Why there is terrorism today? Part 1

Why at all we face terrorism today?  

Justice William O Douglas (WOD) of the US SC  in 1957 wrote to his friend Thomas Edmund Dewey, (1902-1971) an Attorney in New York, then he became Governor of New York for three consecutive terms, and twice ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for President of the United States..then calmly returned to private practice as Attorney there in New York.

WOD said in his letter that he had been in correspondence with Selden Chapin - (1899-1963) a career diplomat between 1955 to 1958, as Ambassador to Iran.

The Ghashgai , or Qashqui, a tribal confederacy type confederation there in Iran, consisted of a number of related nomadic tribal groups  of Iran led by a patriarchal clan.

The Ghashgai (Qashqai) vehemently resisted  the Shah’s of Iran for his Moderation ideas of Iran, since these tribes would have substantially affected their ‘traditional’ ways .

‘Because, their prominence in Iran, they became a Special target  for Shah (of Iran), who believed he had triumph over their Opposition in order to advance his program (of Modernization).

These tribal clans became his (Shah’s) target to attack.

This led to a serious Civil War inside Iran; none could gain except Communist thought and Russia would get strangling foothold in Iran was apprehended in the perceptions of democratic countries like the United States.

WOD felt , ‘If Iran collapses (he said, ‘I think she well may (come) under the tremendous internal pressures, then there will be ‘profound repercussions’ throughout Middle East’.

Yea, WOD perceived correctly then.

The fragile situation going bad to worse in Iran. It might trigger almost  ‘anything’ that can happen he felt.

What was distressing WOD most,  was, ‘the massive inertia at this end - (i.e. in the US Administration of the foreign policy especially in respect of Persia/Iran. He tried to move some in the Administration but realized that ‘Nothing was working’. So He says, It seems  impossible to move anybody  to action’, he bemoaned.

Indeed, WOD a great political thinker of the USA, besides he could have contested to become the President of USA, and a lot of people, besides Republicans wanted him to be the President and they even wanted to collect funds but he warned them not to go ahead with their plans.

WOD was happy to continue as justice at USSC, and he clearly told crystal clear to his people. Indeed he was a great statesmen like politician and could foresee things like a mystic or like a man of clairvoyance.

He wanted there should be he thought some level and hard headed, positive thinkers, some sensible person should be sent out  to talk  turkey to the Shah of Iran, (might be about impending dangers to his position in Iran local politics itself infested with communists promoted by Russians.)

He felt Dewey might be the right man; and he wanted him to go to Iran.

WOD said ,  , ‘the sad thing  is that Ghashais are true friends of the West and are strong and irrevocably  on the ‘Democratic side.’

WOD wrote on April 18, 1957, to Irving Dillard, about ‘dreadful things ‘ happening in Iran then.

‘At the level of non commissioned officers, the Iranian /army is filled with Communists’ .

Even Iranian parliament  had before ‘draconian’  bills to do three things: (i) to give  the Iranian government  power to arrest anyone who ‘criticizes’ the government - ‘Criticism is always normal in any democracy, why very common even in the USA; (ii) the ‘dissolution of ‘political parties’ except  one which is a national socialist party, that has  ‘a program reminiscent of Mr.Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mr. Mussolini of Italy; (iii) Confiscation of  Ghashgais’ properties.

‘Ghashgais’ are his old friends, truly democratic  every letter of the word, powerful force to be reckoned in Iran.

He felt badly  that ‘there is not  word of this Iranian ‘situation’, in the American Press circle(s) because it/they did not cover Iran.

He said, ‘I do hope you cannot ferret some of this out’.

In his Memorandum of February 24, 1972 -(it is uncertain for whom this Memorandum was addressed or intended; it is labelled , “Oppressive Conditions in Iran’ - November 1971”  and  is signed and dated by WOD  in February 1972).

The Memorandum said clearly, at least 20,000 dissidents were in  Iranian Jails. These men - people - protested various actions  of their government either while  abroad  and/or at home (Iran); and they were all/have been apprehended, (many of them , although, ‘I (WOD) do not have  ‘exact number’, have been ‘tried and executed’.

The trials ‘are uniformly’ before Military (Tribunals) Courts’ . The ‘Executions ‘take place’ ‘immediately’ - ‘without any appeal, and they had done ‘executions’  secretly, he stated.

Closest  relative(s) of the ‘condemned’ man ‘is not allowed to see ‘his remains’ nor his family  is ever appraised  ‘as to the place of burial or the disposal of the body’ WOD stated very bitterly.

He said, ‘the Terrorem’ method  ‘has been going on  for sometime.( might a lot of lives would have been lost in Shah’s regime, it is suspected.

Executions was indeed ‘rampant’ at the TIME Robert F Kennedy was Attorney General in the USA.

It seemed, to be getting ‘worse and worse’ and it occurs  to me (WOD), he said,, ‘that someone  with Authority  and prestige  should ‘speak  out’, WOD felt,  against  ‘it’ (irrational executions’), saying - ‘that civilized nations  - ‘do not follow the pattern  of West Pakistan’ (of Gen. Ayub Khan) and bring the wrath  of ‘their military regimes’  down  on the ‘heads of dissenters’, (might be military might not tolerate dissent, but ‘democracy ‘ survives by ‘dissents’ only, (WOD said).

WOD was shocked: What is happening to ‘civil rights’ in Iran shocks - the humanity -  the ‘conscience’ of the free world. he thundered.

‘He said ‘Manchester Guardian filed ‘reports’ suggested, he said, ‘that the torture is (very) routine in Iranian prisons, ‘that the accused persons  frequently die before they can be brought to trial, and that the ‘authorities’  are taking advantage  of the ‘situation’ WOD said, to  send ‘opponents’ to goal, even those,’who have nothing to do  with violence’. - (appalling condition).

World Federation of the Rights of Man’ have described -Iran as , “instituting reign of terror’, Paper concluded.

‘Strikes and unrest in Universities, and the growth of urban  guerrilla movements demonstrate that Iran has not solved its most of pressing social and political issues (problems)’.

Outlawing of all ‘opposition parties’  complemented by  a pitiless  repressions  and the absence of  of even ‘the most fundamental Liberties, deprive  the Iranian people of an ‘indispensable safety valve -  and serve to  accentuate grievances, that a ‘more liberal  policy’ (alone) would  no doubt  have tackled (effectively the issues)  far more effectively’ ( two or three paras are reproduction verbatim from the paper).

WOD said his famous lines, ‘Those who prize Liberty and the Right  to Dissent’ should let  their ‘voices be heard’ . Freedom  never ‘flourishes’ unless  her ‘defenders’ are vigilant and outspoken.

Facts are:

Iran never wanted metamorphic economic developments, as the people by nature wanted to move by steady slow growth, as any fast growth would be slippery as was apprehended by them - indeed everywhere any fast economic development has proved to be bereft of meaningful resources is another factor, as is witnessed when we see , in the name of metamorphic economic development, we had been affecting the ecology and environment;

But Shah of Iran wanted to become more and more fast developed economically, he really turned out to be autocratic that Ghasais felt not appropriate.

Local people  and local chieftains  wanted  to maintain steady slow growth rate, as something Itan of Persia could take up;

Any fast development - read   a latest book on Economics , reviewed by Paul Krugman,  in New York Times Review of Books, states, that 19 and 20th century fast economic and technological developments are not now being kept pace in the 21st century, a view now prevailing was also felt by men of wisdom.. as the author of the new economic book states that ‘internet advancement’ may not take any further greater developments as on today, for its several obvious reasons. No point to quarrel with Ghashais views then, as perceived by WOD.

It is settled sociological principle that fast developments promoters being less in number, a lot not willing for fast developments, opposing  groups would suffer at the hands of fast promoters if the fast promoters are in the ruling power, that is what happened in Iran, by its persecuting  tricks - always persecutors are looking for greater benefits to themselves at the cost of the majority - (see  for example like in India, political forces in 1950s just after Indian independence in 1947, then a democratic republic became a reality in 1950, by India’s First Constitutional Amendment,  politician in power just introduced schedule IX - exemption for the new statutes if the parliament wanted to take away Judicial questionability of the relevant statutes, that prevailed till early 2007 till  the honorable Supreme Court of India under then CJI. Y K Sabharwal constitutional bench in LR. Coelho v state of Tamil Nadu somewhere in January in 2007, removed the Schedule IX by declaring ‘Ultra vires’ of the Indian Constitution, while the Court just allowed only first 13 statutes to enjoy that privilege, true even that privilege might be struck down sooner or later depending upon the wisdom of the Indian Judiciary );

Human civilization by nature is slow growth principle, as it tests every aspect of life for its consistency with human development of its own perspectives;

It is a settled principle again, of ‘governance ‘ in any democratic country, unless the very people are prepared, no development could be possible.

Even in the United States, in Texas, the Tennese Valley Authority plan to get hydro electric power was shelved by honorable USSC judgement, though a couple of billions was already spent by government, for that project would terribly affect the ‘flora and fauna’ and the natural habitats besides overall environment - when so, how very the U.S.A. could allow the Shah of Iran’s idea or perspective of fast economic development in the then traditional Iranian society, however much Americans were worried  of communists would influence the people of Iran and might convert Iran as a communist country, however much president Truman wanted to save Iran from the clutches of Communism advancing in the Asian countries;

Like the Texas issue, so many did turn out in the very USA ;

People in the USA were and are, why always are intelligent to take on their governments; governments in the USA used to appreciate the ‘pulse of the people’; when so why the very same government of the USA failed to appreciate the sentiments of other peoples of the world is indeed a very towering question before the  U.S.A.  government, then; indeed ‘WOD’ promptly appreciated; and that could be seen in his questioning the government under president Truman and his letter correspondence with Ambassadors, press reporters, and others friedly persons like lawyers, general people in the USA, as also abroad;

WOD being a visionary statesman like articulated;

Foreign affairs for WOD is necessarily be governed by human principles;

Whenever humanitarian issues are involved, the law of humanity is always same to every one is the perception  of WOD;

Wisdom is the international human rights movements;

Any irrational approaches, like ‘non state actors’ and the like has no meaning in the international relations;

If one is born anywhere, that person is a child of some land, some country and obviously a citizen whether he or she is conferred the citizenship - citizenship is just there under ‘Jusoli’ or ‘Jussanguin’ principle ; None can say he is no human; when so obviously he or she is a citizen of some state or the other; Government of the USA could not appreciate but, justice  WOD could really appreciate;

Environment when could be recognized, why you cannot recognize a human being as such; If you could, naturally every ‘dissident’ of the Shah  of Iran is to be recognized be very the U.S.A.  government; if did , naturally United States would not have allowed any Iranian ‘dissident’ be hanged or executed in thousands by the Shah of Iran, with his so called Military courts then;

Humanity obviously mean ‘None could be decimated’ by the stroke of a pen; you if human have to convince the other man; might be you are Shah of Iran or the President of the USA , as a human you are no more than the other person before you - that led to the Bill of Rights of Man, called ‘Individual rights’. When so , what is your superiority otherwise? is the kind of questioned method of WOD.

WOD in April, 22, 1958, in his Memo to Justice Harlan,  on his circulation of case - NAACP v Alabama 357 U.S. 449 (1958), it was held, ‘unconstitutional’ Alabama’s  demand that the NACCP reveal  the names and addresses of all Alabama members -WOd did not write separately, and Harlan’s  opinion  certainly did not reflect any watered down  ‘interpretation’ of the First Amendment’s right of free association;

That judgement is very clear the honorable  USSC - to help any to interpret, that the ‘dissidents’(mostly communists) in Iran to the Shah of Iran is obviously in possession of individual rights if one measures with the U.S.A.’s perception of individual rights, any could follow any ideology is indeed very clear - NAACP membership contained some one were ‘communists’;

When the U S ‘First Amendment’  sets apart from most of the Nations’, it marks the end of all censorship , it allows  the ability of the mind to roam at ‘will’ over the entire spectrum of ‘ideas’, and  the ‘sanctity’ of one’s beliefs...A symbol of (our) National health is the respect we show to First Amendment values.’ WOD held. Even justice Hugo Black  too.

Therefore, justice  WOD rightly  viewed  on Iran policy against Truman’s government, ‘dissidents’ have their own fundamental rights to differ with the Shah of Iran on several issues, besides Ghaishas too had all the rights to differ with the Shah of Iran, on modernization and on economic policies and the like, how the Shah could be autocratic on the people of Iran.

Hence, WOD rightly drives a fact, that, when you, being the Americans, so free in thinking, and obviously freedom loving citizens and humans, how could you allow other nations supposed to be friendly to you could be allowed to behave autocratic is the fundamental thought here echoed.

WOD on May 9, 1957 note to justice Mr. Joseph Brennan Jr.  on his opinion in No. 23  ‘Jencks v United States, 353 U.S. 65(1957)  said he ‘liked  very much the major part of Brennan’s opinion, ‘a person might vote  consistently over and over again  with the Communists on Slum clearance, minimum wages, desegregation of the rces, and any   other number of domestic issues without being, ‘affiliated’ , as used  has an ‘invidious connotation.    

WOD rightly held, .. ‘ The fact  that a person  may take identical  positions over and again  on domestic issues does not mean  that person  should be condemned, merely  because  those positions  coincide with the Communist position’.

To condemn a man  on that ground  would I think ,’raise serious questions under the First Amendment’.

From the above WOD views it is obvious, if weighed  the ‘what the Shah of Iran behaved on ‘dissidents in Iran’, the ‘democratic’ spirit is very low, though it had so called  Iranian parliament which was just subservient to the Shah of Iran, unlike in the U.K. where the Queen, except invited could not enter the precincts of the U.K.  Parliament… he mocked at the Iranian Parliament, while he equally mocked his own Truman’s government in place i the U.S.A for it could not rightly operate U S foreign policy, for what WOD felt was the U.S.A mishandled, its foreign policy is indeed a great thought of WOD for what he was trying to state is ..’ what you do here, same practice elsewhere too’ else, you are bound to upset the ship of State, like that American middle east policy miserably failed that led to Islamic fundamentalism for it took advantage of American half backed policies when it supported half baked Shah of  Iran modernization ideas.

Any Democracy must and should tolerate ‘dissidence’ ; after all every citizen in a democracy has  his own perception of ‘experimentation’ to better the conditions, how far , how  best, how much measure in what measure, certainly by consensus approaches only, is the view WOD rightly advocated.

By Advocate. Pandipeddhi Gurumurti Balachrishnan