news details |
|
|
| A many-sided threat | | Fight terrorism with holistic approach | |
by Balraj Puri
THE Government of India has postponed the scheduled talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan and so is the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Pakistan. It has definitely adversely affected the peace process between the two countries which had raised high hopes among the people of the subcontinent, in particular among the people of Kashmir. One may regret it. But India had absolutely no choice. No Prime Minister of a democratic country can afford to defy strong angry popular mood that had been created after the terrorist strike in Mumbai in which 200 innocent civilians were killed, and in which Pakistan’s hand was suspected.
But could the attack be anticipated and prevented? There were enough indications, external and internal, of a possible trouble. International jihadi terror was no longer friendly to India. Internal Muslim discontent had been simmering for quite some time. Osama bin Laden in his speech, through Al-Jazeera, in April, for instance, was quoted to have spoken of “Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims”. By adding Hindus to traditional Christians and Jews, he thus added his powerful weight to the Pakistani jihadi groups, whose traditional targets have been Hindus and India.
Husain Haqqani, the dissident Pakistani scholar, based in America, quotes Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, head of the Lashkar-e-Toiba now operating openly in Pakistan as the Jamat-ud-Dawa, as having said as far back as in 1999 that “Our mujahideen will create three Pakistans within India.” Haqqani concedes that jihadis have only brought violence, instability and defernation for Pakistan. But asks, “why then are Musharraf and the Pakistani establishment reluctant to root out jihadis with the vigour that Pakistan’s military establishment have often shown in vanquishing their political enemies?” The answer, in his view, lies in the Pakistani establishment’s world-view: the need to “internationalise” the Kashmir dispute.
In this context, President Musharraf could have been asked for an explanation when he proposed demilitarisation of Kashmir and assured that once it was done, militant activity in the state will stop. It implied close enough understanding between the President and the militant outfits that gave him the requisite assurance. Silence of India over the proposal put it on the defensive. Many Indian commentators and mainstream Kashmiri leaders criticised the government of India for not responding to the “flexible” attitude of Pakistan President. Actually he should have been asked why he changed his stand. Earlier he had made a categorical commitment that Pakistan’s soil would not be used for terrorist activity against India. Why had he made this offer conditional?
More bluntly, the United Jihad Council chairman, Syed Salahuddin, warned that “if India does not withdraw its forces from Kashmir, the war against them will spread all across India since the militants have the potential to strike in any part of India.” They did start giving evidence of the fact that they have the potential to strike cities like Delhi, Varanasi and Bangalore. And when the warning was not heeded, they struck in a big way through train blasts in Mumbai.
This may not be a clinching evidence of the Jihad Council having organised the Mumbai mayhem or having played a major role therein. Nor did the earlier anti-India and anti-Hindu statements made from the Pakistani soil conclusively prove that the Pakistan government was responsible for the Mumbai blasts. But they provided enough ground for India to seek clarification from Pakistan during peace talks as to what it was doing to prevent the open threats that were being hurled at India and to close their training camps. That is a reflection on India’s Pakistan policy and the negotiating skills of those who have been engaged in talks with Pakistan.
The anti-India jihadi forces did draw strength from international religious terrorist groups made easier by India’s isolation from the Muslim world in recent years. This aspect of our foreign policy, too, deserves serious notice. Before any further damage is done there is need to consider corrective measures. Whatever compensatory gains we presume to have made in the support of the advanced democratic countries are somewhat exaggerated. The US, for instance, was quick to advise us to resume talks with Pakistan which we had suspended after Mumbai massacre. While there is no support for the militant movement in Kashmir, there is certainly international pressure on India to match Pakistan’s “conciliatory and flexible” approaches on Kashmir. India’s diplomatic efforts and foreign missions are not much informed on merits of India’s case on Kashmir as to carry conviction with foreign governments and think tanks. What should be India’s policy on Kashmir and what concessions it should give to Pakistan or separatists in Kashmir are too complex problems that need a separate treatment.
However, terror threat within India is not entirely due to external factors. They would not have mattered unless they were supplemented by internal factors. Not long ago India used to boast being the only country with a sizeable Muslim population, which does not have a single member in the international Islamic terrorist movement. What happened to our boast and strong basis of Indian secularism? Muslim grievances may not have increased in recent years, but there is increased protest over them. Hindu fascist threat, too, has assumed a more menacing posture.
Finally, we must try to anticipate the post-Mumbai situation and the problems that it will pose. For obvious reasons all the suspected accused arrested so far happen to be Muslims. It has almost become an axiom that while every Muslim is not a terrorist, every terrorist is a Muslim. Will the post-Mumbai situation confirm this impression? Will the wall of suspicion between communities widen? What steps are proposed to fill up the communal divide and unite the nation to fight the challenge of terror?
The problem that the country faces today is, in many respects, unprecedented and is extremely complex and multidimensional. It requires a holistic approach making full use of our intellectual, political and moral resources. At this crucial hour of our history, we should not be found wanting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
