Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Political Treason - Part 1 - The curious case of Dawood Ibrahim

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Organized Crime and Civilization

Crime is one crucial aspect of a "Rashtra". Indian Sate should have had facilitated the emergence of nationalist crime-networks. More efficient would be religious crime networks. sometimes, I see the point of thugs and chandaals in ancient India controlled by the tantrika school. This might be antithetical to India as a "nation-state" but is it really antithetical to India as a "civilizational state" which exists for protection and expansion of Indic Sanskriti?

Remember role of Gopal Paatha in kolkata riots of 1947? Perhaps Chhota Rajan was one such experiment. However, talking about western coast and Mumbai, the Indic ganga never grew big enough to rival or hinder the emergence of Karim Lala, Haji Mastan continued as Dawood Ibrahim. The Pujari gang, Amar Naik, Rajendra Nikalje (Chhota Rajan), Arun Gawli, Sadamama Pawle could never outfight and outgrow Lala-Mastan-Dawood nexus. In her current form, Mumbai is an epitome of India's mercantile mentality where everything is for sale. The city forms a critical part of the   Kabul-Karachi-Mumbai-Hyderabad-Vizag-SE Asia opium trade route extent for centuries now. Almost everything big in Mumbai is illegal. There is too much of dirty money coming in through that route.

The only indic criminal who gave The Lala-Mastan-Dawood nexus a tough fight was Varadraajan Mudaliar (aka Varada bhai OR Bada Raajan). While he was around, the Lala-Mastan network did not gain complete control over the crime networks and routes. Unfortunately, no indic continued the "legacy" of varadabhai on India's western coast (i.e. controlling Mumbai). One interesting counter-factual question to ponder upon is that if Varadabhai would have been calling shots today instead of Dawood would the black money rolling in and out of India through bollywood would have still been used as blatantly against India as it is being done now? 

It becomes more difficult for pious Islamists to carry out Jihad against kafirs when it is the kafir criminals who are controlling the sea-routes of smuggling. 

The curious case of Dawood Ibrahim (DI).

If we look at the rise of Dawood Ibrahim and his life of crime and compare to Cali cartel and other criminal gangs we find that India will not be able to bring down DI as the powers that be are too intertwined in the gang's fortunes. We need to get other nations involved. However, the right question to ask here is - what does "bringing down" mean to Indian establishment? 

The phrase is usually used in a sense - X brought Y down..

X brings Y down because - 

1. it is in the interest of X to do so 


2. Y was trying to bring X down as well 


3. X is an agent of chaos.

In case 1 and 2, the prerequisite assumption is that X is a rational player. There are few things that I know and many things that do not know. But what we all know for sure is that the certain section of Indian power-centres (lets call them X) which ensured rise of DI (lets call him Y) in 1980's do not think that it is necessary to "bring Dawood Ibrahim down". 

DI operates in mostly Sunni states which either control trade-routes or control oil-supply. He himself stays openly in Karachi, perhaps under nuclear umbrella of Pakistan. The fact that he operates from Karachi with brazen openness means that -  

1. Either Pak has conveyed to "X" in India that taking out DI means war with Pakistan.


2. If India makes an attempt on his life and fails, they will make DI sing and X will be in trouble as many old scandals and skeletons will tumble down the cupboard. 


3. Perhaps, his life is insured by the founding fathers of Pakistan (UK-PRC-USA-Saudi), perhaps upon the insistence OR silent agreement of X. 

In either of the above three cases, the elimination of Y does not seem to be in rational interest of X. Otherwise, India has the capability of knocking down one individual.

Revisiting old Power-Treason equation

Thus, going back to my subject of exploring treachery and defection, its a question of which values the person holds dear and that brings us back to civilizational learning or Sanskriti. Also are tales of treachery even with a modicum of truth are basically 'blaming the other' type of deflecting accountability/responsibility?

Previous articles of mine on similar lines-

1. Addiction of Power and Treachery
2. Power and Permanence

If X is agreeing (albeit silently) upon safety of Y, is "X" committing treason against "India"? Can the actions of X be called as treason at all?

Modelling this in context above, keeping the information from this unusual and rare article at the back of our mind, we arrive at following three questions. Asking right questions is always the key.

1. Who is X in Indian establishment?

2. Which values does X hold dear? 

  •   Are those values in sync with Indic values?

  •   Are they not? 

     (a) If they are in sync, then no problem, material solution exists
     (b) If they aren't in sync, then one has to answer one of the harshest question - Are we Sajjana people or not?

3. What if X happens to be dominant faction of central power of India? or one of the dominant factions? 

  •  If yes, then perhaps that is the "Yuga-dharma" one has to abide to.

  •  If no, then the challenge given by time can be answered by time alone. Every instance X is lenient towards Y, shows (assuming X is non-compassionate, rational player) somebody has balls of X tightly in the grasp, thereby forcing X to behave the way X actually behaves. One can say that X is under the influence of Imperius curse.

No comments: