Author: S Gurumurthy
Publication: The New Indian Express,
Chennai Edition
Date: February 28, 2002
Daniel Pearl was a journalist. And,
more important to Islamic terrorists, he was a Jew and an American. That
was his sin. The terrorists kidnapped him and after weeks finished him
off, his throat slit like a goat's. The terrorists did not intend to do
it secretly.
They had in fact planned public
show of the beheading. So they captured the slaughter in a TV camera. To
demonstrate it to the world how one stepping out of the line would be dealt
with in the Islam of their understanding. To show to the world what Jihad
means and how Jihadis work.
Who were Pearl's captors? 'Indians'.
This is virtually what Musharraf's government said first. Its foreign minister
said that India's hand could not be ruled out. Musharraf himself repeated
it later. This was of course laughed out by the world, including the puppeteer
of Pakistan government, the US itself.
The Jihadis had timed Pearl's abduction
to precede Musharraf's visit to US. He was going to the US as collector,
to get a cheque from the US for Pakistan's loyal services as ally in the
war against terror. Understandably Musharraf was embarrassed by the abduction.
Fortunately just the day before he boarded the flight to US, Pakistan government
announced the arrest of Omar Sheikh as the prime accused in the Pearl abduction.
He is a Jihadi. The hijack of the Indian Airlines plane from Kathmandu
to Kandahar in December 2000 was to secure the release of Moulana Masood
Ashar and Omar Sheikh. Masood was the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and
General Secretary of Harkat-ul-Mujhadeen, both declared as terrorist outfits
by the US. Now the facts are out and admitted. The abductors of Pearl are
not from the 'evil axis'of Iraq-Iran-North Korea. They are Jihadis raised
and trained in Pakistan, the great ally of US against terrorism. From Zia
to Musharraf, all had blessed them. They were raised and blessed to fight
to free Kashmir from 'Hindu India'. To Musharraf, as to everyone else earlier,
they were freedom fighters or Jihadis, who had a very high place in Islam.
After September 11, Jihadis' status has in fact gone up.
To Musharraf, Omar Sheikh was a
Jihadi, a freedom fighter in Kashmir. The Americans did have some relief
because of his arrest. But that proved short lived. When Musharraf was
still in US, Omar Sheikh spilled the beans in the court. That Daniel Pearl
had been finished off, and was no more alive. But Musharraf still pretended
that Pearl was alive. Now it is proved that Omar told the truth, and Musharraf
lies.
Back to the story. The stunned US
did not even know how to react. The US intelligence, which knew that Omar
Sheikh was an ex-ISI agent, could not conceal its anger. Why? First it
was his former employer, the ISI, to which he had surrendered, not to the
court. Second, Omar had surrendered a week before and not a day before
Musharraf's visit to the US. So, Omar was in ISI custody for over a week.
Why did the ISI keep the fact concealed from Musharraf.? What were they
doing with him for a week? What were they tutoring him for a week? It is
obvious that those who are presently Jihadis control the ISI, not the ex-Jihadi,
Musharraf.
Americans know as much. But just
as Musharraf pretends to deliver Pakistan to US, the US pretends to believe
him. The US knows that emotionally Pakistanis do not respond to Musharraf.
They only respond to Jihadis. The Americans know why it is so.
The Taliban was the child of the
partnership of Pakistan with the US. The Taliban were tutored in thousands
of madrasas in Pakistan. Pakistan saw in the Taliban regime a role model
for its own programme of Islamisation. But everything changed n September
11. When US gave that famous ultimatum to Musharraf, 'either you are with
us or against us', he had no option except to dump that very creation of
Pakistan, the Taliban, and join the fight to eliminate the Taliban and
Osama He made the Pakistan government make a U-turn in 48 hours. So the
US solemnised its marriage with Pakistan against terror, by duress. It
is not that Pakistan changed in 48 hours.
How did Musharraf manage this? By
lies. When forced to support the battle against terror in Afghanistan,
Musharraf distinguished the terror in Kashmir as freedom struggle. He rationalized
Pakistan's support to the terror in Kashmir. So while it was terror in
Afghanistan to be opposed in alliance with the US, it was Jihad in Kashmir
to be supported. But, for the Islamists in Pakistan, the Jihadis are Jihadis
whether they operated in Kashmir or in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Pakistan
remains unchanged on Islamic view of Jihad. Only Musharraf was hair-splitting
on how it was Jihad in Kashmir and terrorism in Afghanistan. Thus he successfully
exploited the anti-Hindu drift of Islamists of Pakistan to overcome their
objections to his support to the US against the Taliban. The US knew that
Musharraf was successfully fooling around with them. But it allowed him
the liberty, as it also knew that it was better to be foolish at that point
than to be clever.
But three events completely shattered
this least honest game of these great allies, Pakistan and the US. First,
the attack on Indian Parliament. Second, the attack on US consulate in
Calcutta. Third, the slaughter of Pearl. The last being the most crucial
development as it was gruesome and more, the victim being an American.
Had an Indian reporter been eliminated precisely in the same manner, just
condolences would have sufficed.
Now the unfolding evidence in Pakistan
and in India has established that the Islamic terrorist network which attacked
the Indian Parliament and US consulate and which abducted and eliminated
Pearl is the same. It is a macabre story of crime and Jihad going hand
in hand.
Born in London, Omar Sheikh turned
a Jihadi in the Bosnian crisis. He later joined the Jihad in Kashmir. He
was arrested for kidnapping of three foreign journalists in Kashmir and
lodged in Tihar jail. It was here he befriended a colleague in Aftab Ansari
who was also in the same jail. This was in 1994. While Omar was a Jihadi,
Ansari, an Indian born, was just a criminal then. But infected by Omar,
Ansari soon evolved as a Jihadi. Even after turning a Jihadi, he did not
leave crime as his profession. He was estimated to have collected a ransom
of over Rs 53 crores in different assignments. In his dying declaration,
Resa Khan, the right hand man of Ansari, spilled the beans. He told the
Indian intelligence and investigators that Omar and Ansari were involved
with the Al-Qaida and other organizations. They were also involved in the
attack on Indian Parliament and the US consulate. While Ansari was held
in India, almost simultaneously investigators in Pakistan have held Omar
guilty of abducting Pearl.
It establishes two things. First,
there is very little distinction between crime and Jihad. As India Today
[Feb 25, 2002] says in a brilliant analytical article 'the dons of terror',
it is difficult to say where crime ends and Jihad begins. Second what is
Jihad against India and in Kashmir is as much terror against the US, and
it is as much Jihad against the US as it is terror against India. That
is, there is no difference between Jihad and terror. That crime, Jihad,
and terror seem to complete a circle.
Now back to Mr Musharraf. 'Mr Musharraf
will you now continue to insist that Omar was double-acting and carrying
on Jihad against India and Kashmir and terror against the US? Will you
still revere Omars and his like as Jihadis. Not call them terrorists?'
And to Mr Bush, 'If he did, Mr. Bush, will you still think it is better
to be foolish and look the other way?
