EDITORIAL
India's
fault: she's right
There may be many a fault
with the Indian ethos and tradition. That is, discounting
those who see nothing but faults there. Indeed, one does
betimes seem like asking these knit-pickers why do they
still live upon this land, which they see as nothing more
than a festoon of faults. They are all capable of finding
sustenance elsewhere, though those lands and people's may
not pamper them as this fault-filled one does. It is
actually for that pampered status that they stick to this
land and place. It goes out of its way entertaining and
accommodating people who it should be chucking out of its
bounds. Why, most of them have been busy raising
revolutions here when those revolutions have petered out
everywhere and are being actually disowned by the
original revolutionaries. That pampering is, probably,
the greatest fault of this land and people, if there be
other faults. But among all those churlishness is not
one. In fact none can accuse India and Indians being
overbearing or even being hopelessly self-righteous.
Those who have been
looking for the reasons why the great culture and
civilization of India did not become a master of the
world find that it is the overwhelming self-effacing
nature that prevents India being a self-promoter. And
without that it is a nation lost in the high marketplace
called world where every bit achievement must be
trumpeted, where the most deserved right must be
canvassed and slyly pushed...more
|
 |
Yeh
Dil Maange Less!
By M J Akbar
Is 13 December the Kargil of 2001? Kargil came out of the
blue, or
rather the white of ......more
Will
J&K politicians
keep election promises?
TALES OF TRAVESTY
By: Dr. Jitendra Singh
Nearly a decade and a half ago. The occasion was the
convocation of the University of ...more
ABCD
make E (Education)
ACADEMIC PULSE
By Prof. S. K. Bhalla
The other day Rtd. C.J.1 Dr. A.S. Anand administered a
wonderful concoction..more
Destabilising
Arafat bad
for peace in West Asia
By Avinash Shirodkar
Israel severed ties with Palestinian President Yasser
Arafat and struck Palestinian targets....more
Pak's
India policy
admits of terrorism
By Samuel Baid
When Pakistan's President Gen Pervez Musharraf condemned
the terrorist attack on.......more
Playing
diplomatic foulor opting for military strike
By N. B. Menon
The Americans had an unenviable task in building the
coalition in their fight against the........more
|
Yeh
Dil Maange Less!
By M J
Akbar
Is 13
December the Kargil of 2001? Kargil came
out of the blue, or
rather the white of Himalayan
mountaintops, for the Vajpayee
government. Not to mince any words,
Kargil was a massive intelligence
failure. For months armed men had been
creating a bulwark from which they could
threaten Indian defence forces and,
prospectively, the stability of Jammu and
Kashmir, and the Government in Delhi had
absolutely no idea of what was happening,
not on the hostile side of the Line of
Control but on our side. Three factors
shaped the story of Kargil.
The first,
and most important, was the capability of
our security forces and systems. Once the
Indian armed forced became aware of the
extent of their challenge, they did not
need any further psychological
persuasion. Pepsi has probably never had
a more successful slogan than the line
that still swims across the audiovisual
waves: Yeh dil maange more! That is what
the jawans were saying as they mobilised
and climbed up towards the peaks that had
been lost to intruders.
The second
was the ability of the BJP government to
convert and administrative disaster into
a political coup. Crucial to this
turnaround was the credibility of the
Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee,
then higher than ever thanks to a
disastrous victory won by the Opposition
in Parliament. A no-confidence motion
against the Vajpayee government had been
carried by one controversial vote, and
instead of offering an alternative
government, a dysfunctional Opposition
fractured in full view of television
cameras. Amar Singh and Mulayam Singh
Yadav tripped Sonia Gandhi's efforts to
lead a new government; while she gave
sufficient evidence of the fact that no
one had taught her to use the political
abacus. In comparison, Vajpayee, with the
help of information and broadcasting
minister Pramod Mahajan, was brilliant in
the management of a war environment and
particularly in the use they made of the
betrayal of their Lahore initiative. By
the end of the Kargil war, and before the
beginning of the general election, the
voter was telling Vajpayee: Yeh dil mange
more !
The third
was the inability of the Opposition
parties, and particularly the Congress,
to formulate a viable response. They were
buried in an avalanche, and whatever
Sonia Gandhi managed to suggest from
under the Kargil snow sounded weak,
unconvincing and often contradictory. She
was given what can only be described as
typical Congress advice by those in the
party who have made seniority their
principal virtue. They told her that the
government should not be criticised
because that would be the unpopular thing
to do. Sonia Gandhi, perhaps also nervous
about her status as a person of foreign
origin, was unable to draw a dividing
line between support for a national
cause, the war effort, and criticism of
those who had allowed the situation to
deteriorate on the borders. The
Communists of Bengal, who are articulate
and understand politics, did so and
preserved their base. No voter thought
Jyoti Basu was unpatriotic.
The BJP
has convinced itself that the startling
mission that broke through the outer
security cordons of Parliament and nearly
pulled off a remarkable terrorist
achievement is the starting point of
mismanagement. I deliberately do not call
it a suicide mission, because while the
terrorists were certainly ready to risk
their lives, deaths was not part of their
and-game. As is now clear from the
available evidence or equipment and
supplies that they carried, they wanted
to hold a sufficient number of the
highest rung of politicians hostage and
then bargain with the Indian government
over at least ten days to get a number of
demands met. This was a Kandahar
operation on a far more dramatic and
demanding level. The five terrorists had
a last full meal at Karim's in the Jama
Masjid area before their operation, but
it was not meant to be a last breakfast.
They carried with them enough nourishment
to last ten days. I supose they had
estimated that it would take about this
long for the will of the government to
crumble.
At least
one parallel with Kargil works, which is
why a government that might' have
crumbled along with any collapse of nerve
is enthused about revival instead. Once
the security apparatus of Delhi
understood the level of the challenge,
and it did so in remarkably quick time,
it responded with efficiency and effect.
Hard task masters at the senior of police
will still ask why CRP sharpshooters used
so many rounds, but that is only a part
of the drill for even better capability.
A grateful government is not counting the
number of rounds.
A second
parallel is also becoming manifest. Luck.
If the Vajpayee government had been
replaced after the no-confidence vote two
and a half years ago, and a Prime
Minister like Jyoti Basu been in the
chair when Kargil broke one can imagine
the havoc that he would have wreaked
politically on the BJP. The armed forces
would have done their job irrespective of
whether their Prime Minister was Vajpayee
or Basu since both have the good sense
not to interfere with Professionals, and
provide all the logistical support they
need. But a non-BJP Prime Minister would
have used the information available to
tell people how the previous government
was sleeping while the mountains on the
Line of Control were awake with
preparations for war. On 13 December as
well, luck was on the side of the
government. After their car had crossed
the outer security ring, the terrorists
discovered that they were prevented from
reaching the main and most vulnerable
entrance of Parliament by the oldest
reason in the modern world- a traffic
jam. There were just too many cars in
queue, for the hour they chose is the
busiest moment of arrivals. It was this
that probably forced them to choose the
entrance at which Vice President Krishan
Kant's extra security was posted. They
hit the Vice President's car, and in that
instance all their plans went awry. We
can ask ourselves, endlessly, as to why
they did this, or why they did not do
that. But pause for a moment and
consider. Men in such an operation are
most effective when they do exactly what
they have been programmed to do. They are
not trained to think of rational
alternatives. At best they work, in those
fleeting seconds, on instinct. Instinct
cannot take you beyond a limited range.
If even a couple of them had managed to
break through into the inner circle and
enter a single room occupied by MPs or
ministers, the story would have been
different.
The
symmetry stops being parallel, and it all
becomes an embarrassing square with the
third factor. There is one reference to
Kargil that the government is trying hard
to forget: the coffin scam, extraordinary
not so much for the money involved but
for the sheer audacity. That the defence
ministry, under the leadership of the
virtuous George Fernandes paid 2500
dollars for a 175 dollar casket is one
part; but it takes some gall to make
money out of coffins. The chant
Coffin-chor, gaddi chhori has become part
of the political litany, and George
Fernandes will hear it again when he
weaves through Uttar Pradesh to ask for
votes for the BJP. The BJP will hear it
even when George is busy elsewhere.The
most important difference between today
and two years is the gap in credibility.
Today, voters are more likely to call the
performance of the government incredible
rather than credible. You can sell
merchandise in politics if you are
believed; the same goods find no buyers
if the market has lost its confidence in
the salesman. Publicity is no substitute
for policy.
The
government is trying to achieve a number
of inter-related objectives through
13/12. The passage of the anti-terrorist
law is part of a package that is expected
to deliver Uttar Pradesh in the crucial
Assembly elections ahead, along with some
strident rhetoric against madrassas, a
convenient way of broadening the attack
on minorities. The politics of Kargil
worked during elections because no one
had any answers. This time, parties other
than the Congress have an equally vested
interest in the answers, like the
Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav.
He is going to agree about the
involvement of Pakistan, and then point
out that there are still hundreds of
miles between the borders of Pakistan and
the centre of Delhi: why was the home
ministry unable to stop terrorist
activity in between? He is going to note
that both the Prime Minister and the home
minister publicly said and repeated that
Parliament was under threat. Why was
nothing special done to protect it when
government had the intelligence reports
on its desk? If there was no intelligence
failure this time, then there was
administrative failure. That is common
sense. The home minister has asked
plaintively that if the Pentagon cannot
be protected from suicide missions the it
is impossible for any government to
protect anything. One can understand
admission of a one-time failure. Or even
if terrorists succeed twice or thrice.
But not when they punch deadly holes into
the system time after time, and palce
after place- the Red Fort, the J and K
legislature, now Parliament itself.When
politicians start running from their
mistakes, they quickly discover two
things: first, you can run, but you can't
hide. Second, you also run out of
excuses.
|
 |
Will
J&K politicians keep election
promises?
TALES OF TRAVESTY
By: Dr.
Jitendra Singh
Nearly a
decade and a half ago. The occasion was
the convocation of the University of
Jammu. The then President Giani Zail
Singh, who had specially flown in from
Delhi to prside over the function,
quietly sat on the dias watching the
proceedings. The then Vice Chancellor
Prof Lakhanpal, in his speech, implored
the Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah
sitting alongside him to concede to the
University's long standing demand for the
construction of an exclusive Auditorium.
The Chief Minister instantly got up from
his seat and said that the demand was
already conceded. Few minutes later, when
Giani ji rose up to deliver his address,
the first thing he said with his
characteristic wit was "Doctor Saheb
Ne Aap Sabke Saamne Professor Saheb Ki
Baat Bahut Jaldi Maan Li Hai. Fikr Na
Karen, Main Doctor Saheb Ko Kaan Mein Kah
Doonga Ki Apne Vaade Par Amal Bhi Kar
Lein."
Gianiji's
cryptic intervention was in no way an
offence to the Chief Minister or other
dignitaries present on the occasion.
Since Giani was himself a veteran
politician and knew the fellow
politicians better than many others, his
remark was simply a confession that, in
the heat of moment, politicians tend to
make promises which they seldom keep.
Infact, this is a common trait identified
with politicians across the world. And,
even the senior Soviet leader Khruschev
had once observed that politicians
promise to make bridges even where a
river does not exist.
With
the election year about to begin in a
week's time, the various Assembly
aspirants have already started doling out
election-eve promises in scores. The
National Conference Chief Dr Farooq
Abdullah has been very generous in
promising simultaneously not one or two
but as many as three degree colleges in
the single district of Jammu. There is
every reason to believe this declaration
of intent because, as of today, if most
of the other political groups choose to
boycott the elections, the next
Government would also be formed by the
National Conference only.
But, what
about the promises held out by such
political parties which are unlikely to
come to power? For example, Mufti Mohd
Sayed's People's Democratic Party (PDP)
has always been in favour of
investigating the alleged violations of
human rights but it knows it need not
worry about how to go about with this
because it would never come to power. And
hence the Mufti father-daughter duo has
already started harping on the alibi of
election getting rigged in case not held
under Governor's rule.
Luckiest
is the case of the socalled separatist
Hurriyat Party. It makes promises which
are a tall order but is not worried about
fulfilling them because it knows it is
unlikely to contest an election and if
contested it is unlikely to ever win an
election. So, it would never be called to
keep its promise of granting an
"Independent Kashmir" which
enjoys all the patronage from Islamabad
and all the protection from New Delhi.
Most
confusing, however, is the case of
semi-separatist-cum-semi pro-India
aspirants of the likes of Shabeer Shah
who would wish to win the election with
the promise of "independence"
but would also like to become Chief
Minister of the State after the election
and before the "independence."
Caught in
the dilemma is the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP). It publicly promises to oppose the
National Conference's alleged
discrimination against Jammu but
privately does everything not to fall out
of favour with Farooq Abdullah.
The
lurking question, meanwhile, is
:"Will the J&K politicians keep
their election promises?" Watching
discerningly is the common man who knows
his political leaders too well to trust
any of their promises. The poet speaks on
Umapathy's behalf : "Main
Teri Baat Ya Tere Vaade Ka Aitbaar
Karoon? Karoon Main Aaj Ya Na Tera
Aitbaar Karoon?"
|
|
ABCD
make E (Education)
ACADEMIC PULSE
By Prof. S. K. Bhalla
The other day Rtd.
C.J.1 Dr. A.S. Anand administered a wonderful
concoction to students at Nagbani because for
acquiring education the first four alphabets were
important. For him ‘A' stood for an attitude
suitable for each other and the country;
‘B’ denoted bravery and boldness;
‘C’ conveyed strong character and sound
courage while ‘D’ brought discipline,
decorum and decency. If our students cultivated
all that letters from A to D connoted one became
educated automatically. For a majority of
listeners as reported in the media the
presentation part of the speech was quite
appreciable but the real problem again lay in
creating an educational environment which shall
cater to the aforesaid aspects for making a
complete person.
I am here reminded
of the column "Feedback" of Dec. 1999
issue of Commerce World- Newsletter- cum-
Journal which used to be published from Govt.
S.P.M.R. College of Commerce, Jammu in
academically halycon days wherein one brilliant
student of B.B.A. Part - II, Ms Rashi Sawhney had
remarked in her letter to editor in response to a
couple of articles on education published in
March 1999 of the same publication on these
lines.......'' We all know where the fault lies,
we all know what actually is to be done, then why
can’t we see any change". The concerned
student hit the nail on the head by remarking
" There was a whole list of suggestions for
a better education system. But who is going to
implement them ? 1 strongly fell that the urgency
of the hour is to take an initiative in this
regard". Such questions must also have
agitated the minds of the few parents and student
listeners when Mr. Anand spoke.
Presently, we are
fortunately lost in who ate what at a point of
our long and chequered history and making efforts
to erase what is obnoxious to some. The younger
generation in schools and colleges is not
very much interested in the controversial debates
being conducted by elders.On the contrary they
pine for a need based education which in its
wider sense should be a judicious blend of both
the good things of the past and the demands of
21st century. It is this blend which is still
eluding us and may continue to elude us for many
more years to come because now educational
affairs are not restricted to unbiased
academicans. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is putting
forth what suits him / her in utter disregard of
intellectual harm being done to tiny-tots with
impressionable minds and youth in particular
owing to lack of consenus on important
educational issues.
The net results of
all this has been a colossal wastage of human and
financial resources, exploitation of man by a few
and a haphazard journey towards immediate goal
and beyond that even.We need a clear cut and well
polished as also chiselled policy programmes
which we could easily implement for our
generation. For this we need impartial
academicians without any tunnel vision, a
committed lot of people who would implement well
thought out educational programmes as also a
group of people with a clear vision and above
petty considerations.
I have yet to come
across a model school in Jammu Province wherein
such sterling qualities of head and heart are
instilled in all sincerity among the children. I
have listened with great amazement the remarks of
students about their teachers whom they listen
because of forced discipline / regimentation
but do not believe in what is being preached
because there is lot of difference between what
is preached and all that is practised. Even the
majority of teachers believe in shortcut methods
to success and are the product of a foul
socio-economic milieu. The society may expect
much from them but they shall not been in
position to deliver the goods. Bravery, Boldness,
Discipline, Strong Character etc. etc. are all
good qualities but they can be instilled by those
only who are wedded to them. Alas! these are
casualties of not only our education system but
the whole body politic.
|
Destabilising
Arafat bad for peace in West Asia
By Avinash Shirodkar
Israel severed
ties with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and
struck Palestinian targets after Hamas militants
killed 24 Israelis and injured 200 over the last
three weeks. The world opinion is veering round
that Arafat's time is running out as he is unable
to control his militant outfits. If this process
continues it will end the peace dialogue in West
Asia that begun in the last decade. But
destabilising Arafat will be bad for peace in
West Asia.
Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon received sympathy for the
attacks during his meeting with American
President Geogre W. Bush at the White House.
President Bush had been expected to counsel
restraint to Mr. Sharon, but after the suicide
attacks, he spoke of the need to break up the
Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremist groups. White
House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said:
"Obviously Israel has a right to defend
itself," and emphasised that Mr. Arafat must
show through deeds that he stood for peace. The
American view was that Israel could not be asked
to hold its fire when the Americans themselves
were hunting down the Al Qaida terrorists.
In reprisal to the
suicide bombing, Israeli gunships fired missiles
at Mr. Arafat's headquarters, destroying two
helicopters in the Gaza strip as well as hitting
targets in the West Bank. The Palestinian leader
was in Ramallah at the time of the attacks.
Israeli military spokesperson, General Ron
Kitrey, claimed that the damaged helicopters were
no longer in use but were symbols of Mr. Arafat's
mobility and freedom. The next day, a second wave
of attacks was launched at Mr. Arafat's West Bank
offices after the Israeli Cabinet branded the
Palestinian Authority as a terrorist supporting
entity. Mr. Arafat, who was present in his
office, about 50 mts from where the missiles
struck, was unhurt after his bodyguards rushed
him into a basement shelter as soon as the
helicopters were sighted.
Getting the nod
from Washington, Mr. Sharon held the Palestinian
leader "directly responsible" for the
attacks on Israelis. "Israel will chase
after those responsible for terror, those who
carry it out, and those who assist it and they
will pay the price," he said about the
attacks on Mr. Arafat. The Americans had agonised
over continuing their missile attacks on the
Taliban in Afghanistan during the holy month of
Ramzan, but the Israelis had no problems in
timing their strikes in the densely populated
Gaza city at the time of roza iftar (the breaking
of the day long fast). After a two-day lull,
Israel resumed military strikes against the
Palestinian Authority, hitting a police compound,
in response to mortars fired by Palestinians.
Mr. Arafat had
pledged to crack down on the militants and over
180 militants were arrested after the series of
suicide attacks. The extremists included 18 out
of a list of 34 that the Israeli authorities had
demanded. However, Mr. Sharon dismissed the
arrest of Hamas militants as mere window
dressing, calling them low ranking operatives.
Mr. Arafat made a decisive move by intensifying
the crackdown on the Hamas and placing the
movement's spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin,
under house arrest, and ordering him not to speak
to the media. The move brought hundreds of Hamas
supporters out in the streets to clash with the
security police. But the violence has continued,
with car bombs and clashes with the security
forces.
The Israeli air
strikes targeting Mr. Arafat himself has placed
the Palestinian leader in a difficult position
among his own people. It erodes his personal
authority among his own people. It erodes his
personal authority among the Palestinians who are
angry at the blatant air strikes. Hamas has
become more popular after the uprising began in
September 2000 against continued Israeli
occupation. In 1996, Mr. Arafat had instituted a
crackdown against the militants, but that was
when the peace process was still showing sings of
progressing towards a solution. The peace process
is now dead as Israeli leaders progressively
backed away from various agreements. In the
process Mr. Arafat himself has lost ground to the
militants as people despair of the possibility of
Israel under the eight-month old government of
Mr. Ariel Sharon making any moves towards peace.
Any further
under-mining of the Palestinian Authority and Mr.
Arafat will have its own repercussions in
allowing the militant groups to gain strength.
The symbolic targeting of Mr. Arafat may provide
an immediate vent to the Israeli anger at the
suicide bombings, but its real effect will be to
put an end to any prospect of a peace process.
Destablising Mr. Arafat would be
counter-productive for the Israeli government for
he is the only credible leader among the
Palestinians who can work for peace.
The alternative to
the moderation espoused by Mr. Arafat would be a
more extremist force, in the present
circumstances. It will, by no means, provide
security for Israelis that Mr. Sharon's right
leaning coalition government had promised the
people. Revenge for its own sake, even if it is
for barbaric acts like suicide bombs, will not
help. For, international events have shown that
capturing a few key leaders cannot destroy
terrorist organsiations, for these groups have
the capacity to regroup and relocate.
The resumption of
the intifada following the unravelling of the
peace accords is the result of a deep anger of
people losing any hope, left with little means to
express their anguish. It is fertile ground for
the growth of the extremist Hamas and the Islamic
jihad. It was Mr. Sharon's visit to the Al Asqa
mosque which whipped the Intifada into a flame.
Since it came to power in March this year, Mr.
Sharon's Government has formulated few ideas to
promote peace.
It has, instead,
used force to tackle the situation. Mr. Sharon's
Right-wing party had opposed the Oslo accords,
and in power it has found no substitute for them,
except to wipe out their relevance. The
conditions of the people living in the Gaza Strip
are worse than before. The Israeli missile and
aircraft attacks that have killed and injured
Palestinian civilians are not defensive actions
against a terrorist group, but an act of war
against the Palestinians. It is use of excessive
military force to punish the Palestinian people.
Israel has
received a varying response to its retaliatory
attacks - several countries have advised
restraint. Some of them have questioned the
targeting of Mr. Arafat. The United Nations
General Assembly adopted resolutions calling for
Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and
demanding self-determination for the
Palestinians. India's initial reaction was
lacklustre. The growing closeness to Israel both
politically and in defence purchases has left New
Delhi in a dilemma. It was in response to
insistent questioning in Parliament that External
Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh condemned the
violence and advised restraint to both sides.
Mr. Arafat is
still a force that can take the Palestinians
towards peace, and targeting him for acts carried
out by extremists will further push the hope of
peace and stability in the region into the far
distance. INAV
|
|
Pak's
India policy admits of terrorism
By Samuel Baid
When Pakistan's
President Gen Pervez Musharraf condemned the
terrorist attack on the Parliament House in New
Delhi on December 13, his military spokesman Maj
Gen Rashid Qureshi sought to trivialise this
tragedy by suggesting India itself might have
stage - managed it. He did not stop at this: he
offered a joint inquiry into India's charge that
Pak's ISI was behind the two militant
organisations Lashkar-e-Toiba and
Jaish-e-Mohammad. And, lastly, he asked for a
proof of these two organisations' involvement in
the December 13 felony -- just as Taliban leader
Mullah Omar had been asking the United States to
prove Osama bin Laden's involvement in the 1998
bombing of its two embassies in East Africa and
then in the terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington on September 11.
This kind of
reaction shocked and disillusioned Indians,
especially a large section of intelligentsia in
this country, who had been watching with great
admiration Gen Musharraf's steps to rein in the
activities of terrorists who called themselves
jehadis. His Government first banned display of
arms in public; seized unauthorised arms; banned
public collection of funds for jehad; promulgated
an ordiannce to streamline madrasas; arrested top
leaders of politico-religious parties who opposed
the United States - led operations against
Taliban in Afghanistan, and froze the accounts of
militant organisations including Lashkar -e-Toiba
and Jaish-e-Mohammad because the United States
considered them terrorist outfits.
The Indian
intelligentsia was under the impression that by
joining the US-led International Coalition
against global terrorism Gen Musharraf had found
a great opportunity to rid his country of the
menace of terrorism and of the so-called jehadi
organisations which have been posing the greatest
threat to Pakistan's political and emotional
stability besides giving the country a bad image
abroad. In India there is no doubt about Gen
Musharraf's sincerity about this goal.
But at times our
assessments about Pakistan are emotional. We have
to clearly understand the psyche and compulsions
of Pakistani rulers especially the military
rulers who must have an enemy next door for their
self-sustenance. For the past more than 50 years
school children have been taught that India is
Pakistan's eternal (azli) enemy. Strategists like
former ISI chief Hamid Gul openly say this image
of India is essential for Pakistan's integrity
and survival.
The September 11
terror and Pakistan's subsequent support against
global terrorism should have brought India and
Pakistan closer. But no. When Pakistan agreed to
support the International coalition India
expressed its happiness. But in his September 19
address to the nation, Gen Musharraf made India a
special target of attack. Subsequently. He said
he joined the international coalition for the
sake of Kashmir. This was clearly an assurance to
Jehadi groups active in Kashmir that anti-Taliban
operations in Afghanistan would not affect their
activities.
Thus in
post-September 11 months Pakistan has started
treating jehad in Afghanistan and elsewhere as
terrorism but not so in Kashmir. The Pakistan
Government has disowned hundreds of Pakistanis
from Sindh, Punjab and the Frontier Province who
went for jehad to Afghanistan against the United
States. But it welcomes jehadis in Kashmir and
calls them freedom fighters in an attempt to
confuse the world public opinion about terrorism
and freedom struggle. Reports from Pakistan say
that the military Government wants jehadi groups
to move to occupied Kashmir to launch their
activities from their instead from soil of
Pakistan.
This is a half
clever move because after the September 11
tragedy the world knows more about Pakistan's
role in terrorism than India can talk about. This
is clear from the large-scale arrest of
Pakistanis in the United States. There are about
1,500 Pakistani under detention in the USA alone
after September 11.
The October 1
attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly building
and the December 13 incidents both prove that
anti-India terrorists are not affected by
Pakistan's commitment to the international
coalition.
Recent radio
discussions show that Pakistani scholars and
experts are worried about their Government's dual
policy on terrorism. Pakistan cannot be free of
the menace of terrorism if the Government
continues to support jehad in Kashmir, they say.
Playing
diplomatic foulor opting for military strike
By N. B. Menon
The Americans had
an unenviable task in building the coalition in
their fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The
Palestinians and the Israelis are at each
other’s throats and tensions between India
and Pakistan refuses to desist from promoting
terrorism in India. It is somewhat like a rich
man trying to placate his wife and mistress at
the same time.
General Musharraf
has played his cards very well and stands to gain
unless he is overthrown. He knows that to his
domestic constituency of religious fanatics,
Kashmir is more important than the Taliban.
Therefore, he has abandoned the Taliban, but will
never give up the Kashmir issue, without which he
cannot survive. Whereas we will gain by the
destruction of the terrorist networks in
Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we will find Pakistan
stepping up support to terrorist based
organisations in Pakistan which have a larger
indigenous component in Kashmir, like the
Harkatul Mujahideen (HuM). Organisations such as
the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashmar-e-Toiba
(LeT) necessarily have greater mercenary elements
and may find their role diminished for some time.
Support to the HuM will be to strengthen the
Pakistani deception that the insurgency in
Kashmir is a freedom struggle.
The longer the war
lasts in Afghanistan the greater will be the
civilian casualties. This is bound to result in a
backlash in the Islamic world. The situation in
West Asia between the Palestinians and the
Israelis will further inflame the situation.
As for Pakistan,
it also has not been successful in planting its
own selected governments in Afghanistan. A.J.P.
Taylor, the famous historian, said "like
most of those who study history, he (Napoleon
III) learned from the mistakes of the past how to
make them again". Pakistan’s Afghan
policy has come a cropper.
Since the Soviets
were kicked out in 1988, Pakistan has tried to
cobble and prop up four governments in Kabul and
failed. All but one, including the Taliban, were
led by ethnic Pashtuns. Pakistan was obsessed
with having "strategic depth" via
Afghanistan. This idea was first mooted by
Pakistani army chief General Aslam Beg. He
believed in the event of a long and protracted
war with India. Afghanistan’s friendly
territory could serve as a strategic staging zone
for the Pakistani army and air force.
With the nuclear
weaponisation of India and Pakistan, this
"strategic depth" concept lost
relevance and was replaced by a joint promotion
of terrorist networks and religious
fundamentalist groups. Besides Pakistan’s
strategic thinkers failed to realise that a
rigidly ideological government, such as the
Taliban’s, with a narrow worldview, could
not be a reliable partner in the defence of
Pakistani interests. Therefore, Pakistan’s
current predicament follows almost two decades of
misplaced "interventionism"
Afghanistan. This was based on a policy of
picking up Pashtun favourities and trying to
install them in power in Kabul. Over time, this
turned into an obsession for a client state. This
ended in driving the other ethnic minorities in
Afghanistan such as the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and
Hazaras against Pakistan and the Taliban.
Where does this
leave India? It is becoming increasingly clear
that the US, while stating it will fight global
terrorism, no matter from where it emanates, is
not going to come down heavily on Pakistan. If US
objectives are achieved with the help of General
Musharraf, he will get their full support as a
moderate who can control his own religious
fundamentalists. He will continue his refrain
that the terrorist organisations in Pakistan will
either change their names or skins, as most
snakes do, and re-emerge as entities who will
find other means to fight the jihad in Kashmir.
We have to fight
our own battles. We must continue to attack
terrorism at its source and strike at terrorist
camps inside Pakistan whenever necessary.
Superpowers like the United States only respect
strength and political will; they will not be too
impressed with our consistent whining about India
being a victim of terrorism.
Winston Churchill
had said as far back as in 1943: "The
empires of the future are the empires of the
mind." The American empire has not been
built on colonisation. It has been erected on the
values of democracy, human rights and
globalisation of free markets. This did not
prevent the United States of America from
discarding these values during the Cold War by
embracing dictators and turning a blind eye to
human rights violations. Today, again, the US is
willing to mollycoddle dictators and turn a blind
eye to human rights violations by terrorist
organisations operating from Pakistan. The US
must be hoist in its own petard and told about
the values it stands for. An aggressive campaign,
in the US, should be undertaken to remind the
Americans about what they stand for.
In considering
various responses to the breath-taking terrorist
attack on the Parliament House, India has chosen
to try out diplomatic approach first. As a
result, the immediate focus has shifted away from
the question whether India would cross the Line
of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and attack the
sanctuaries of the terrorist groups in
Pakistan-occupied part of the State. But not for
too long. If diplomacy fails, India might have
few options left but to retaliate with military
force.
In communicating a
set of demands for Pakistani action against
terrorist groups, India has put Islamabad on
notice. It is now entirely up to Pakistan to act
in consonance with its international obligations
on acting against terrorism. Failure to act on
these demands – stopping the activities of
terrorist groups based on its soil, taking them
into custody, and squeezing their financial
assets – should provide the legitimacy for
any future military action New Delhi might
consider taking against Pakistan.
To be sure,
Islambad would certainly fudge the issue by
denying state responsibility for these groups,
questioning the evidence or attributing motives
to India. The international community through
various United Nations resolutions has demanded
that states act to curb terrorism. The U.S. has
insisted that those who support terrorism are
equally culpable. The key to the success of the
India’s diplomatic effort lies not just in
legal argumentation. New Delhi will have to
convince the world that it has run out of all
reasonable options against cross-border
terrorism.
It is in this
context that India has decided to share the
technical information it has gathered on the
terrorist attack on the Parliament with major
countries including the U.S. In emphasising
diplomacy first, India has not ruled out military
action against terrorist groups based on
Pakistan. If and when India chooses to cross the
Line of Control, New Delhi would want the world
to see it as the last resort.
Until now two
factors have prevented India from responding
vigorously against the recent provocations of
terrorist groups operating from Pakistan,
including the attack on the State Assembly in
Srinagar in October. First, the U.S. did not want
the focus to shift away from the immediate
objective of defeating the Taliban and destroying
the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The US also needed
Pakistan’s support in achieving these
objectives and an Indo-Pak conflict would have
undermined the international coalition in
Afghanistan.
Having covered
considerable ground in Afghanistan since
September 11, is Washington now ready to face up
to the challenge of terrorism emanating from
Pakistan? That is the big question underlying
India’s latest diplomatic effort. There is a
second abiding concern in the U.S. – that an
Indian military response to cross-border
terrorism from Pakistan could escalate the
confrontation between the two nations to the
nuclear level. The essence of the message from
New Delhi today is that the dangers of a
potential "nuclear falshpoint" cannot
be addressed by Indian restraint alone. And that
it is willing to give diplomacy one shot, before
using force. INAV
|
|
|
