Snowden & Spying : What Kautilya says ?

To a question whether Spying is wrong ? May be right, may be wrong ? It was always there though the latest sophisticated technologies have changed the way it is done. After Edward Snowden's episode we have a flurry of questions raised and circulated by the Leftists in the form of propaganda against their imaginary enemy Imperialist America. If all the countries have to remain like isolated islands with out any connection to the other geographies or the peoples of other nationality then reliance on this medium to ensure political stability at home is minimum because, in that case we may have to deal with only internal trouble makers for which spying is still indispensable.

Snowden is China's stooge ?

I thought America just resolved Anna Chapman episode and we had this Wikileaks now the Avalanche impact of Snowden's revelations. Just before Snowden's revelations US has been making a lot of noise about Chinese cyber attacks on its corporations and accused it of stealing trade secrets and intellectual property. It was never specific, no body was sure whether it was about to release more details. China may have many Snowdens deep inside the American Enterprise holding key positions in government and private enterprises they must be identified and eliminated, for they are rear annoyance as per Kautilya's Arthashastra. China used just one Snowden to shake the applecart slightly, there are many more to come ? If China is spying to steal trade secrets and intellectual property, US does it to secure democracy and peace for its citizens, the notoriety is there to judge for all of us. There are already reports surfacing about another US citizen a retired general leaking the details on Stuxnet Virus, so there is a lot of crisis ahead for US.

Kautilya's's take on Spies in his Arthashastra :

The legendary Kautilya - senior advisor in Mauryan administration who toppled the powerful Nandas from throne in his Arthashastra talks in detail about Spies.

In chapter III of Book IX - The work of an Invader he talks about the internal and external troubles a state could face and which should be dealt with on a priority basis.

OF the two things, slight annoyance in the rear, and considerable profit in the front, slight annoyance in the rear is more serious; for traitors, enemies, and wild tribes augment on all sides the slight annoyance which one may have in the rear. The members of one's own state may be provoked about the acquisition of considerable profit in the front.

Slight annoyance in the rear he refers to the internal troubles or unknown/known enemies internally, is more serious than known external enemies. So that must be looked up in to first before. And further he defines what is an internal enemy or a rear annoyance.

The provocation of any one of the minister, the priest, the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent is what is termed internal trouble.

And explains what to do about it - the phenomena of Internal enemy

The king should get rid of such an internal enemy either by giving up his own fault or by pointing out the danger arising from an external enemy

The above statement has two aspects getting rid of such an internal enemy and convincing him by telling him the danger of an external enemy or giving himself up, though we may not have consensus on using these two solutions but we might agree on one thing ie., to get rid of him. Making sure that he is ridden with out flouting the principles of modern day justice is indeed a challenging task. I am sure Americans can innovate.

The focus should be to expose China's theft, one at a time, I think it is already started. China stealing an American company's Turbine Software ?

Politics make strange bed fellows?

The most talked about incident in the recent days is JD (U) unilaterally deciding to get itself out of BJP led NDA on a very flimsy pretence that Mr. Narendra Modi has been elevated as a poll committee chief of BJP.  Though Nitish’s personal ego never allowed him to share any platform with Mr. Modi especially in the run up to last Bihar Assembly Elections and his ego has never waded from then on. Though many contradicted Mr. Kumar that why he suddenly woke up to a term coined and tailor made by congress i.e., Secularism? Most of the media and including BJP reminded him how he showered praise on Modi in the immediate after math of Gujarat riots, but I do not want to go to that far. But very recently JDU said that Modi is campaign committee chief for BJP not NDA. Then what happened in a matter of few days?

Nitish who made his political fortune by opposing congress until recently, began to warm up to the very congress he has been fighting against all his life. Yes. We knew that there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies in politics, only permanent interests but this unexpected flip flop from him shows that he simply over estimated his popularity, and is desperately trying to cash in on Modiphobia which is a media created smoke.

Is this all about Muslim Votes or does he himself aspires to become a prime minister or is it true that he cannot stomach the fact that Modi is increasingly becoming popular? It was often told by neutralists that for BJP and JDU each other’s support is inevitable for each other. Now that one has gone rougue on new found secularism and is ready to enter in to an intercourse with his onetime enemy – Congress, but not anymore. If he thinks that by breaking friendship with BJP he can gain few Muslim votes then it must be realized that gullibility of Muslim voters is fast eroding. In the post poll scenario I will not be surprised to see Nitish extending his friendship to Modi. For now two former enemies are friends, congress and JDU, for JDU doom is not too far as it betrayed not BJP but people of Bihar.

Why Muslims of India should stop behaving like a herded lot?

In the current scenario whoever is talking (Just talking not doing) about interests of Muslims will be declared instantly as a secular mascot. Once such soft words are uttered, political parties expect Muslims to vote en masse to that specific political entity. The Brits have played this type of divisive politics through communal representation, ie., where Muslims will vote for Muslim candidates and Hindus will vote for Hindu candidates though this was never a demand of any major section of Hindus, this was understandably done to please Muslims and pit them against Hindus which actually worked out to the benefit of British.

For nearly eight centuries Muslim Invaders/rulers ruled this massive continent through force, threat and coercion, not to mention the atrocities endured by Hindus. Can you imagine this happening in a Muslim majority country? I bet you cannot.

It is true that the arrogant and egomaniac Jinnah wanted a separate land to be carved out for Muslims but significant section chose to remain in India, and they must be feeling lucky for that right now. In a country where individual dignity is constitutionally guaranteed there is going to be no benefit if they fall prey to verbal niceties of so the called secular parties which treat them as votes not humans.

For once they have realized that organizations like RSS and BJP trying to represent the unheard voices of Hindus in an organized manner, the short sighted political parties mainly the likes of congress have chosen to play the role of messiah for Muslims and started demonizing Hindus as villains, so they should vote en masse to them instead of BJP.

For a very long time Muslims have behaved like a herd which was fooled by false leaders, Jinnah is a relevant example. In late 1920's and/or in early 1930 when it fought elections it lost squarely to Congress even in Muslim majority areas. Then in the next elections Immoral Jinnah sought to use name of Allah and asked all Muslims to vote his league in the name of Allah, then everyone did. This is one distinct feature of Muslims within the context of South Asia where they can be politically mobilized without much of a trouble in the name of religion.

Muslims being the next major religious group after Hindus, it is natural for the short sighted political parties to play the secular card for their own benefits. There are encouraging signs that Muslims becoming more of a heterogeneous society now, where no one can fool them in the name of god, if that becomes more apparent than it is good for country in general and Muslims in particular. It is fore most for all the Muslims to realize that their ancestors once in the past were Hindus and their Hindu ancestry is undisputed. What is in Islam that you cannot live peacefully with people of other religions? Many say it was not the original intent of Islam but it was distorted by wahabis.

And the perpetual discussion of 2002 riots has not helped any one. The zealot leftist forces in India are doing their best to keep this alive and Muslims are just the victims of anxiety. For once we should realize that 2002 riots are repercussion of burning a train and the killing of around 60 people. The judgment of media trail is already out and they have convicted the state administration and Modi, how foolish it is? then why do we have courts? If Hindus were ever have to enumerate and perpetuate the genocides committed by Muslim league it would become an endless affair, let’s take the example of mother of all genocides, it was the violence unleashed after the call of day of direct action by Jinnah in 1946 where thousands of Hindus were killed, women were raped, men forcibly converted and women forced to marry Muslim men. After such atrocities committed mainly through instigation of Muslim league in Noakhali (famously called as Noakhali Genocide), Gandhi said:

"I would far rather see India’s women trained to wield arms than that they should feel helpless"

So therefore I would choose to blame the leadership of Muslim league, for Muslims they never had a moral leadership to guide them in a saner path.

One thing is very clear for all that Pakistan tried to achieve or is trying to achieve through religion, it has nothing to offer on the socio-economic platform and in terms of better standards of living for its citizens. And I can only hope Indian Muslims will cleverly identify who is corrupt and who is not when it comes to voting in the upcoming elections and punish the parties which treated them like a bunch of votes, and demand rights from the state as a citizen of India instead of doing it as a Muslim, thereby keeping their religious affiliation as their private affair and not allowing politics to mix with it.

BJP & Inner Party Democracy

The recent debacle of Shri Advani‘s resignation and then reverting his decision after consultations proves once again that it is only in BJP people can agree to disagree and an individual’s will not to be imposed on others unlike Congress. In an era where political parties are run like family businesses, BJP is the only party to reckon with when it comes to putting basic tenets of democracy in to practice. Though I would not be able to comment on what made Advani to take his resignation back, but the very resignation in firstly place is ill timed and did not go well with current situation. There is no one man decision, it is all decided by a group of members – Parliamentary Board whose collective majority decision stands, at least that is how it appears. Elders always want the younger to take cue from their gestures and they do not prefer to say it explicitly and the younger want to pretend as if they have not understood these gestures though they do. It is hard to believe that because of one specific incident he took that extreme action but it is a compounded reaction of acts over a period time which he did not like.

All the while BJP has been talking about Inner party democracy, meaning which if parliamentary board consists of 9 members for example and 8 members agree with a decision then it simply becomes a collective decision it should not matter if one (Advani ?) disagrees. By putting his papers Advani has sent out a wrong message that all these days that it was only he who took the decision unilaterally and other had to just agree on it. So this time nobody agreed and he resigned? One of my friends recently told me that if a politician writes a memoir he must not continue in active politics, I am not sure how relevant it is but that seems to be the practice. So I think he must have gracefully stepped down after publishing “My Life My country” but he remained. I can understand why Swapan Das Gupta burst out after Advani’s resignation. I am too deeply anguished by this.

Even after I have grown up and I am on my own but if I do not listen to an advice of my parent’s and act on my own volition, elders do not like it. They complain to neighbors that their son is not heeding to their advice, without realizing the fact that they are weakening their own and family’s prestige in society. Advani did exactly the same, he has been saying few things to the younger ones with in the four walls, and then he started to complain to neighbors ie., attacking his own party in blogs for quite some time and once he realized that it did not work out, at the right moment he pulled the rug. All the while younger ones pretended that the father is happy because he did not say it explicitly what his problems are.

At times elders too misjudge, opposing Modi’s elevation is one such example. There is no question of whether he is a popular leader and there is no interest to debate on how he has become so popular, it is enough that people started to picture him as one solution for all their woes. When a foreigner/s is looting the country with the help of locals we needed a full strength to counter them and his act was a shocker to all.

Nobody denies you are a father of your daughter or son but expecting them to behave the way you like or do what you want even after they have attained the capability to take independent decisions for the benefit of whole family is uncalled for.

Reflections on a paper authored by Terrorism Scholars Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula : Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory

Reflections on a paper authored by Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory 

Terrorism as a Puzzle:

What an apt addition of the adjective "Puzzle" with terrorism. It is certainly puzzling to see why terrorists kill civilians as if someone kills an enemy in video game for pleasure. If we do a fish bone analysis and see what was the cause, all roads will probably lead to non-adherence of real democratic ideals, where a citizen's free will is encouraged and also to ensure some one's free will does not affect others, and equal availability of opportunities to pursue one's dream. Even in the so called England, the country which is touted as the inventor of democracy, the claim which can be disputed and will not stand for an intense scrutiny, we have had Guy Falkes a terrorist, should we assume that England was despotic? Yes. Why not? Those who create colonies out of hapless communities and exploit for the benefit of small group of people they must be called despotic. we can say that it wasn't a puzzle because people's displeasure towards government was evident and they targeted government and rulers to avenge themselves of the horrible acts of governments of those days.

Yes. Organized Terrorism (freedom fight) diverted on colonial masters to an extent made them (colonizers) shudder though they never agreed it publicly. Once the goal (ie., attaining political independence) was achieved they never had to resort to such violence for their legitimate political demands, there were or are other means. Hagganah, Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose could be few examples who were labelled as terrorists by the occupiers. In this context we can say that those who are with Palestinian resistance are terrorists? With one exception that they have directed or directing their violence towards civilians too, which is definitely becoming counterproductive according to Max's research.

The new age Islamic Terrorism:

Thought Leftists and other pseudos would not want to precede the word "Islamic" with terrorism, but truth is indisputable, most of the countries are victims of Islamic Terrorism. To a question whether terrorists are irrational in their behavior because there is hardly any political yield out of their actions? In this light Binladen's statement comes in handy,

"We do not distinguish between those dressed in
military uniform and civilians because Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes"

This One statement is enough to weigh in the mental out look of Jihadi leadership, though Max argues that there was a change in his approach towards his last days. When man reaches towards his last days, he attains wisdom. But for a hardcore Islamic mind if it is not to create Dar al-Islam it is to eliminate Dar-ul-Harb, he shall employ any means he thinks appropriate and it is his pious duty. So killing innocent civilians is allowed?

Terrorists taking cues from History:

In this aspect the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan certainly bolstered Jihadis and they have chosen American Heartland as their new battle ground and Americans their enemy. This thinking pattern is certainly oblivion of the fact that it was America's fight against USSR's hegemonic ambitions and was not a fight to save Islam for which Jihadi's were used merely as instruments or means because US is aware of de-merits of a conventional war. But since then Frankenstein monster has turned against its master who had no interest to control or subdue it and suddenly he woke up to 9/11 and the rest is history. Without an organized human effort supported by military and technological supremacy heading for a showdown with a pre-eminent military power is impossible. So instead of running indefinite campaigns they (Jihadis) must organize and develop their followers for a bigger fight in future ? Not sure.Or the only intention could be to constantly irritate the super power thereby blocking it to gain further eminence?

Who won the "War on Terror”?

In this context few would argue that in the so called war on terror it was not America which won but Al-Qaida. With its domestic compulsions on economic growth and sustainability is it not becoming tough for America to manage the war on terror? It will be obviously foolish to claim that US is the victor because it could eliminate Bin laden physically, the only utility US has derived may  be "vengeance is served" and nothing more than that.
When terrorists know that governments do not concede for violence against civilians, why then they engage in terrorism?

In this context Che's advice to his foot soldier is relevant

“Avoid useless acts of terrorism. He stressed that the tactic is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution"

This is one remarkable difference between Islamic Terrorism and Non-Islamic Terrorism. So Jihadi Terrorists know that while they cannot convert the whole world in to a Dar al-Islam in any time soon but they do not want anyone to have the power that could threaten their superiority, if at all they are going to achieve that status. So all infidels are enemies of Islam?

Terrorists drawing incorrect lessons from Guerilla campaigns?

If they plan their strategy on the premise of successful guerilla campaigns then they are certainly irrational if it is not a bounded rationality, Herbert Simon taught us there is nothing called as Rationality but bounded rationality. In that sense yes, I agree that there must be further research conducted to find out on what basis terrorists take cues from guerilla campaigns.

Poverty or Ideology which drives terrorism?

Of course I agree with Max's finding that it is not always poverty that drives terrorists. There must be something else? Indoctrination? The successful Indoctrination campaigns are run by LeT of Pakistan. The main challenge for democracies is to educate and prove their populace that terrorism is not the way to achieve their political demands and not to fall prey to terrorist's propaganda, which often exalts Jihad, is a duty towards god. So affluent, educated, rational and psychologically balanced fall in to the same pit. Apparently elected governments fail in their part making it much worse when they play with divisions. India's vote bank politics based on Muslim vote bank is a case in point.

Competitive quantifying and forecasting in political science ?

At least in US that is how it is. Going by the little knowledge I have, in US decisions and projections based out of gut feelings are considered as rubbish. But at the same time best way to part from this statistical jugglery is to go for Psychological explanations. Am I saying this because I am poor at statistics ? I could not judge right now.

"Over fifty years ago, Sidney Verba instructed social scientists to embrace psychological explanations when they outperform assumptions of perfect rationality. Contrary to the view of many political scientists, terrorists are not masterminds. Even their leaders make the same cognitive mistake as do other mortals—overestimating the political effectiveness of terrorist
campaigns by drawing false analogies from recently successful guerrilla campaigns. To a surprising degree, this simple theory can account for the global diffusion of terrorism despite its political futility"

The verbatim from Max's paper which I have reproduced above is convincing. That is Social Scientists must take Sidney Verba's instructions seriously and must not be only data guys.

 

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper : The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics (International Studies Quarterly, December 2013)

The underlying theme appears to be that indulgence of violence will be a double edged sword and would be detrimental to the objectives of perpetrators (Terrorists) and challengers (States). I generalized under the following heads.

Terrorism as a double edged sword:

Yes. It is. Countries which are democratic or otherwise maintain certain degree of flexibility and attempt to accommodate perpetrator's concerns to an extent. But there is always a threshold once breached by terrorists it is common to expect that they might face stern reaction from affected states. Especially when terrorists are waging a war against a pre-eminent military power like America. The response from countries such as these could be overwhelming that the very survival of terrorist organizations could be at stake. In that context the warning given to Osama against a massive attack on America (9/11) is indeed telling, I know his rage could not take it. At least theoretically Al-Qaeda cannot boast the same capabilities which it did more than a decade ago, i.e., before 9/11 attack.

It is not only because of high intensity of crimes committed by terrorists the states react, but also to low intensity crimes given that it has been committed on a continuous basis over a period of time irrespective of whether it is after significant concessions or they are no concessions at all. To a question whether how a state would react to two terrorist attacks first one which kills 5000 civilians and another attack kills 50 civilians at a given point of time? The obvious assumption appears to be that in the former case response from challenger states could be so overwhelming that either terrorist organization will be wiped out completely or their attack capabilities will be reduced significantly apparently through the counter actions of affected state in question. And in the later case, we may think that state would be ready to talk, this will be considered as an option only if it is for the first time or few more times until the state feels that perpetrator is so adamant and will not change his stand. So time dimension must be taken in to account. If there are 100 such attacks in a span of decade or more which actually claims 5000 civilians? Then too we can expect a stern response from the state, as if it was a single massive attack. States would not react decisively until a specific threshold is breached.

A case in point could be the terrorist organization LTTE which maimed and killed thousands of the very Tamils it claimed for whom it is fighting. For more than a decade or nearly two decades SriLankan citizens endured the onslaught of LTTE violence, this in no way to discount the atrocities committed by state on minority Tamils. For all such low intensity terrorist attacks for a longer period of time, the Sri Lankan populace completely fed up and wanted to wipe them (LTTE) out completely, atleast that was the popular opinion and on that popular theme the current president acquired absolute majority in presidential elections. The arrogance of LTTE leadership was so enormous that it accepted nothing short of a separate country and denounced a viable option of devolution of powers which was acceptable to Tamils but not acceptable for the LTTE terrorists.

Maoism & Terrorism:

Like their LTTE counterparts Maoists are engaged in low intensity attacks for quite some time. And response of the state to their violence is at best none. But if Maoists kill 2000 civilians in one terrorist attack, that may be considered as threshold breached. If sanity prevails no leadership of a terror group would chose to do that, unlike Osama’s decision to target huge number of civilians in the case of 9/11 attack. It is completely based on availability of resources at some one's disposal, a bustling number of death squad in his control. I consider Maoists are most notorious when compared to hard-line Jihadis, for the simple reason being Jihadis thrive in no man's land but Maoists are confined to specific geography that too in a state which is touted as a largest functioning democracy. And they continue to operate on their to be achieved goal ie., to throw the elected democracy by 2050 and make this country a Maoist state. In this front there is a great competition between Islamist Terrorists and Maoists, where the former wants to turn this land in to Islamic State and the later wants to turn it in to a Maoist state with democratically elected government acting as a fence sitter.

Demands such as prisoner release, is it moderate compared to indiscriminate killing?

Yes. States especially large democracies easily concede for such demands because they think that they can save a lot of lives for the moment, though it will be foolish on terrorist’s part to kill all the civilians even if demands are not met, I agree with Max on this. Consider the hijack of IC 814 to Afghanistan when BJP was in power in India. Maulana Massod Azhar was released, who after his release went on to kill scores in organized attacks and not to mention the parliament attack. So I think on a broader view there is nothing moderate about terrorists or their demands, if they are they would never have resorted to terrorism?

Target population's reaction & Electorate moving to Political Right:

Pakistan is such a deviation where terrorists get absolute moral support from majority of the population, at best the target population such as Hazara shias, Baloch activists, ahmedias and Hindus have no avenues to react or make an impact. In complex societies like India unless it is a conventional war with other state (kargil war) people are insensitive towards such acts. Ie., a 2008 type terrorist attack in Mumbai may not evoke much of a response in extreme south or in North east or J&K for that matter. At worse security of state or terrorism is not even considered as an electoral issue. And there is this large scale sympathy towards Islamist Terrorism from Muslim populace and the leftists. Consolidation of votes does not happen on this issue. So we have a Muslim Vote bank, presumably a vote bank for Christians, but there is no Hindu Vote Bank if there is one BJP would be ruling India for ever. Also is it not a wonder that Americans chose to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans who are considered as far Right who acted sternly by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11? Israel is an exception I suppose, but there too its (Political Right) base is dwindling as per recent election results.

State’s violence against its citizens:

This is a most important component within the realm of political violence. When state which is a democratic, aristocratic or in any other form roughs up its deserters (as in deserters of the ruling party or clique) the fall of ruling dispensation is almost sealed, either they themselves try to strike the empire back or support an outsider. Iraq is a case in point for all the atrocities committed on Kurds by S.Hussien, they celebrated once he was condemned to death and also supported the outsider, NATO. Though democratic countries exercise restraint, there is a temptation to resort to such tactics even when they know how it ends. To quote legendary Gandhi, it is impossible to govern men without their consent.

Survey:

I hope such surveys should be conducted in India too. I am not sure if Max has such interests?

It is natural that responses for questions 3 & 4 are high on terrorism in Vignette 1.

Unofficial accounts confirm that even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan which has been a reason for terrorists to wage terrorist attacks on Democratic India, they will not halt attacks, because at the end they want to turn the whole Indian state in to sharia fold. Yes they would derive great satisfaction if Americans or Hindus harmed in an unrelated incident.

Looking forward to read more of Max's work.