone is inside. The violence, the hate and our distorted sense of morality made many of us sick, including myself. I stole a black ski mask out of someone’s home, because I wanted to take it home as a trophy, as evidence that I had fought against the “terrorists”.

My behavior and the behavior of others in my unit was despicable, as was the behavior of these marines urinating on corpses. But we shouldn’t let ourselves be fooled that an immoral mission and immoral war could ever be conducted in an honorable manner. War crimes were implicit in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and they are abundant in the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

Yet, many of us choose not to see these war crimes, even though they are right in front of our faces. Only when a shocking YouTube video comes along, do we choose to look. And even then, what we see is the urinating, not the dead bodies.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/01/the-marines-urination-video-doesnt-show-the-real-war-crime/