Global War against Anti-US Terrorists only

[Guest guest]

Vajpayee terminates a century of Gandhi and Nehru

Ready for World War III?

The coming attack — carpet-bombing an entire nation to swat one Osama —

will cement General Musharraf's ties with the American Dhritarashtra

 

Mani Shankar Aiyar

 

As with ``the first war of the 21st century'', so did the first war of the =

20th

century begin with an isolated act of terrorism: the assassination of the h=

eir

apparent to the Habsburg throne, Archduke Ferdinand, in remote Sarajevo.

The second world war completed the unfinished business of the first. Sixty =

 

million people perished in the two world wars; many millions more were kill=

ed

in the hundreds of conflicts that engulfed the world in the next half-centu=

ry.

The bloodiest century in human history covered virtually every country in N=

orth

America; North Africa and large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa; Australia an=

d

the Pacific; all of Europe, east and west; much of northern and central Asi=

a

from the Urals to Vladivostock and from Turkey to Tokyo; west Asia, east

Asia and southeast Asia.

 

India, too, had its share of sudden death, notably during the Partition. Bu=

t if in

relation to most of the globe, India in the 20th century was substantially =

 

isolated from worldwide mayhem, that was largely the consequence of the

non-violence of the Mahatma and the non-alignment of his principal pupil. T=

he

Vajpayee government has jettisoned non-violence. It is now readying itself =

to

jettison non-alignment. Our land is in danger of becoming the killing field=

s of

the 21st century's first war.

 

It is argued that India is not seeking out terrorism, it is India which ha=

s been

sought out by terrorism. And as India is part of the world which as a whole=

is

menaced by terrorism, we must be part of the worldwide struggle against thi=

s

new form of warfare. The flaw in the argument is that terrorism is not a

homogeneous threat. The terrorist threat which most parts of the world face=

 

is not the same as that the western world faces. Certainly, the terrorist t=

hreats

India faces, and has for decades faced, are not the same which stare George=

 

W. Bush in the face. Indeed, many of the most serious threats to us and our=

 

people have arisen and been sustained in North America and Europe:

Khalistan, the LTTE, Kashmiri insurgents, and cross-border terrorism in bot=

h

the northwest and the northeast. To this day, home-grown terrorism and

cross-border terrorism against our country are funded and supplied from the=

 

West, sometimes actively encouraged, more often winked at, and never,

never acted against with the determination which the US and NATO today

expect, indeed demand, of India. And her neighbours.

 

And because the minatory tone which the US has adopted against our distant =

 

neighbour is music to Vajpayee's ears, the Indian prime minister thinks he =

is

adding to Musharraf's discomfiture by proving New Delhi more loyal to

Washington than Islamabad. Foolish. For Pakistan has its own compulsions to=

 

cooperate with the Americans. And Peshawar is a much more useful base for

invading Afghanistan than the Agra airforce base, of which Musharraf has su=

ch

annoying memories. Moreover, Peshawar is where the Americans pleaded

with the Pakistanis to nurture the Taliban; history's ironic smile is going=

to

witness the same US-Pak collaboration in smashing the Taliban. The coming

attack — carpet-bombing an entire nation to swat one Osama — will cement

Musharraf's ties with the American Dhritarashtra. We will be back to the

SEATO and CENTO of Ayub Khan's day and the resurgence of USA's

benediction to Bhutto's assassin, Zia-ul-Haq, in the wake of the Soviet

invasion of Afghanistan.

 

There can be concerted international action against international terrorism=

only

if the international community is of one firm mind and resolve as to what i=

s

terrorism, who are the terrorists and how they are to be fought. Will Georg=

e W.

Bush insist that Musharraf's reward for joining hands with him in tracking =

 

Osama is that Musharraf must henceforth stop referring to the terrorists in=

 

Kashmir as ``freedom-fighters''? Will Bush tell the Dutch government that

harbouring Isaac Chisi Swa and T. Muivah of the National Socialist Council =

of

Nagaland in Amsterdam is no longer acceptable international practice? Will =

 

George W. convey to his British, French and Canadian lapdogs the message

from the Sri Lankan president that succour and safe havens to the LTTE must=

 

end forthwith? Will Washington promise to nuke Beijing if China's assistanc=

e to

the Maoist terror groups in Nepal does not cease forthwith? Are the

insurgents of the Chittagong Hill Tracts people who must be eliminated — or=

 

freedom fighters who must be helped? Should Bhagat Singh and

Chandrasekhar Azad be celebrated or denounced?

 

Will George W. tell Ariel Sharon of Israel that sending helicopter gunships=

into

Gaza to target bomb the Al-Fatah headquarters of President Yasser Arafat is=

 

terrorism of the same order that destroyed the World Trade Center? Or swear=

 

they will never again bomb someone else's palace as they did when Muammar

Gadhafi's three-year old daughter was killed by the US Air Force sleeping i=

n

her cot? Or a pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum pummelled because the CIA=

 

thought (oops, wrong again!) that it was Osama's munitions manufacturing

facility?

 

Does Washington regard the Chechnians as terrorists, as Moscow does? If

Spain moves to do a Guernica on Basque separatists, will US marines be

landed landed at Biarritz? Do Tibetans of the Dalai Lama's persuasion quali=

fy

as terrorists, as Beijing insists? Are Altaf Hussain's people in Karachi mu=

jahirs

struggling for justice — or terrorists, as the Pakistan government sees the=

m?

Is Aung San Suu Kyi a noble rebel, as we believe, or a dangerous subversive=

,

as the Myanmar government perceives her? Why go so far? Will the US

president crack down on Catholic and Protestant Irish Americans who have

been relentlessly stoking terrorism in northern and southern Ireland?

 

Yes, it is a terrible tragedy that 5,000 innocents lost their lives to terr=

orism at

the World Trade Center. But is it not worse that 500,000 infants have died =

in

Iraq because the Americans orchestrated a blockade of essential medicines

for over a decade? George W. will retort that it is Saddam, not Bush, who h=

as

brought this terrible retribution on the Iraqis. In which case, of course, =

we

have to ask the president's father, Bush Sr, why the Allies did not move on=

to

Baghdad to eliminate Saddam. The answer, we all know, was the need to save =

 

American lives. In which case, will the ground war against Osama bin Laden =

 

be pressed with the loss of American lives — or is it only passing Pakistan=

i

shepherds who have to pay with their lives for American missiles that do no=

t

quite find their target?

 

There is a time for mourning. And in that time we ask not for whom the bell=

 

tolls. But when the bell starts tolling for our children still alive, we ow=

e it to

them, lest they die in someone else's war, to ask whether the struggle is

against all terrorists — or only those who are against Uncle Sam. Till the =

 

answer is received, Vajpayee has no right to drag us without our consent in=

to

World War III. That is what Gandhi told the Brits at the start of WW II.