Submit Your Work
History
Inspiring Stories
Saturday, July 11, 2020

Alija Izetbegović: Journey from prison to Bosnian Presidency

This article is by
Inshiya Nalawala
Inshiya Nalawala
Eastern Europe

Share this article
Download as PDF
Cite this Article

Article Contributor(s)

Inshiya Nalawala

Article Title

Alija Izetbegović: Journey from prison to Bosnian Presidency

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 11, 2020

URL

Alija Izetbegovic meeting with US President Clinton in Tuzla, Bosnia

Alija Izetbegovic meeting with US President Clinton in Tuzla, Bosnia | Source: William J. Clinton Presidential Library via Wikimedia

In a world that still holds up the burden of racisms and prejudice, the struggle of vanquishing differences between various religious sects and political groups that emerged vibrantly back in the late 20th century sets an exemplary path for leaders today to follow.

The legendary Bosnian leader, Alija Izetbegović, who dedicated his entire life in the process of protecting human rights of Bosnian Muslims who were subjected to brutal crimes and violence by the neighboring countries, with his visionary and revolutionary thoughts played an important role during the dramatic changes that took place post the World War II.  

Born in 1925, Alija was always driven by his strong moral compass. For him, his ethics and his moral principles served him as a winning weapon in all battles. According to him, ethics added meaning and purpose to life.

He studied from the ‘University of Sarajevo’ with a degree in arts, laws, and science. His life journey began when he first appeared in the frontline as a civil right activist of an organization established by Sheikh Muhammad Kharji and Sheikh Cassim Dobreje.

It was in 1946 that he was first arrested when he was a twenty-one year old youngster. He was condemned for being a part of a group/organization that expounded religious freedom and human rights. He was sentenced to jail for 3 years. Unfortunately, this wasn’t an end to his hardship. In 1949, young Izetbegović was once again imprisoned, as per the orders received from a special military court. This time he was given a five-year sentence. His crime - active support behind the Young Muslim Organization. Izetbegović spent his youth behind the bars thinking and strengthening his spirit of establishing a multicultural Bosnia once again.  

Later in August of 1983, Izetbegović along with eleven other scholars was sentenced to 14 years in prison. It was during this time that Izetbegović wrote his book, “Notes from Prison: 1983-88”. In his book, he encompasses his experience at the prison cell and how resistance grew in him during all these years.

Izetbegović soon faced national and international Media under his virtue of engagement with the social and political affairs of the country. In 1990, he founded the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) and won the elections with a majority in 1992. The man who spent years in jail yet, filled with optimism and encouragement, had made it through all the agonies and challenges life put him through. With his party gaining central power, Izetbegović was elected as the first President of the country. Later, he also announced Bosnia-Herzegovina an independent republic.

Although Izetbegović was now the president of a young republic country, an end to criticism and racial crimes was not yet achieved. During the Croat-Bosniak war in 1993, the Croats destroyed the Mostar bridge (also known as Stari Bridge). Underlining their catastrophic act falsely as strategically driven, the Croats through this destruction attacked the symbolic importance of the Bridge, which was to connect diverse communities across it.

Despite the sustained attacks and strenuous efforts of the neighboring countries to curb rising unity and ethnicity in Bosnia, the Bosnian Leader always taught his fellow countrymen and soldiers to be superior morally first. He believed that it is this superiority that will fetch them their ultimate goal. For him, instituting peace was a fundamental duty, a greater win, or “greater jihad” over any other military victory. Rising international pressure ultimately brought peace in 1995.

Finally, he stepped down from the presidential throne in 2000. After he grimly fell ill, the greatest revolutionary thinker died in 2003. His eternal story of life struggle is inspiring, making him worthy of the title “wise king”.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:22 PM

Automated Facial Recognition System of India and its Implications

On 28th of June 2019, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) opened bids and invited Turnkey Solution providers to implement a centralized Automated Facial Recognition System, or AFRS, in India. As the name suggests, AFRS is a facial recognition system which was proposed by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, geared towards modernizing the police force and to identify and track criminals using Facial Recognition Technology, or FRT.

The aforementioned technology uses databases of photos collected from criminal records, CCTV cameras, newspapers and media, driver’s license and government identities to collect facial data of people. FRT then identifies the people and uses their biometrics to map facial features and geometry of the face. The software then creates a “facial signature” based on the information collected. A mathematical formula is associated with each facial signature and it is subsequently compared to a database of known faces.

This article explores the implications of implementing Automated Facial Recognition technology in India.

Facial recognition software has become widely popular in the past decade. Several countries have been trying to establish efficient Facial Recognition systems for tackling crime and assembling an efficient criminal tracking system. Although there are a few potential benefits of using the technology, those benefits seem to be insignificant when compared to the several concerns about privacy and safety of people that the technology poses.

Images of every person captured by CCTV cameras and other sources will be regarded as images of potential criminals and will be matched against the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems database (CCTNS) by the FRT. This implies that all of us will be treated as potential criminals when we walk past a CCTV camera. As a consequence, the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” will be turned on its head.

You wouldn’t be surprised to know that China has installed the largest centralized FRT system in the world. In China, data can be collected and analyzed from over 200 million CCTVs that the country owns. Additionally, there are 20 million specialized facial recognition cameras which continuously collect data for analysis. These systems are currently used by China to track and manipulate the behavior of ethnic Uyghur minorities in the camps set up in Xinjiang region. FRT was also used by China during democracy protests of Hong Kong to profile protestors to identify them. These steps raised concerns worldwide about putting an end to a person’s freedom of expression, right to privacy and basic dignity.

It is very likely that the same consequences will be faced by Indians if AFRS is established across the country.

There are several underlying concerns about implementing AFRS.

Firstly, this system has proven to be inefficient in several instances. In August 2018, Delhi police used a facial recognition system which was reported to have an accuracy rate of 2%. The FRT software used by the UK's Metropolitan Police returned more than a staggering 98% of false positives. Another instance was when American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) used Amazon’s face recognition software known as “Rekognition” to compare the images of the legislative members of American Congress with a database of criminal mugshots. To Amazon’s embarrassment, the results included 28 incorrect matches.. Another significant evidence of inefficiency was the outcome of an experiment performed by McAfee.  Here is what they did. The researchers used an algorithm known as CycleGAN which is used for image translation. CycleGAN is a software expert at morphing photographs. One can use the software to change horses into zebras and paintings into photographs. McAfee used the software to misdirect the Facial recognition algorithm. The team used 1500 photos of two members and fed them into CycleGAN which morphed them into one another and kept feeding the resulting images into different facial recognition algorithms to check who it recognized. After generating hundreds of such images, CycleGAN eventually generated a fake image which looked like person ‘A’ to the naked eye but managed to trick the FRT into thinking that it was person ‘B’. Owing to the dissatisfactory results, researchers expressed their concern about the inefficiency of FRTs. In fact mere eye-makeup can fool the FRT into allowing a person on a no-flight list to board the flight. This trend of inefficiency in the technology was noticed worldwide.

Secondly, facial recognition systems use machine learning technology. It is concerning and uncomfortable to note that FRT has often reflected the biases deployed in the society. Consequently, leading to several facial mismatches. A study by MIT shows that FRT routinely misidentifies people of color, women and young people. While the error rate was 8.1% for men, it was 20.6% for women. The error for women of color was 34%. The error values in the “supervised study” in a laboratory setting for a sample population is itself simply unacceptable. In the abovementioned American Civil Liberties Union study, the false matches were disproportionately African American and people of color. In India, 55% of prisoners undertrial are either Dalits, Adivasis, or Muslims although the combined population of all three just amounts to 39% of the total population (2011 census). If AFRS is trained on these records, it would definitely deploy the same socially held prejudices against the minority communities. Therefore, displaying inaccurate matches. The tender issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs had no indication of eliminating these biases nor did it have any mention of human-verifiable results. Using a system embedded with societal bias to replace biased human judgement defeats claims of technological neutrality. Deploying FRT systems in law enforcement will be ineffective at best and disastrous at worst.

Thirdly, the concerns of invasion of privacy and mass surveillance hasn’t been addressed satisfactorily. Facial Recognition makes data protection almost impossible as publicly available information is collected but they are analyzed to a point of intimacy. India does not have a well established data protection law given that “Personal data Protection Bill” is yet to be enforced. Implementing AFRS in the absence of a safeguard is a potential threat to our personal data. Moreover, police and other law enforcement agencies will have a great degree of discretion over our data which can lead to a mission creep. To add on to the list of privacy concerns, the bidder of AFRS will be largely responsible for maintaining confidentiality and integrity of data which will be stored apart from the established ISO standard. Additionally, the tender has no preference to “Make in India'' and shows absolutely no objections to foreign bidders and even to those having their headquarters in China, the hub of data breach .The is no governing system or legal limitations and restrictions to the technology. There is no legal standard set to ensure proportional use and protection to those who non-consensually interact with the system. Furthermore, the tender does not mention the definition of a “criminal”. Is a person considered a criminal when a charge sheet is filed against them? Or is it when the person is arrested? Or is it an individual convicted by the Court? Or is it any person who is a suspect? Since the word “criminal” isn’t definitely defined in the tender, the law enforcement agencies will ultimately be able to track a larger number of people than required.

The notion that AFRS will lead to greater efficacy must be critically questioned. San Francisco imposed a total ban on police use of facial recognition in May, 2019. Police departments in London are pressurized to put a stop to the use of FRT after several instances of discrimination and inefficiency. It would do well to India to learn from the mistakes of other countries rather than committing the same.

Read More