"We will face increased terrorism"

[Guest guest]

>OFBJP Admin

>vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >[bJP News]: "We will face increased

terrorism" >Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:35:04 -0400 > >Title: "We will face

increased terrorism" >Author: B. Raman >Publication: Rediff >Sept. 19,

2001 > >B Raman served as additional secretary at the > Research and Analysis

Wing, India's external espionage > agency, and headed the counter-terrorism

division at > RAW for more than a decade till his retirement in 1994. > > After

retirement, he has been engaged in writing columns > for various newspapers and

magazines, including > rediff.com and India Abroad, and lecturing at various >

institutions. > > The man, widely considered to be India's leading expert > on

jehad, spoke to Shobha Warrier in Madras. > > India has suffered at the hands

of terrorists, but we > could not get the attention of the world. Now that >

America has become a target, do you think the > Western world will be more

receptive to our > suffering? > > I do expect there will be a change in their

attitude. They will take much > stronger action but whether they will accept

our contention about terrorism is > doubtful. That is because all nations

decide on the threats to the lives of their > own citizens. They are not so

concerned about the threats to the lives of > citizens in other countries. > >

In the past, we had the same problem. When there was terrorism in Punjab > from

1980 to 1985, no intelligence agency of any Western country was > prepared to

accept our contention that the organisations in Punjab were > terrorist

organisations. In 1985, about 200 people were killed in the Kanishka >

explosion; the majority of passengers who perished were Canadians. When > they

found that (Canadian) Sikhs were responsible, there was tremendous > pressure

on them in their country. They then accepted India's point of view. > > In the

case of Kashmir, till 1992, they were not prepared to accept that there > was

terrorism in Kashmir. In 1992, terrorists killed someone from a group of >

Israeli tourists and kidnapped another. So, there was pressure from the Jewish

> community in the United States, and they admitted that there was a

possibility > of terrorism in Kashmir. Even then, they had some reservations. >

> Over a period of time, the attitude of the Western world has been changing >

depending on the threats they themselves face. Now, after this huge incident >

where thousands of people have been killed, I suppose they will be a little

more > receptive to some of our arguments. To think they will be totally

supportive of > us from now on is not correct. > > Do you expect India and the

US will come together to fight terrorism? > > Immediately after the shocking

incidents, everybody is expressing solidarity > but I do not know whether this

will continue because our memories tend to be > short. Every country will look

at terrorism from its own selfish point of view. It is > only natural. Like, it

is our first priority to protect our nationals, it is America's > first priority

to protect Americans. But there will be little more solidarity than > what you

have seen in the past and they will be a little more receptive to us on > the

role of Pakistan. > > In America, there are a lot of think tanks close to the

Bush administration and > they play an important role in policy making. One of

the most important is the > Heritage Foundation located in Washington DC. Last

year, they issued a paper > on Afghanistan, Taleban, etc. They expressed the

view that the Taleban is a > creation of Pakistan and there was conclusive

evidence of Pakistan's > involvement with the Taleban and Osama bin Laden. They

said the Americans > should issue a warning to Pakistan to cooperate with

America in arresting bin > Laden and moderating the activities of the Taleban.

If they didn't cooperate, (it > said) America should declare Pakistan a State

that sponsored terrorism and > target the Taleban leadership. > > The Bush

administration is following this policy. 'Unless you cooperate, we will >

declare you a State that sponsors terrorism.' So, there is a lot of pressure on

> Pakistan now. I have my doubts to what extent the Taleban will cooperate. >

Ultimately, Pakistan will be in a dilemma. > > I think in the future America

will listen to some of our concerns. They will be a > little more positive. But

about America co-operating with us totally… I keep my > fingers crossed. > > Do

you expect the US to use our military bases to fight the Taleban at > some

stage? > > I don't think our government will allow it. It will be unwise. There

will be > co-operation in exchanging intelligence, meetings of experts, and if

they want > some investigation here. > > Actually, they don't need a base in

India. Because they have got their ships all > over. So, they can attack from

their ships, from the sea. If they were to attack > Afghanistan from the

Arabian sea, they could warn Pakistan. I don't think > America will ask for a

base here. > > Will President Bush's war against terrorism lead to more

terrorism > because of America's aggressive posture? Do you expect America to >

eradicate terrorism? > > I think there is going to be a period where there will

be intensification of > terrorism. For example, Osama bin Laden has a very wide

network all over the > world -- Saudi Arabia, Yemen, America, Canada, etc.

Otherwise, they would > not have been able to organise an operation of this

magnitude. Only a small > group lives with bin Laden in Afghanistan, but a

majority of them are scattered > all over the world. He has united a dozen

Islamic terrorist organisations. > > So, even if America captures Osama bin

Laden, terrorism is not going to > vanish because his network is very wide.

They will retaliate against America if > he is caught. > > With one single

operation, America will not be able to control terrorism. There > will be

series of attacks and counter-attacks which will continue for at least two > or

three years. Ultimately, America will prevail but it is not going to be a simple

> operation where they capture Osama bin Laden and take him to the US. > > I

agree the one country that can put a stop to terrorism is the USA. > > A

country that was proud of its intelligence network and security cover > was

caught unawares; they did not get a whiff of the meticulously > planned

terrorist operation. > > Yes, it was a meticulously and intelligently planned

operation. Osama bin > Laden's advantage is he does not use modern technology.

To communicate, > he doesn't use telephones. He uses couriers or word of mouth.

American > intelligence agencies over a period of time have become totally

dependant on > gadgetry or technical intelligence. So, they have lost the

capability to collect > intelligence through human sources. > > In the past,

human sources were the most important, and technical intelligence > was used to

fill the gaps. Here is a group that does not use modern technology > or gadgetry

to pass information or communication. I am sure they will change > their

strategy now. > > We have the same problem with our intelligence. We

intercepted all the > telephone conversations of (then Pakistan army chief

Pervez) Musharraf when > he went to Beijing, but we were not able to track the

infiltrators in Kargil. Now, > there is a realisation all over the world that

intelligence agencies, because of > their fascination for gadgetry, are

neglecting human intelligence. > > All those who appeared on various

international television channels felt > that most Islamic countries see

America as the enemy of Islam. Many of > them were of the opinion that

hereafter, we will see a clash of > civilizations: Islamic versus non-Islamic.

> > I feel it is a bit of over dramatisation. Eighty per cent of terrorism

today is > emanating from some members of Muslim communities in different

countries. > Out of that 80 per cent, 60 to 65 per cent are emanating from

Pakistan and > Afghanistan. So, it is more or less becoming Muslims versus the

rest of the > world. But you can't say it is a clash of civilisations. > >

Various Islamic terrorists organisations say their next target will be > Israel

and India. > > Osama bin Laden is the head of his organisation, al-Qaeda based

in > Afghanistan. He is also head of the united front of various Islamic

terrorist > organisations, the International Islamic Front for Jehad against

Israel and the > USA. Then, they projected the USA and Israel only as enemies

of the Islamic > world. > > Now, they are increasingly talking of India as

their enemy. They don't like our > cooperation with Israel in the intelligence

and military fields. Even if we don't > give the Americans facilities to launch

attacks from here, there will be a lot of > false propaganda from Pakistan. This

will increase their anger against us. I > think we will face increased terrorism

from the jehadi groups. > > Even America had no clue about the attack, so how

prepared is India to > face such terrorist activities? > > There are different

types of terrorist operations. One is a demand operation, > like the Kandahar

hijacking. Another type is the targeting of a strategic > objective, like

Pakistan organising terrorism because of their objective to get > Kashmir. The

third type of terrorist operation is to punish you. What they did in > New York

and Washington was punishing a country that was anti-Islam, > anti-Taleban. > >

In the future, there will be more attacks on economic targets. For example, >

they might try to make India face a cruel choice between a setback to its >

economy or let go of Kashmir. Ultimately, public opinion on the Government of >

India would force it to let go of Kashmir so that they are able to save its >

economy. The Bombay blasts came about because of Pakistan's pressure on > these

groups to choose economic targets. > > The jehadis say they wage a holy war

against the enemies of Islam, and > hence it is justifiable. They attacked

America because they say America > is against Muslims. Now America has declared

a war, figuratively, > against all countries that harbour terrorists. What is

the difference > between the jehadis and America? > > For America, it will be a

reaction to what these people are doing. > > The jehadis justify themselves,

saying they attack as a reaction to what > the Americans are doing. > >

Americans are not justifying their action on religious grounds. The jehadis are

> trying to justify their actions on religious grounds: like Muslims are in

danger, > Islam is in danger. Like the Communists did not recognise the concept

of a > national border when it came to loyalty to their ideal, the jehadi

organisations > follow the same concept. They say their first loyalty is to

religion and second > loyalty to the country. A majority of Muslims don't

accept this, but all the > organisations in Pakistan are propagating this

concept. > > The jehadis consider it their religious duty to help Muslims who

are suppressed > anywhere in the world. That shows the quality of difference

between the jehadis > and the Americans; Americans do it purely because there

is a threat to > civilians, there is violation of international law, etc. > >

The Israelis go to Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, etc in hot pursuit. America is >

talking about bombing Kabul because Osama bin Laden lives in > Afghanistan. Can

India go to Pakistan occupied Kashmir and also to > Karachi where Bombay blasts

suspect Dawood Ibrahim lives? > > Hot pursuit is meaningless in Kashmir because

you do hot pursuit when the > terrorists operate in a hit and run fashion. If

they are based in PoK and from > there they come to Kashmir and wage a battle,

then you chase them. In > Kashmir, a majority of terrorist activities are done

by suicide bombers. > > In Israel's case, among the West Asian countries,

Israel is the only nuclear > country, and here both India and Pakistan are

nuclear powers. So you have to > be very careful what you do, and we have to do

it in a clandestine manner. We > can't do it openly. We can only have covert

operations.

>---- >

http://www.ofbjp.org

>---- >A

worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists: >Friends of the

BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>---- > > Get

your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com