Thanks to J.Atlas, Psychohistory, Newsletter, 13.12.2008:[Humor shows us who we hate and who is our target.
Here's a nasty piece against politicians. J ATLAS]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five surgeons are discussing who makes the Best patients to
operate on.
The first surgeon, says, 'I like to see accountants on my
operating table because when you open them up, everything
inside is numbered.'
The second, responds, 'Yeah, but you should try electricians!
Everything inside them is color coded.'
The third surgeon, says, 'No, I really think librarians are
the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order'
The fourth surgeon chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...Those guys always understand when you have a few
parts left over.'
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed:
"You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on".
There are no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine,
and the head and the ass are interchangeable.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit
Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit desk did not spare my letter. But, this time, the chopping went beyond fitting the body to the bed. It disfigured even the spirit.... So I sent the following letter:
Letter sent to The hindu on Dec 8 2008
Sir,
Please note that this is not for publishing. But I wish you will read it.
First of all, let me thank you for publishing my letter. But, this time, your editing has gone a bit awry. Broadly speaking, it has missed at least two points: 1. that I was referring not to the commission of the terror attack alone; and 2. that the ‘universal jurisprudence’ Burgess refers to is only an international ‘convention’ and not a covenant, and that it was invoked not in ancient times alone.
As to the details: my sentence, “Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’” was changed into “Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were ‘stateless actors’”. Zardari’s denial of ‘responsibility’ applied not only to the commission of the attack but, more importantly, also to the investigation and prevention. But, the substitution of the word “claim” for “denial” and the dropping of the word “responsibility” limited the meaning to commission alone. This is repeated further down in the sentence, “the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s”. That my letter was more about investigation and prevention than about commission was clear, as is proved by the sub-title, “Time to act”, under which it has come.
Changing of my sentence, “the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s”, into “Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s” has created two mistakes: 1. By dropping the word “convention”, you made “universal jurisprudence” appear to be an international law or covenant, which it is not yet, which made Burgess write the essay; and, 2. The “responsibility” as I used would have included ‘investigation’ and ‘prevention’, but the change would make it mean only ‘commission’.
Again, the change of “had been invoked time and again since ancient times” into “was invoked often in ancient times” makes the tool redundant. Please see the relevant part in Burgess’:
“The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as ‘hostis humani generis’ -- enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.
“From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates -- unlike any other criminals -- could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy's unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years”.
Lastly, by dropping the sentence, “Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy”, the letter in print missed the connection between piracy and terrorism. Burgess had dealt with only piracy. We have to extend the “convention” of "hostis humani generis" to terrorism also to apply it to the Mumbai attack.
I very well understand the constraints of the paper’s space and the pressures under which you and your colleagues work. This note I am sending is not to blame but to explain how the editing has changed the meaning of my letter. There should end my concern and responsibility.
With thanks,
P.P.Sudhakaran.
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
For your ready reference I am copying below the letter I sent and the letter that came in print.
My original letter:
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
The letter that came in print:
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were “stateless actors” is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is a stateless act. Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s. According to Douglas R. Burgess Jr. the doctrine of hostis humani generis (‘enemies of the human race’) was invoked often in ancient times by states to deal with piracy (New York Times, Dec. 5). Mr. Zardari should invoke this doctrine and join the investigations into the Mumbai terror attacks. It may actually help him in his tussle with the military establishment.
Letter sent to The hindu on Dec 8 2008
Sir,
Please note that this is not for publishing. But I wish you will read it.
First of all, let me thank you for publishing my letter. But, this time, your editing has gone a bit awry. Broadly speaking, it has missed at least two points: 1. that I was referring not to the commission of the terror attack alone; and 2. that the ‘universal jurisprudence’ Burgess refers to is only an international ‘convention’ and not a covenant, and that it was invoked not in ancient times alone.
As to the details: my sentence, “Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’” was changed into “Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were ‘stateless actors’”. Zardari’s denial of ‘responsibility’ applied not only to the commission of the attack but, more importantly, also to the investigation and prevention. But, the substitution of the word “claim” for “denial” and the dropping of the word “responsibility” limited the meaning to commission alone. This is repeated further down in the sentence, “the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s”. That my letter was more about investigation and prevention than about commission was clear, as is proved by the sub-title, “Time to act”, under which it has come.
Changing of my sentence, “the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s”, into “Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s” has created two mistakes: 1. By dropping the word “convention”, you made “universal jurisprudence” appear to be an international law or covenant, which it is not yet, which made Burgess write the essay; and, 2. The “responsibility” as I used would have included ‘investigation’ and ‘prevention’, but the change would make it mean only ‘commission’.
Again, the change of “had been invoked time and again since ancient times” into “was invoked often in ancient times” makes the tool redundant. Please see the relevant part in Burgess’:
“The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as ‘hostis humani generis’ -- enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.
“From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates -- unlike any other criminals -- could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy's unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years”.
Lastly, by dropping the sentence, “Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy”, the letter in print missed the connection between piracy and terrorism. Burgess had dealt with only piracy. We have to extend the “convention” of "hostis humani generis" to terrorism also to apply it to the Mumbai attack.
I very well understand the constraints of the paper’s space and the pressures under which you and your colleagues work. This note I am sending is not to blame but to explain how the editing has changed the meaning of my letter. There should end my concern and responsibility.
With thanks,
P.P.Sudhakaran.
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
For your ready reference I am copying below the letter I sent and the letter that came in print.
My original letter:
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
The letter that came in print:
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were “stateless actors” is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is a stateless act. Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s. According to Douglas R. Burgess Jr. the doctrine of hostis humani generis (‘enemies of the human race’) was invoked often in ancient times by states to deal with piracy (New York Times, Dec. 5). Mr. Zardari should invoke this doctrine and join the investigations into the Mumbai terror attacks. It may actually help him in his tussle with the military establishment.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Zardari's denial
Letter sent to The Hindu on Saturday, 6th Dec. 2008.
Sir,
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore.
Sir,
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
New Window of Opportunity for India and Pakistan
New Window of Opportunity for India and Pakistan
Zardari government is only one of the four main power centres in Pakistan, others being the army, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and the radical Islamist groups you aptly mentioned as terror industry. International engagements with Pakistan can and ought to be with only the government, which is but the weakest power centre of all. That was why the unambiguous commitment made before the world media by the highest functionaries of the Pakistani government to send the ISI Chief to India for a joint investigation into the Mumbai terror attack was later broken, most probably under pressure from other power centres.
In contrast, the power centres other than the government are unaccountable to the international comity as they are operating from behind the curtain. Each one of them has, however, its own vested interests and private agendas. The army owns and deals in real estate and other lucrative businesses on an unimaginably large scale. Though an organ of the army, the ISI functions very much as an independent entity and works in tandem with the terror industry.
Until 9/11, the differences among the power centres did not show as their interests could converge against their only acknowledged enemy – India.
But, after 9/11, Pakistan had to put up with two sets of terrorists on its soil, namely Al Qaeda and Taliban on its western border with Afghanistan and Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba on its eastern border with India. The then President of Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf, given only a Hobson’s choice, joined the global ‘fight against terror’, but tried to draw a distinction between the two, calling the western groups alone ‘terrorists’ and the eastern groups ‘Kashmiri freedom fighters’. The Mumbai attack, from all available accounts, was planned and executed with the eastern group’s involvement.
For a brief but reliable account of this involvement, and also for the profile of the real life terrorist caught while in action, which may be of interest to the List, please see:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259961000.htm
Even if Zardari’s government is willing, it cannot act against the interests of the other power centres. Indeed, the sheer audacity and havoc of the Mumbai attack has opened a new window of opportunity, and India should take the initiative to use it to stabilize its relationship with Pakistan. It should understand the peculiar power equations in Pakistan and refrain from targeting and cornering Zardari alone over his shifting positions and hollow excuses. Zardari needs to be carried along in an intense diplomatic engagement by India. He is any day a better bet than Musharraf. Let us hope the U.S. and other major world players will help them along.
Suzarin
Letter sent to Psychohistory on 4.12.08
Zardari government is only one of the four main power centres in Pakistan, others being the army, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and the radical Islamist groups you aptly mentioned as terror industry. International engagements with Pakistan can and ought to be with only the government, which is but the weakest power centre of all. That was why the unambiguous commitment made before the world media by the highest functionaries of the Pakistani government to send the ISI Chief to India for a joint investigation into the Mumbai terror attack was later broken, most probably under pressure from other power centres.
In contrast, the power centres other than the government are unaccountable to the international comity as they are operating from behind the curtain. Each one of them has, however, its own vested interests and private agendas. The army owns and deals in real estate and other lucrative businesses on an unimaginably large scale. Though an organ of the army, the ISI functions very much as an independent entity and works in tandem with the terror industry.
Until 9/11, the differences among the power centres did not show as their interests could converge against their only acknowledged enemy – India.
But, after 9/11, Pakistan had to put up with two sets of terrorists on its soil, namely Al Qaeda and Taliban on its western border with Afghanistan and Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba on its eastern border with India. The then President of Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf, given only a Hobson’s choice, joined the global ‘fight against terror’, but tried to draw a distinction between the two, calling the western groups alone ‘terrorists’ and the eastern groups ‘Kashmiri freedom fighters’. The Mumbai attack, from all available accounts, was planned and executed with the eastern group’s involvement.
For a brief but reliable account of this involvement, and also for the profile of the real life terrorist caught while in action, which may be of interest to the List, please see:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259961000.htm
Even if Zardari’s government is willing, it cannot act against the interests of the other power centres. Indeed, the sheer audacity and havoc of the Mumbai attack has opened a new window of opportunity, and India should take the initiative to use it to stabilize its relationship with Pakistan. It should understand the peculiar power equations in Pakistan and refrain from targeting and cornering Zardari alone over his shifting positions and hollow excuses. Zardari needs to be carried along in an intense diplomatic engagement by India. He is any day a better bet than Musharraf. Let us hope the U.S. and other major world players will help them along.
Suzarin
Letter sent to Psychohistory on 4.12.08
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)