Anti-Indian Terrorism Acceptable to US

[Guest guest]

By V. Gangadhar

Source: Free Press Journal

 

It is hard to remember the days when Kashmir was a normal tourists'

paradise. Every Hindi film producer had to shoot in that beautiful

state. Your holiday was not complete unless you had made at least one

visit to Kashmir. Young couples dreamt of their honeymoon, skiing,

biting on apples and relaxing in the houseboats.

These are now empty dreams. For nearly a decade, Kashmir had come to

be associated more with guns, deaths, fatwas and the worst kind of

terrorism which had claimed thousands of civilian lives. India, over

the past few years, had become a central point for terrorist

activities and successive governments in Delhi, despite deploying

more and more security forces, had not come up with a solution to the

menace.

 

While Indian forces were pinned down in Kashmir, Islamic

fundamentalists dealt a savage blow to the only super power in the

world, the US, by blasting the twin towers which housed the World

Trade Centre and the Pentagon. As the death toll mounted to touch

several thousands, a feeling began to creep that no one was safe from

terrorist attacks. India, naturally, appeared more keen to join any

steps taken by the Big Powers to fight the spread of terror.

 

>From the day the Twin Towers came tumbling down, the Indian

government had been in touch with the US administration, expressing

its willingness to co-operate. Very soon, Foreign Minister, Jaswant

Singh and the National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra are scheduled

to visit the US and hold talks on combating terrorism. India had

confidently expected that under the leadership of the US, it would be

asked to play a leading role in this fight.

 

But the developments of the last few days had been rather negative.

Of course, President George Bush did have a telephonic talk with

Prime Minister Vajpayee. But from the time the Twin Towers were

bombed, the focus of American attention had been on its western

allies like Britain, France, Germany and so on. India, along with

other South Asian nations had been relegated to the background.

 

Of course, ideologically, the West is always closer to the US. Plus

the fact that the people in these regions had the same colour, shared

the same habits. Yet, it was a bit surprising that the US chose to

rely too much on its western allies which had had less experience of

terrorism on their soil than a nation like India. Britain, of course,

had to deal with a desperate Irish Republican Army (IRA) which had

organised frequent bomb attacks both in Northern Ireland and within

Britain. The fragile truce and hopes of a permanent settlement in

Northern Ireland had receded following the IRA's' final refusal to

hand over its arms.

 

Yet, the impact of terrorism in these European nations was much less

than what was experienced in India. Both the US and the European

nations had not suffered much by way of terrorist attacks on their

own soil. Many of them also harboured men and women who were

considered security risks in several of the Asian countries. For

years, the European nations did not take any action against the

dreaded LTTE leaders who were allowed freely to collect funds and

indulge in anti-Sri Lankan government propaganda. The LTTE

leadership, particularly its propaganda cells, were active in Britain

till recently despite the terrorist organisation carrying out

despicable acts of violence against the civilian population in Sri

Lanka. Their activities were ignored by the western human rights

activists who focussed only the actions of the security forces

against the LTTE cadres.

 

Organisations like the LTTE were tolerated because it was argued they

posed no threat to the Western world and that they were fighting a

`cruel' regime at home. The Islamic fundamentalists posed a more

serious threat because they were fighting the expansionist policies

of Israel, the closest ally of the US. Not many Americans plaid much

attention to the atrocities committed on Indian soil. The Bombay

blasts in 1991-92 did not arouse the kind of revulsion now aimed at

the Twin Towers bombers. Well trained and armed guerillas had been

regularly crossing the Indo-Pak border to create mayhem in Kashmir

and to a lesser extent, Delhi. Not a day passes without casualties on

the Indian side. Kashmir had been reduced to a ghost region with all

normal activities coming to a standstill.

 

Naturally, India expected a lot more positive exchanges with the US.

Of course, the government was not prepared to hand over blanket

permission to the US to carry out military action from Indian soil.

Initially, the BJP government was enthusiastic on this issue but

sustained protests from all the Opposition parties had made the

government hesitate. The wisdom of being a third participant in a war

between the two nations appears to have dawned on the Vajpayee

government. And if the US did not include India in its plans to

combat global terrorism, why should we push forward with our offers

of unstinted co-operation.

 

To add to the Indian disillusionment, Pakistan now says it is willing

to toe the line on the US approach to combat terrorism. According to

the most recent developments (these keep on changing daily), Pakistan

had issued an ultimatum to the Afghan government to hand over the

chief suspect of the bombings, Osama bin Laden. Pakistan had also

closed its borders with Afghanistan and was prepared to co-operate

with the US in all possible ways.

 

Being in a good position to negotiate, the Pakistan authorities may

well demand concessions from the US. Like writing off IMF and World

Bank loans, additional economic aid and a more pro-Pak stand on the

Kashmir issue. Despite Pakistan's stand on global terrorism and its

support to the Taliban regime, it had more supporters in the US than

India. The American right wing lobby had always backed military

juntas all over the world including Pakistan and had always viewed

India with suspicion. The brief honeymoon which emerged following the

former President Bill Clinton's visit may turn to nothing if

Pakistan, which was in a more advantageous position, offered more to

US by way of restraining Islamic fundamentalism and having a hand in

the capture of bin Laden.

 

Such a turnaround will not be easy for President Musharraff. Over the

years, the fundamentalist forces had emerged more strong in Pakistan.

For most of the Islamic clergy, bin Laden was the true saviour of

Islam. Armed militants are already parading the streets of the Pak

cities shouting anti-American and pro-bin Laden slogans. In the days

to come, both India and Pakistan had to do a lot of tight rope

walking, the first to combat terrorism and the second to edge closer

to the US and evade charges of being an ally of bin Laden.