Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: October 8, 2004
URL: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041008/asp/opinion/story_3853234.asp
The threat in eastern India poses
a dilemma for the Congress
Despite pious proclamations to the
contrary, political discourse in a media-driven society invariably centres
on personalities. Consequently, governments and their ministers tend to
be judged by their projection rather than their policies or performance.
When feeble image management is coupled with disasters on the ground, the
effects are potentially catastrophic.
After the serial blasts in Assam
and Nagaland that killed nearly 50 people on October 2, there is a tendency
to attribute the escalating violence in the North-east on the colossal
ineptitude of the home minister, Shivraj Patil. Every Patil gaffe - he
called Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the prime minister of Bangladesh and threatened
to fence the Indo-Nepal border - appears to reinforce a growing impression
that internal security has been left to a man who is temperamentally suited
to be minister for textiles.
Patil's report card is distinctly
unimpressive. In just over four months in office, the United Progressive
Alliance's home minister has presided over the collapse of the internal
dialogue in Kashmir, civil unrest in Manipur and the return of terrorism
in Assam. In addition, there are serious internal security ramifications
of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and the unconcealed hostility of Bangladesh
towards India. Confronted by this awesome challenge, Patil conveys the
impression of being overwhelmed. He neither commands authority, nor does
he inspire popular confidence.
If the grapevine in Lutyens's Delhi
is any indication, it is possible that a more appropriate job will be found
for Patil after the Maharashtra elections. The onerous task of managing
internal security in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur has already been taken
out of the home minister's charge and entrusted to the prime minister's
internal security adviser, M.K. Narayanan. Coupled with the national security
adviser, J.N. Dixit, assuming responsibilities that should have been the
preserve of the minister for external affairs, there seems to be a tendency
on the part of the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to find personality-based
solutions to problems that are actually rooted in flawed policies.
At the heart of the recent mess
in eastern India is a problem of pusillanimity and denial. For over 18
months, Indian intelligence agencies have been warning of a dual threat
to national security in the region. The first is an extension of the "thousand
cuts" assault on India initiated by Pakistan in the Eighties, and which
shows no sign of waning, despite the Islamabad declaration of January and
Singh's "historic" meeting with the president, Pervez Musharraf, in New
York last month. The second is the Maoist insurgency whose epicentre is
in Nepal, but whose tentacles extend into Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and
Andhra Pradesh.
The importance of Bangladesh as
a springboard for insurgent groups operating in Assam and the North-eastern
states has now been openly and categorically acknowledged. It is not merely
that terrorist groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom, United
National Liberation Front, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and others
use Bangladesh as a sanctuary. But Indian intelligence also believes that
following the election of the Khaleda Zia government in July 2001, these
groups became dependant on Dhaka for funds, hardware, training and business
opportunities - such as facilitating arms supplies to other extremist groups
in India and Nepal.
Following the successful anti- insurgent
operations in Bhutan last December, the extent of dependence on Bangladesh
has increased to such an extent that groups like the ULFA and NDFB have
lost their autonomy. They are now pliant instruments of Islamic radicals
in the Bangladeshi state apparatus who, in turn, are under the influence
of the Inter-Services Intelligence in Pakistan. Bangladesh has become an
operational zone for bleeding India and ensuring a large deployment of
the army in the east - away from Kashmir and the border with Pakistan.
Of course, it would be erroneous
to reduce the entire problem to a Dhaka stage- managed show. Even before
the Bangladesh Nationalist Party government lent an official sanction to
the promotion of insurgency in the North-east, Bangla- desh had become
an important centre of Islamist activity. The low-intensity campaign to
reverse the legacy of the 1971 freedom struggle began with the 1975 coup
against Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. Since then, fuelled by generous endowments
from Saudi Arabia, the country has experienced a steady social regression.
Following 9/11, the social drift to orthodoxy has been complemented by
support for radical Islamism and terrorism - a reason why the United States
of America is anxious to be involved in In- dia's counter- terrorism initiatives.
The growth of Islamism is not confined
to Bangladesh. There is evidence to suggest that since 1996, Bangladeshi
Islamist groups have been taking particular care to establish a critical
mass of trained "sleepers" in Assam. Indian intelligence reports indicate
that there are some 5,000 Islamist activists, trained in the use of arms
and explosives, who have been strategically positioned in Assam. Judging
from the expressed concern of the chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee,
at the mushrooming of madrassahs in the border districts, it may be assumed
that the same problem exists in West Bengal.
The peculiarities of the security
threat in eastern India poses a dilemma for the Congress. Since the early
Sixties, when stalwarts like Moinul Huq Chowdhury and Fakh- ruddin Ali
Ahmed kept open the floodgates of Bangladeshi immigration, the Congress
has been disproportionately dependant on the Muslim vote for its sustenance
in Assam. The anti-foreigner agitation of the Eighties merely enhanced
this reliance. In one border constituency, for example, a Congress stalwart
has made cross-border voting a ritual. Therefore, regardless of what the
security pundits demand, the leadership of the Congress is burdened by
the knowledge that a robust response to Bangladesh could create electoral
ripples in Assam. The party is loath to lose a vote bank, as happened in
the immediate aftermath of the 1985 Assam Accord.
Ironically, the Communist Party
of India in West Bengal is not as inhibited by political expediency - a
possible reason why its chief minister is considered a "hawk" on the subject
of giving Bangladesh a bloody nose. It is another matter that the party
chooses not to make an open political fuss about the roots of the problem
- the demographic alteration of eastern India through illegal immigration
from Bangladesh.
The Congress's existential dilemma
does not end here. Apart from being squeamish on Bangladeshi immigration,
the Congress has also played footsie with the ULFA. During the past few
elections, it has not been uncommon for the ULFA to call for poll boycott
in selective areas. Since these localities happened to be dominated by
caste- Hindus who tilt towards parties like the Asom Gana Parishad and
Bharatiya Janata Party, ULFA-sponsored boycotts have proved quite advantageous
to the Congress.
Of course, Tarun Gogoi's debt to
ULFA's Paresh Barua may not be as profound as the Andhra Pradesh chief
minister, Y.S. Rajsekhar Red- dy's IOU to the People's War Group. Yet,
just as the PWG is leveraging its clout in Andhra Pradesh to apply brakes
on India's involvement inNepal's war against the Maoists, the imperatives
of the Assam Congress could be a deterrent against New Delhi telling Dhaka
exactly where to get off.
Maybe Gogoi still thinks he is dealing
with a handful of wayward Assamese nationalists. The sheer sophistication
of the timing device of the explosive that killed 16 children in Dhemaji
on August 15 should have told him otherwise. In any case, the serial blasts
of October 2, said to be the ULFA's response to an unconditional offer
for talks, should leave him in no doubt that there is a hidden hand behind
the ULFA. This is why it is important that the full magnitude of the threat
confronting India in the east is not only understood but acted upon. Bangladesh
has reacted to India's concerns with astonishing insolence. India must
reflect on the wisdom of either pretending to be deaf, dumb and blind or
exercising the right of self-defence.
