Musharraf confuses CNN reporter
Men, Matters and Memories

By M L Kotru

I don't recall seeing Gen Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan military ruler, looking as uneasy as he did that half hour early this week which he spent being interviewed by CNN’s chief of correspondents. Yes, I include in this the whole of the two years since he usurped power, ousting the duly elected Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. His interlocutor, for one thing, was not one of those fawning mediamen he encounters regularly at home or the lot he confronted at that famous breakfast meeting at Agra with senior Indian media men. The interviewer was neither a Pakistani nor an Indian. In fact, she was not even an Anglo-Saxon; she is of Iranian descent and is married to a prominent Jew who was very much a daily presence on American TV channels for the better part of the Clinton administration.

Not that the interviewer was unduly harsh. It was simply that Musharraf did not know what exactly she was going to ask next. And, for someone who is used to giving longwinded discourses every time he is asked a question, the limitation of time on the CNN telecast left him little time to prevaricate. On an earlier appearance on the same US channel, Musharraf had looked his usual cocky self. But not this time But then Musharraf is nothing if not brazen, Like when he disowned Harkatul Mujahideen as a Pakistani terrorist outfit. It was based in Kashmir and represented ''the freedom fighters" there ! One would have forgiven him the lapse had he referred to Harkatul Mujahideen as the Hizbul Mujahideen which is largely of Kashmiri origin though based in Islamabad, Lahore and Muzaffarabad in POK. Now, Harkatul Mujahideen happens to be one of the two militants Pakistani outfits- the other being AI-Rashid Foundation, which finances many terrorist outfits-blacklisted last weak by the US. as one of the ugly 26 so listed after Black Tuesday (September 11). Harkatul Mujahideen was the name given to Harkatul Ansar after the Americans had blacklisted that organisation in 1997 after its men abducted Western tourists from the Pahalgam area in Kashmir. The Harkatul Mujahideen represents the militant wing of the Deobandi school. The US missile strike on Bin Laden’s camps in 1998 and the death in these strikes of several Harkat- activists established the terrorist group’s links with AI Qaeda, The Amir of Harkat, Maulana Fazlur Rahman Khalil subsequently warned the Americans in July 1999 that the Harkat would declare war on them if they attacked either bin Laden or the Taliban.

Musharraf obviously tried to confuse his interviewer and, courtesy her, the American public, about the real identity of the Harkatul Mujahideen. He expressed similar reservations about the freezing of funds of the AI-Rashid Foundation stating that there was some misunderstanding about the foundation. The fact though is that it is one of the major sources of financial support to various Pakistani extremist outfits including several major madrassas. For the rest Musharraf cooed sweet reasonableness. He expressed his preference for a UN umbrella for anti-Taliban operations in Afghanistan but reiterated Pakistani commitment to share information/intelligence with the Americans, allowing the U.S. the use of Pakistani airspace and (rather vaguely) ''logistic-support" whenever its is asked for. He was certain no American troops were based in Pakistan "as yet" and that no Pakistani troops will join the operations in Afghanistan. He had no apologies to offer for his country’s support to the Taliban regime; may be none was expected either. After all the, Taliban were the creation of the combined efforts, to the US, its CIA, Pakistan and its ISI and SaudiArabia. Why, even Osama Bin Laden was largely the creation of the Americans and the Pakistani, and some of the weaponry, including stinger missiles, still in service with the Taliban are the same that were given, by the American, to the Mujahideen who later, under Pakistani tutelage, became the, Taliban. If the Pakistanis are reluctant to be seen as the wreckers of the Taliban the feeling is natural. It’s not always easy to destroy something you yourself have created. Besides, you have Musharraf's own word that the Pakistani lower middle class and the poor are not overly eager to buy his line justifying the military government’s pro-American line in Afghanistan. That’s the main reason why he won’t allow his troops to join the American alliance or even compel the Taliban to accept the Amnerican line. Musharraf has been equally adamant in refusing suggestions that a new non-Taliban alliance be forged in Kabul. It is not for nothing that he specifically mentioned that ethnic concerns of the people of Afghanistan (56% Pakhtoons) are not lost sight off. And Pakhtoons inhabit both sides of the Pak-Afghan border.

Apart from underlining his own country’s "national interest" in any future form of governance in Afghanistan, Musharraf is also unwilling to yield much ground when it comes to his pet theory that Pakistan has nothing to do with terrorisn in Jammu and Kashmir. It’s an indigenous freedom movement. He has of course toned down the pitch of his Islamist rhetoric on Kashmir but then the Jehadis, on cue from Islamabad, have not relented in their description of terrorism in Kashmir as Jihad. And it suits US interests at the moment not to rub the Pakistanis on the wrong side. They are apparently satisfied with Musharraf s response to their demands, for which they have handsomely rewarded ‘him already, and would not like to subject him to further pressure just now. Not that there is any guarantee that the Americans will address Indian concerns about the Pakistani role in Kashmir and the problem of cross border terrorism in the near future. The US Ambassador in New Delhi did well to air his country’s concern about sponsored terrorism and equally reassuring was the stance of Secretary of State Powell in this regard. National Security Adviser, Brijesh Mishra, followed by Extermal Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh may also have reason to feel satisfied with the response their concerns have evoked during their visits to Washington but the thing to remember is that we have to find our own solution to countering the menace of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. The Americans have refused to pay any heed to our requests to name Jaishe Mohammad or the Lashkar-e-Toiba, to mention just two terrorist moutfits.

America has and well and truly placed itself at the helm of the international coalition against terror even as the coalition is yet to take formal shape. But it did so only when terror hit the two most significant symbols of American power- the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, the heart of American capitalism, and the Pentagon, the very hub of American military power. By comparison its response to earlier attacks like the car bomb explosion at the self-same trade centre or the bombing of US embassies in Africa or the attack on the US Naval vessel Cole was very subdued by comparison. The terrorists obviously chose their target with great deliberation on September 11, They have succeeded in provoking America gravely. Osama and the Taliban have became instant targets for retaliation. It is not just that 7,000 odd people who died in the outrage of September 11; more important is the challenge to the ''American way of life". The attacks represent a daring threat to American might, its "national interest". Were it not for their own national interest and self esteem why would the Americans have wanted to take on something that they themselves have created. The US and Afghanistan (courtesy Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are old friends. In 1979 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and ISI launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. They harnessed the energy of Afghan resistance and expanded it to a holy war whose aim was to destabilize the Soviet Union as nothing before. It turned out to be much more than Vietnam. Over one lakh Jihadis from some 30 odd Muslim countries were trained to run America's proxy war against the Soviets. The Jehadis were, of course motivated by factors unknown to their CIA masters. It had become an Islamic war and by the time the Soviets retreated, Afghanistan had been turned into rubble from which it has yet to rise,

The latest turn of events could well be a turning point in the history of Afghanistan - for better or worse only time will tell-but the outcome will surely not mark the end of terrorism much as most of the coalition partners would wish it to be. For us in India, despite the assurance being held out, we will have to be very watchful. We may have, started well by identifying ourselves with the crusade against terrorism- but it will take some doing to sustain the coalition’s interest in anti-terrorism once the immediate crisis in Afghanistan is resolved and the American interests taken care of lndia must in the meantime work out its own solution to the brazen attacks like the one on the Kashmir legislative assembly premises earlier in the week,

MEN AND MATTERS
Dhaka’s fundamentalists can be Delhi’s worry

From B L Kak

The Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, cannot be faulted for his greeting to Ms Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) on a landslide victory in the just-concluded parliamentary elections. Ms Khaleda Zia, who returned to power after a gap of five years, was said to have communicated with Mr Vajpayee on several occasions this year-before the Bangladesh parliamentary polls.

And if India’s Foreign Office made it abundantly clear on October 2 that India looked forward to working together with the next Government in Bangladesh, Mr Vajpayee’s greetings to Ms Khaleda Zia required to be studied in the context of the fact that India and Bangladesh Nationalist Party had dealt with each other before the Awami League leader, Ms Hasina Wajid, formed her Government in Dhaka.

Fact of history is that Awami League had led the Bangladesh war of independence against Pakistan 30 years ago. It returned to power in 1996 after 21 years in the wilderness and successfully completed its five-year term. Ms Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party on the other hand formed a strong alliance with the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami. Also a fact of history: Jamaat-e-Islami had collaborated with the Pakistani Army in the genocide during the 1971 war.

Ms Hasina’s Government succeeded in making Bangladesh surplus in food grains from being in a chronic deficit of 40 lakh tonnes a year, achieving gross domestic product (GDP) of 6.5 per cent and effectively implementing poverty alleviation and women’s empowerment schemes. Yet another fact of history: Awami League Government alarmed the orthodox Islamists, who believe in communalism and anti-Indianism by taking bold steps such as signing the Ganga Water Treaty with India, restoring direct road and rail communication with India and signing a landmark peace treaty with tribal rebels to end two decades of ethnic bloodshed in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

This notwithstanding, the challenge from the BNP-led combine of rightists and fundamentalists with alleged Taliban connections eventually proved to be quite serious. No wonder, all actions of the Hasina Government such as signing the Ganga Water Treaty with India were branded as going against Bangladesh’s interests by Ms Khaleda and her fundamentalist allies.

True, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party had not included any anti-India agenda in its manifesto. But that did not prevent it or its allies from targeting India, branding the Awami League of Ms Hasina Wajid as India’s "stooge". The minorities, who formed more than 10 per cent of the total electorate, felt a sense of insecurity following newspaper reports that in many places they were warned against going to the polling stations.

Political foes of Ms Hasina had for the first time formed a strong alliance by consolidating all their power bases both at home and abroad. These preparations were essentially aimed at strengthening the concept of "Islamic Bangladesh" or a negation of the secular nationhood that the Awami League and other Left-leaning parties preached.

By the time India’s Foreign Office reiterated that India "is committed to a policy of friendship with all countries, particularly our neighbours", anti-Awami League elements and groups in Dhaka interpreted that the parliamentary poll verdict was a "defeat" for India and a "victory" for Pakistan. And at a time when New Delhi let it be known that it looked forward to working together with the new Government in Dhaka, there was a popular perception in Bangladesh that the Awami League led by Ms Hasina was "pro-India" and the Ms Khaleda Zia’s BNP "anti-India and pro-Pakistan".

The fact that Ms Khaleda Zia has been a consistent India-baiter is being highlighted by some Bangladesh-watchers in Delhi. Among her alliance partners is pro-Pakistan Jamazat-e-Islami, which wants to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic country. All the more reason for Ms Hasina Wajid to reiterate that a Government of "terrorists would be formed who will work in the name of Islam, bringing disgrace to Bangladesh".

The new Government in Dhaka has to deal with India on three of its borders. The defeat of the Hasina regime at the hustings is, taking the situation as it is, a cause for concern in the insurgency-scarred north-eastern region of India. A pointed reference is made to Ms Khaleda Zia’s pre-poll statements supporting extremist outfits like United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) in their ‘fight for independence’ against India.

Ms Khaleda Zia and her partners cannot deny the fact that the ULFA and NDFB have bases in Bangladesh. On more than one occasion, New Delhi accused Bangladesh of backing these militant outfits as well as some 11 other Islamic fundamentalist and militant groups in Assam and other parts of the north-eastern region. The ULFA has already been reported to have over Rs 4,000 million of its extortion money deposited in Bangladesh’s two banks, identified as Sonali and Rupali.

The authorities in the north-eastern States, a document furnished to the Union Home Ministry says, are worried about Bangladesh’s patronisation of Islamic outfits like Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Muslim Liberation Tigers of Assam and Islamic Liberation Army of Assam. And intelligence officials in Assam are of the view that these groups have been working as recruiting agents for the jihadi factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Documents seized from some activists of Muslim Liberation Tigers of Assam and two dozen Harkat members recently revealed that about 600 Muslim youth recruited from Assam were fighting the Taliban’s war as well as the ‘liberation struggle’ in Kashmir. In fact, India’s Military Intelligence (MI) has already assessed that Bangladesh is the "main conduit" for supply of arms to militants in parts of north-eastern States, particularly Assam.

Again, according to Bangladesh-watchers in Delhi, the poll results need to be viewed in the backdrop of the gathering war clouds in Afghanistan. These watchers insist that the poll outcome is bound to have a far-reaching effect on the political stability and economic development in the entire region.

While Ms Khaleda Zia’s alliance aroused the religious sentiments of the overwhelming 7.3 Muslim voters in Bangladesh, their students’ fronts swore by the Taliban and raised slogans of turning Bangladesh into another Afghanistan. Ms Hasina was targeted as a ‘Hindu’ since she allowed herself to be anointed with the customary chandan tilk during a recent function. She was branded an infidel for allowing the President of Venezuela to kiss her hand at an international conference and her Awami League was portrayed as an enemy of Islam.

New Delhi hopes that this poll rhetoric would not translate into renewed support for Indian insurgents. But since that is what Ms Khaleda Zia had done during the BNP’s 1991-96 rule, the nightmare might become a reality again.