Author: ML Kotru
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 11, 2002
If terrorism be terrorism, how come
terrorism against the US is to be accepted as more heinous than terrorism
against India? But the question is why should anyone try to draw a distinction
between the attacks on New York's twin towers and the attacks on the Indian
Parliament? British Prime Minister Tony Blair was about to fall for this
fine distinction when he made that unfortunate off-the-cuff reference to
Pakistan having a strong case on Kashmir, even as he opposed terrorism
in any form.
It was only later that Mr Blair
realised the anger generated by that remark. In fact, he had to face the
anger of Union Minister Pramod Mahajan from the same platform - of the
CII at Bangalore - when Mr Mahajan sarcastically spoke of Mr Blair having
chosen to come to India to cool tempers. "India has stayed cool for over
50 years," Mahajan shot back.
Mr Blair was at pains to explain
to Star TV's Prannoy Roy, in an obviously hurriedly arranged interview,
that his remarks had been wholly misunderstood. What he meant was that
Pakistan was making out a case for its position in Kashmir just as India
had maintained its own.
Later, during his talks with Prime
Minister Vajpayee, he shared his anguish yet again over the attacks on
the Srinagar Assembly complex on October 1 and on Parliament House on December
13. Mr Blair and Mr Vajpayee said in their joint statement, that those
who finance, train or support terrorist are indeed guilty.
Washington announced its intention
to send an envoy to the region, only to learn within hours that the appointment
would be unacceptable to New Delhi. Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh quickly
rejected the suggestion. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department, who had first spoken of the possibility of the
President naming the envoy himself, did a quick turnabout. The US was not
sending an envoy but may consider sending one of its officials like Under
Secretary Richard Armitage who had visited New Delhi earlier also.
The cavalier manner in which the
US declared its intention shows a singular lack of appreciation by Washington
of Indian sensitivities. It's true that Americans are worried by the military
stand-off along the India-Pakistan border but it has the existing diplomatic
channels available to it to try to seek de-escalation. The Americans don't
have to act as the super-cop, designating envoys to pull up, as it were,
an errant India. They couldn't be unaware of the Indian position, accepted
by Pakistan as well at Simla and Lahore, that all Indo-Pak disputes shall
be resolved bilaterally and peacefully. It's one thing in the circumstances
for the US to commend restraint to both sides in the present crisis situation
and quite another to try to assume the role of a mediator.
Earlier, US Administration has tried
similar ploys beginning with the machinations of Ambassador Loy Henderson
in the early 1950s, Chester Bowles, Sherman Cooper and the UN-blessed Dr
Graham, an American Senator, et al. The basic problem facing the Indian
nation is one posed by Pakistan, namely sponsored terrorism by that country
in Jammu & Kashmir. And the US would do well to tell President Musharraf
bluntly that he cannot get away with tokenism such as arresting some 200
jihadis and a clutch of their leaders or that he has asked all Pak-based
terrorist outfits to shift their shop to so-called Azad Kashmir.
Does one presume that by asking
Pakistani terrorists to shift their training camps from Azad Kashmir, he
is giving the Indians the option to act militarily against the camps operating
from the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control? He cannot make jihad
in J&K an indigenous freedom movement merely by shifting terrorist
bases to "Azad" Kashmir. The fact is that the terrorists are trained, armed,
and financed by Islamabad and it is this which must stop if the two countries
are to a work towards a resolution of outstanding disputes.
In his address at the SAARC summit
opening in Kathmandu, President Musharraf was very particular to draw a
distinction between what happened in New York on September 11 and whatever
is happening east of Pakistan. He may have condemned the attacks on Parliament
House in New Delhi on December 13 but it was one of those pro forma statements
people make; he wouldn't even consider a Pakistani hand in the attack.
President Musharraf is not loath
to show his indignation when asked about Pakistani involvement in terrorism
in Kashmir. He still insists that India has not furnished the details of
the charges against the 20 terrorists and criminals harboured by Pakistan.
He would want one to believe that he is unaware of the charges against
Maulana Masood or Islamabad-based Hizb chief Salahuddin.
The General does not even know of
the red corner arrest warrants against Karachi-based Dawood Ibrahim and
his gangs issued by Interpol. He can always turn around and, with a foot
soldier's insouciance, argue that he is motivated only by Pakistan's national
interest and that being a commando it is likely his "directness" is misunderstood.
Like, the Chaplinesque walk down the podium past seated heads of Government
to shake Atal Bihari Vajpayee's hand. It was very theatrical, well thought
out commando move, which predictably earned him a round of applause. But,
the "deft" master-stroke didn't have the expected effect.