Author: Claude Arpi
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 7, 2006
Manmohan Singh's Government is high on rhetoric
but low on resolute action in order to deal with terrorism ---- I was in Delhi
when France played the final of the FIFA World Cup against Italy. The next
few days were not easy for Persons of French Origin. Until then I had thought
football generated little interest in India, but suddenly I discovered there
were millions of 'specialists' giving their opinion. Of course, the most talked
about incident was Zidane's head-butt. Condemnation was unanimous. I had to
duck questions like, "How could he do that?" "Such bad manners?"
A few days later, a series of bomb blasts in Mumbai killed nearly 200 people.
Though Government was quick to condemn this atrocious act 'planned' from across
the border, nothing was done except the usual VVIPs visits and the police's
daily press conferences. Zidane's head butt then came back to my mind: Is
it healthy to always be beaten and insulted and to say nothing? Retrospectively,
I can't condemn Zidane.
In the far more serious case of the bomb blasts,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could only assert that his Government "cannot
allow the (terrorists) to succeed and get away with their crimes". Would
a 'legitimate' head butt make the perpetrators of terror better understand
that they can't "get away with crime"?
The next day was the announcement of the dramatic
arrest in Nigeria (and later disappearance) of Syed Abdul Karim, alias Tunda.
He is one of the founders of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and one of the 20 terrorists
whose extradition was demanded from Gen Musharraf after the 2001 attack on
Parliament. The list includes Dawood Ibrahim, LeT chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed
and JeM's Maulana Masood Azhar.
After Mumbai bombings, the MEA spokesman suddenly
remembered that the list of 20 had been given to the Pakistani dictator. The
spokesman could only say that India was disappointed at the General's continued
denial of the presence of terror groups in his country and Pakistan's failure
to take action against jihadi outfits. But what has India done to press its
point?
Delhi said that it remained committed to the
dialogue process, though the Foreign Secretaries' talks were postponed. The
problem seems to me that the Indian officials remain mild only because they
are afraid to get a red card from the Americans, who refuse to pressure their
favourite dictator to book the infamous 20.
I recently began sorting out some old historical
documents collected over the years. Soon after Gen Musharraf's speech, I came
across a letter I had forgotten. It was written in January 1959 by Bernard
Dufournier, the French Ambassador to Pakistan, to his boss and Foreign Minister,
Maurice Couve de Murvillle.
Dufournier analyses the situation two months
after Gen Ayub Khan's and his self-promotion as Field Marshall. The striking
analysis of the diplomats says: "The establishment of a dictatorship
in Pakistan coincides with new tensions between Delhi and Karachi." The
renewed tensions were obviously centred on the 'K' issue. The ambassador writes:
"Pakistan's claims (on Kashmir) seem without hope, as India will not
backtrack on Kashmir accession and one more resolution in the UN will not
change this basic fact."
Then, a more interesting question: "However,
would the politicians in Karachi play (in such way) with the fate of Pakistan
if, behind the screen, were not hidden deeper designs?" The letter mentions
"tactics serving to cover a more tortuous strategy, whose motives cannot
be openly exposed". What is the strategy; the answer is: "The final
objective (is) to throw back into question partition itself and change the
balance put in place by the (British) power in 1947."
Dufournier continues: "If one accepts
this hypothesis, the policy of Karachi Government is an open book. The Pakistanis
have never accepted the repartition of territories between the India and Pakistan."
Meanwhile, using a rostrum near Red Fort,
Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, blamed the Shiv Sena
and RSS for the Mumbai blasts. He even said that he was willing to visit Pakistan
and 'talk' to LeT commanders if he was given proof of their involvement: "If
they are responsible then we will talk to them, tell them that they do more
harm to the cause of Islam."
The Imam added, "If you want to end terrorism,
then you would also have to end state terrorism." What does it mean?
During the UP election campaign he had said: "When Muslims get targeted
under these so-called secular parties, it is time we taught them a lesson.
It is time Shias, Sunnis, Ansaris, Saifis, Barelvis, Qureshis and all else
stand up as one - as Muslims - and snatch back our collective rights and dignity."
Does not secular India forbid appealing for votes on religious grounds?
In 1959, the French diplomat, speaking of
the possibility of Pakistan's holy war, had concluded: "The minarets
of the Delhi mosques will loom on the horizons as a mirage, this dream is
for many Pakistanis, at least for the political leaders, the reality of tomorrow...
it is from this angle that the military dictatorship envisages its future
relations with India."
Much water has flowed down the Indus since
1947, but one thing has not changed: The US still supports Pakistan. Could
a 'diplomatic' head butt make it wake up to the reality? Unfortunately, Delhi
is too obsessed with the 'deal'!
