Author: Claude Arpi
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 20, 2005
During the last few weeks, 'terrorism'
has again made the headlines in the media. In India commentators
have even forgotten the controversy of whether Jinnah was 'secular'
or 'communal' or both, to comment on the events in Ayodhya and London.
After the euphoria generated by the opening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad
bus journey and the general thaw in the Indo-Pakistan relationship,
the public as well as the government tended to believe that terrorism
was a thing of the past.
On July 5, the UPA Government woke
up to the sad reality; terrorism's ugly head had not vanished; it
was very much in our midst. Six militants stormed the high-security
Ram temple in Ayodhya. Thanks to the alertness of the CRPF, five
militants were killed before they could make it to the shrine. A
sixth one blew himself up. Four AK-47 and AK-56 rifles, hand grenades
and ammunition were recovered from the bodies of the slain militants.
They probably belong to the banned
terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba, a wing of Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad,
a fanatic organisation based in Muridke near Lahore. In a pamphlet
titled, 'Why we are waging jihad', this group, which attacked the
Indian Parliament in 2003 had openly declared: "One of our objectives
is the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India, not just
in Jammu and Kashmir."
One can imagine what would have
happened in North India had the militants come near the idols of
the makeshift Ayodhya Mandir. Two days later, four explosions in
the London Underground and in a bus in centre of the City attracted
even larger media coverage. Of course, when this type of terrorist
attack occurs in the West, it immediately becomes an attack against
Western civilisation, while when it happens in India, the tendency
is to blame India's animosity with Pakistan.
But why fault Western media and
politicians; India's own Foreign Minister declared that he hoped
"the peace process with Pakistan would continue unimpeded unless
there is a terrorist attack like the one witnessed in London". Obviously
for him, Ayodhya was no terror.
A couple of days before the events
in UP, the word 'terrorism' was also the mantra of the leaders of
the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a grouping of Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and China who met for
two days in Astana, the new capital of Kazakhstan. Though termed
as 'anti-terrorist summit', the head of states of the Central Asian
countries seemed more interested to see how the Shanghai group could
be a counterweight to the increasing presence of the US in the region.
During his 4-day stay in Russia, the Chinese President Hu Jintao
had already reaffirmed Beijing's strategic alliance with Moscow.
With President Putin, they declared their opposition to "any one
state's (read the US) domination of international affairs".
At the SCO gathering, India, Pakistan
and Iran were given observer status. The Indian Foreign Minister
gave the standard speech: "The SCO was one of the first major international
organisations to take concrete steps in the war against terrorism,
much before the events of September 11, 2001 focused the attention
of the international community on the need to pool their resources
in the war against terrorism, extremism and intolerance. As terrorism
today has become a sinister transnational activity... it can be successfully
countered through joint efforts by all states."
In theory, everybody can only agree.
The problem remains: Is Delhi ready to spoil the newly found relaxed
relation with Islamabad by calling a spade a spade? Indeed, the jihadi
activities have recently increased in the subcontinent and the Government
has not always done its homework.
In this context, a news item which
did not get any coverage in India appeared in The Washington Post
on July 3. In an investigative piece, the existence of a top secret
center in Paris, code-named Alliance Base was disclosed. This intelligence
centre was set up by the CIA and French intelligence services in
2002.
According to The Washington Post:
"Funded largely by the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, Alliance Base
analyses the transnational movement of terrorist suspects and develops
operations to catch or spy on them. Alliance Base demonstrates how
most counterterrorism operations actually take place: Through secretive
alliances between the CIA and other countries' intelligence services.
This is not the work of large army formations, or even small special
forces teams, but of handfuls of US intelligence case officers working
with handfuls of foreign operatives, often in tentative arrangements."
The journalist added, "Such joint
intelligence work has been responsible for identifying, tracking
and capturing or killing the vast majority of committed jihadists
who have been targeted outside Iraq and Afghanistan since the Sept
11, 2001, attacks."
The interesting aspect of this success
story is that it was conceived at a time when the relations between
Paris and Washington were fast deteriorating. It was a few months
before the beginning of the Iraq War, when all over the United States
the 'French fries' had become 'Freedom fries' while Dominique de
Villepin, the then French Foreign Minister was criticised a great
deal in the US for giving a spirited speech against the war in the
UNSC.
During the time that Mr Donald Rumsfeld,
the hawkish US Defence Secretary was telling everybody that France
was not doing its share in fighting terrorism, the anti-terrorist
cell was operational. A CIA officer familiar with the Alliance Base
told the American paper, "It's really an effort to deal with some
of the cooperation issues; I don't know of anything like it."
The Alliance Base is headed by a
French general working for the General Directorate for External Security
(DGSE), the French equivalent of the CIA. The base has officers from
Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and the United States.
The report explains: "To play down the US role, the centre's working
language is French. The base selects its cases carefully, chooses
a lead country for each operation, and that country's service runs
the operation."
At a time when the Indian Prime
Minister is visiting the United States and is scheduled to meet President
Bush, could a similar set up be envisaged between India - which had
been subjected to hundreds of terrorist attacks during the past decades
- and the United States?
A report of Pacific Council on International
Policy (from the US) and the Observer Research Foundation (from India)
covering growing aspects of the relationship between India and the
US, particularly areas such as technology, healthcare, higher education
and culture, was recently released.
This report is certainly a good
effort and will help opening new vistas, except for a misplaced remark:
"(In the strategic relationship) it would appear that India needs
the United States more than the United States needs India. For the
United States, good relations with India are desirable but not essential,
whereas they remain essential for India." In the long-drawn battle
against terror, the United States certainly needs India more than
vice-versa. A collaboration "of equals" (as in the French case),
would undoubtedly be immensely beneficial to both.
Just take the madarsas and the jihadi
camps in Pakistan: Information could be shared and common action
undertaken by the US and India which would go a long way to muzzle
terrorists elements operating from Pakistan. If this could be the
sole outcome of Mr Manmohan Singh's visit to the States, it would
be worth the trip. Though if it ever occurs, we will know about it
only in 30 years!
There could be a collateral: The
CIA would learn that the Siachen is in India's possession. In its
website (updated on June 30, 2005), it still shows the glacier as
occupied by Pakistan. "Mountain of peace" or not, the US agency would
be forced to get its facts together.
