In swift retaliation against the French military intervention against Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadi terrorists in Northern Mali starting from January 11, 2013, a group of pro-Al Qaeda terrorists, reportedly headed by Abdul Rahman al-Nigeri of Niger, raided on January 16 a huge gas production complex employing many foreign experts located at In Amenas at Tigantourine, about 40km (25 miles) south-west of the town of In Amenas and 1,300km (800 miles) south-east of Algiers, occupied the plant, mined it and took hostage the Algerian and foreign workers.
The gas facility, which is jointly owned by British Petroleum, Norway's Statoil and Algeria's state-owned oil company, employs hundreds of Algerians and 132 foreigners from France, the UK, the US, Norway, Austria, Romania, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines , Thailand and Colombia.
The terrorists reportedly demanded an end to the French intervention in Mali and the release of some terrorists held in prison in Algeria. The Algerian authorities rejected their demands and raided the gas facility. After four-days of bloody confrontation, they managed to re-capture the plant on January 19, 2013, after killing many of the terrorists, who before their death, are reported to have executed seven of the hostages taken by them.
According to the Algerian authorities, at least 32 terrorists and 23 hostages died during the operation. Some foreign hostages are still unaccounted for.
The exercise of the hard option by the Algerian authorities of not bowing to the demands of the terrorists and taking military action against them has not been questioned by the governments of the countries to which the hostages belonged.
The French have been strongly supportive of the Algerian action despite the loss of many foreign lives. French President Francois Hollande defended the Algerian response to the crisis as being "the most suitable". He told the media: "When you have people taken hostage in such large numbers by terrorists with such cold determination and ready to kill those hostages - as they did - Algeria has an approach which to me, as I see it, is the most appropriate because there could be no negotiation.”
Mr Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, has reiterated the determination of the US to hunt for Al Qaeda, wherever it may find sanctuary.
India, which is still paying a heavy price for the soft option adopted by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government against the Pakistani terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar in 1999 and for the humming and hawing of the Dr Manmohan Singh government after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai, has lessons to learn from the Algerian firmness.
It will be incorrect to assume that the bloody raid in Algeria must have been locally organized. It is likely that the ideological inspiration and operational guidance came from the command and control of Al Qaeda located in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. As I had pointed out in my past writings, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present chief of Al Qaeda, has for many years been stressing the importance of the African front in the so-called global jihad against the Crusaders and the Jewish People.
As part of the drive to neutralize the African front of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri has to be located and his sanctuary in Pakistan neutralized, in addition to the on-going action against the local cadres of Al Qaeda in North Africa.
Till now, one has been assuming that he must be hiding in the FATA. It is quite likely that, like bin Laden, he might be actually living in the non-tribal areas of Pakistan and from there commanding and controlling the activities of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Algeria and other African countries. Searches should be made for him in other parts of Pakistan too.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
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.
> "The exercise of the hard option by the Algerian authorities of not bowing to the demands of the terrorists and taking military action against them has not been questioned by the governments of the countries to which the hostages belonged."
A hard "no negotiations" approach with terrorists is the right approach.
Eunuchs in India would do well to learn some thing from this episode. Good thing Algerians are not us. Otherwise we would have heard lectures about restraint and peace processes and so on.
Why didn't the French govt. just get their people out of Algeria, like the U. S. did in Iran, under the auspices of Ayatollah Khomeini? I mean, they were not fighting the al Qaeda in Libya.
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