Terrorism: Chicken Come Home to
Roost
THE latest session of the UN General Assembly
which was supposed to move towards a new global consensus on cross-border
terrorism, turned out to be yet another exercise in duplicity and expediency,
where our foreign minister Jaswant Singh matched US president Clinton in
sanctimonious rhetoric.
Both raised the spectre of cross-border terrorism as the gravest danger
facing the world community. Clinton urged nations to wake up to meet the
challenge posed by terrorism, and appropriated for his government the monopoly
role of protecting them - to the extent of suggesting that it should bypass the
UN and launch military actions in other countries to fight terrorism. Jaswant
Singh echoed similar sentiments by describing terrorism as the great ‘global
menace’.
But the Indian foreign minister added a new dimension. He embellished his
pontification by alluding to the “scimitar of narco-terrorism that cut across
the Caucasus to the south Asian subcontinent”, his speech being mainly
directed against Pak-sponsored terrorism in Indian territory. Singh’s choice
of the word ‘scimitar’ is significant. It was used by the English to
describe the curved sword of the Muslims who fought the Christian Crusaders in
the middle ages. Singh deliberately used the word to revive among his western
listeners memories of their wars against scimitar-wielding Muslims. Singh sought
to identify global terrorism with Islamic fundamentalism and tried to appeal to
the anti-Islamic Christian sentiments of the past which are being reinforced
today in the west by the killings and bombings indulged in by Islamic terrorists
not only in the US and Europe, but also in Russia.
There are however two snags in Jaswant Singh’s presentation at the UN
General Assembly. First, terrorism in the present global context is not solely
an Islamic fundamentalist monopoly. There are powerful terrorist groups spread
in different parts of the world, who are inspired by various motivations, like
the Jewish Zionists in Israel, the anti-semitic neo-Nazis in Germany and other
parts of Europe, the white racists in the US - as well as political
organisations of nationalities seeking self-determination which resort to
terrorist tactics, like the Palestinians or the IRA in Ireland. Secondly, Singh
glossed over the phenomenon of the rise of terrorism within India. If terrorism
is to be attributed to the ‘scimitar’ of Islamic fundamentalism, how can he
explain the continuing terrorist acts of the Hindu high-caste dominated ULFA in
Assam, or the tribal secessionist groups in the north-east, or the Khalistani
groups among the Sikhs? It is all very easy for the Indian government to blame
Pakistan’s ISI for recruiting these terrorist groups in India. But, even if we
believe in its allegation, the question remains - why have these non-Muslim
separatist groups agreed to be funded and armed by Islamic fundamentalist
forces? Clearly, it is not a religious issue, but a problem that cuts across
religious or state boundaries, where certain leaders of nationalities determined
to carve out their own nation states are willing to take help from any source,
irrespective of its religious, ideological or moral character. Thus, we found in
the past how Christian Naga insurgents sought military aid from the communist
government of China, despite the fact that their Chinese co-religionists were at
that time complaining about curbs on their religious activities by Beijing. In
recent times, the Sikh militants of the Khalistani movement managed to overcome
their community’s collective memories of their wars against the Moghuls and
the bloodbath of the Partition, in order to receive military training from the
ISI in the Islamic state of Pakistan. Of late, if we are to believe the union
home ministry’s intelligence reports, the ISI has succeeded in attracting the
ULFA cadres of Assam who are believed to be receiving training from Pakistani
army personnel in camps in Bhutan. Yet, the present leaders of the same ULFA
(when they were members of the All Assam Students’ Union) allegedly played a
major role in the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Nellie in February 1983
during the assembly elections in the state. Both the patron and its protege, the
Islamic state of Pakistan and the Hindu upper caste dominated ULFA, are
apparently prepared to forget the past as long as it suits their respective
interests - the former looking for any opportunity to needle India, and the
latter hoping to make use of Pakistan’s anti-India stance to attain its
objective of carving out an independent Assam.
All this skulduggery in relations between the various terrorist groups and
their patrons is not confined to the Indo-Pak subcontinent, but can be found all
over the world - whether their patrons or trainers are intelligence agencies of
states, multinational organisations of mercenaries, international cartels of
arms manufacturers, or drug-traffickers who enjoy state protection. But while
ritualistically condemning cross-border terrorism, the UN General Assembly quite
conveniently ignored these sources that sustain global terrorism.
It is significant that both Clinton and Jaswant Singh shrugged off the past
roles of their respective governments in sowing the seeds of what has today
assumed the menacing form of a global threat. It was Washington which armed
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, backed the Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic when he massacred thousands in Bosnia, trained Osama bin Laden and the
Afghan mujahideens to battle the Russians. Today the chicken have come home to
roost. Washington’s erstwhile proteges are not only engaged in ethnic
cleansing in their own countries, but are also striking back at the US itself.
Successive governments in India also had followed a similar policy of aiding or
arming certain individuals and groups for immediate gains, who later developed
into terrorists posing a threat to the state and the people. One can recall in
this connection how Indira Gandhi propped up Bhindranwala against her opponents
in Punjab, how the RAW trained the LTTE militants, how even today the government
continues to play with fire by arming surrendered militants in Kashmir and Assam
who are becoming a new terrorist menace.
Cross-border terrorism is a Frankenstein in the creation of which almost all
the states over the last few decades have contributed in some measure or other -
whether it is the self-appointed international cop US, or the emaciated but
megalomaniac state of India and the militarily ambitious state of Pakistan in
the subcontinent, or whether they are the various states in Africa caught up in
tribal conflicts which spill over their borders.
RSS
wants India to woo
the Americans
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is planning its offensive against the
government's foreign policy, particularly the recent overtures towards China,
which it says will distance the US,
says Varghese K George
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS) is gearing
up for an attack against some of the recent foreign
policy overtures of the Vajpayee government. It is
mainly concerned about government initiatives aimed
at achieving "peace with Pakistan and friendship with China," as
an enthusiastic advisor to the prime minister describes it. Particularly
agitated over the government's China policy, the Sangh leadership is
discussing the
pros and cons of it, and in all likelihood, will convey its displeasure to
the government over the next few days.
Talking tough on Vajpayee's foreign policy aimed at
a "Nobel Prize", a top Sangh functionary said that the
government's attitude is "skewed". "Jaswant Singh should have
been visiting US, not Saudi Arabia now.
He should have been trying to get the support of the
new American administration," the source pointed out, adding that the
Sangh will entrust its Joint General Secretary Madan Das Devi to communicate
its apprehensions to the government.
Coming down heavily on the China policy, the source quoted a defence
document and argued that there is
a heavy build-up of Chinese logistics on the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
"Chinese deployment of troops
and infrastructure, such as roads along the LAC are alarming. It is not that
the government is unaware of
this," the source pointed out, accusing the government
of going mild in its negotiations with the Chinese. "The Chinese want
to use India as their next market. While granting this, the Indian
government should at least be able to extract some benefits from them, such
as getting China to give up their claim on Sikkim. Even the recent agreement
on the LAC is against India's interest. China has not given any concession
on the disputed regions,
for example, the Aksai Chin," he said.
|
Talking tough on Vajpayee's foreign policy aimed at a "Nobel Prize", a top Sangh functionary said that Jaswant Singh should have been visiting US, trying to get the support of the new American administration |
The RSS feels that India's proximity with China will antagonise the new US administration. The thrust of the Bush dispensation's South Asia policy is expected to be containing China. Both Bush and his Secretary of State Collin Powell have made their views regarding their China policy clear. "China cannot be considered our strategic partner," said Powell the other day. The RSS believes that India's friendship with China will not be complementary to its relations with the US, which according to the Sangh, is far for more important.
"Unless India's relations with the US is further strengthened, we cannot emerge as a major player,"
the source said.
Moreover, the Sangh feels that the Vajpayee government is not tactical in its approach to the US. "Far from gaining anything, Vajpayee's US visit caused us losses. Vajpayee seemed to be associating with Al Gore, who ultimately lost the presidential elections. The timing was bad and on the top of it, the government is not taking enough measures to engage the Bush administration," the Sangh leader feels.
The source claimed that since the government was not doing anything to prevent the "pro-Pakistan" diplomat Shirin Tahir-Kheli taking over as the head of the South Asia Bureau in the state department, the Sangh used
its "resources" in the US. The India Caucus in the US Congress launched a campaign against the Pakistani leanings of Shirin, a front-runner for the post. He said
that unless the government deals the with the Bush administration effectively, American pressure on the Pakistani administration to curb militancy in Kashmir
will reduce.
Quoting the classic strategist Kautilya, the Sangh
leader said, "It is very simple. Your bordering state
is your enemy. And you enemy's enemy is your friend.
The government doesn't understand both." Barely recovering from the controversy surrounding the
Ayodhya debate, the prime minister will have
another irritant coming his way, shortly.
|
|