Ibrahim has had direct experience in anti-terror operations. He had zeroed in on jehadi leaders like Maulana Masood Azhar, who founded Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Omar Sheikh, of Daniel Pearl infamy—even playing a role in the latter’s arrest. Much before Azhar’s arrest and the exchange drama that followed, Ibrahim is said to have written to his seniors that Azhar “was the key to crucial anti-India developments in Pakistan”. And an officer of Delhi police’s special cell says, “At a time none of us were aware of the Indian Mujahideen, I remember Ibrahim telling us, ‘Don’t look to Pakistan after every terror attack. Look within too.’”
Another area of Ibrahim’s expertise, say colleagues, is psy-ops. One close associate says, “In Kashmir, he gradually started supplying editing and publishing software like QuarkXPress to Urdu newspapers with an anti-India stance. He even organised training sessions for their journalists and design staff. Slowly but surely, these publications ended up softening their anti-India stance. He turned the tables on them in one masterstroke.”
Ibrahim has seen rough times too: as police chief of Gwalior district, he came under scrutiny when a rival gang attacked a police convoy and killed Munna Singh, a dacoit it was ferrying. Perhaps the only other awkward blip on his career scan occurred in 1993, after the Mumbai blasts: it turned out that convicted film star Sanjay Dutt had procured his general arms licence from Gwalior during the time Ibrahim was the police chief of the district. A few years ago, he was still attending court hearings related to that case.
It is said the late Madhavrao Scindia, Congress leader and from the former ruling family of Gwalior—with whom Ibrahim was close during his time in the district—gave him a leg up by choosing him as OSD when he became a Union minister. He then became OSD to Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, and went on to join the Intelligence Bureau. There was no coming back to Madhya Pradesh. As one of his IPS batchmates from the state puts it, “He left Gwalior in 1986 and has never looked back. In any case, if you spend seven or more years with the Intelligence Bureau, you generally become part of that system.”
Apropos Sayed Asif Ibrahim being appointed IB chief (Smokin’ Abe, Dec 10), we can call ourselves secular only when we stop referring to an individual’s religion or caste when writing about him in a non-secular matter, as this is.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
> Bonita Very well said
It would appear, there is no better espionage than internal security. We should not be in a position to say, that Pakistan causes bomb blasts in India, when the people there, feel, that they are acting in patriotism. If a state says, that another state sponsors terrorism, then govt.'s loose credibility, even the state who suspects. How can anyone brook the idea, that a state has sent civilians to wreck havoc, and the govt. had to acknoledge loss of life, property, and limb, of the very many, as a result, and consequence?
The greatest compliment anybody can pay an IB chief is to fail to recognise him. If the new IB chief works behind the scenes to ensure that ordinary people can live normal lives then the absence of lurid headlines will be the greatest proof of his competence.
Best wishes to Mr.Ibrahim. To paraphrase: "May you live in uninteresting times".
Psychology of Indian politicians, is that if a particular group of people is doing well, then it is fashionable to 'tame' them by reserving seats against them, and thus smearing all the hard work they have done through a life-time, with favoritism s**t.
Thus, for eg., ex-chief Raman wants a female to head the intelligence, and now, someone 'favoured' a minority member to head it.
Rubbishing talent for imagined 'equality'.
Subjective criteria is in play in any posting that requires one ( or a few ) persons own feelings, rather than expecting the candidates to objectively comapre their qualification for the job. In this kind of 'selection process', females stand a 'natural' advantage, as anybody who has a female competitor would know all too well.
I am sure all agree, that Gender is very powerful, and when the candidate is female and the boss is male ( or female, for that matter ), even traditionally powerful factors like religion and caste become secondary.
Objective assessment for any posting is important, and a systematic method of objectively analysing career achievments alone will ensure that real talent is not neglected and bureaucrats are not disadvantaged / demoralised.
We can call ourselves a secular country when we stop referring to an individual's religion or caste when writing about him. Until that day comes, we can keep fooling ourselves.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT