Title: Act of political
terrorism
Author: Editorial
Publication: The Hindu
Date: February 14, 2000
Hijacking, per se, is
an act of terrorism. No matter even if the hijackers were innocent Afghans
seeking political asylum and wanting to get away from the oppressive Taliban
regime. British authorities, particularly the Special Air Services (SAS)
at the Stansted airport, deserve a special commendation for a professional
job well done. The uncertain hijackers from Afghanistan were left with
no option but to surrender when the crew of the Ariana Airline's Boeing
aircraft jumped to their safety from the cockpit. The saving grace in the
farcical show was that all the passengers were freed, unharmed. Even though
the British authorities have not come out with the whole truth as yet,
it is obvious this drama was enacted to enable as many passengers as possible
to flee from Afghanistan and seek political asylum. How many of them will
really succeed remains to be seen. Anyway, the Britons cannot be blamed
for taking a hardline on granting asylum to these passengers, because they
will have to pay for their stay. The police have arrested 22 persons, suspected
to be involved in the hijacking, and the Taliban is anxiously waiting to
lay its hands on both the passengers and the hijackers.
This four-day drama at
Stansted has exposed the Taliban on at least two broad counts - its military
regime that has been oppressive and its attitude to hijacking. Between
Christmas and New Year's eve, the whole world watched helplessly how the
Taliban behaved during the hijack of the Indian Airlines flight, which
landed at Kandahar in Afghanistan. The collusion between the Taliban and
the Islamic fundamentalists who hijacked the aircraft and killed one of
the innocent passengers, while threatening to blow up the plane if fellow
terrorists in Indian jails were not released, became obvious. The very
same Taliban, which allowed the hijackers to walk away scot-free after
securing the release of three terrorists from India, now says: "Criminals
must be punished no matter where they are". Its European envoy, Gen. Rahmatullah
Safi, was quoted as saying that innocent passengers would have nothing
to fear if they returned home, but the 'pirates' would face death under
Afghan Islamic laws. But where is the guarantee that even the passengers
or their families will be spared if they return, especially if it is true
that some 40 of them belong to an extended-family circle? This is something
that the British authorities must reckon with before deciding on the asylum
demands of 74 passengers.
As for the hijackers,
they will stand trial in British courts and it will take several months,
if not a couple of years, to complete it. Then what? Can they ever return
to Kabul as long as the Taliban remains in command? Though the hijacking
of an aircraft can never be condoned or pardoned and must be dealt with
according to laws, this episode delivers a clear message - the international
community has to do something about Afghanistan as soon as possible. The
Taliban cannot ask for double-standards and must be prepared to do what
it wants others to do in similar circumstances. The U.N. and the International
Civil Aviation Organisation must evolve a set of standard procedures to
deal with hijacking of aircraft. It may be useful to have an international
court to try all hijackers, if more than one country is involved so that
there will be a fair trial and a deterrent punishment. Every country or
Government must be a signatory to such an agreement to ensure that there
are no safe havens for hijackers and they are brought to justice. In this
particular case, one only hopes that things will improve in Afghanistan
and the people, particularly women, lead a normal life. The international
community has a duty to ensure this so that hijacking does not become an
easy route for asylum-seekers.
