The fidayeen attack on Indian Parliament has escalated tensions between
India and Pakistan to a dangerous level. The attack was a grave
misadventure indeed. Nevertheless, the chances of its success were slim
as
the event itself proved. Our reaction to this tragedy has appeared in
the
form of a war euphoria, which I think is an insincere response. War is
not
a conflict between ruling elites. It is havoc wrecked upon the masses,
who
by no strech of imagination can be equated with the ruling elite. In
fact
the contradiction between the elite and the masses is the most
fundamental one of all. The former wield economic and political power
while the latter are expolited and meek. We must also remember that the
masses of different countries are the same. Hence, war must be avoided
at
all costs unless pushed totally against the wall. If we cannot justify
violence against economic exploitation, how could one justify war
against
sporadic acts of terror?
The cries for war are imanating from privileged sections. I am afraid,
none of these people would ever like go to the battle field and risk
their
lives. Nor would they like to face any inconvenience or discomfort. They
look for fanciful wars, to watch their excitement on TV screens. They
are
unmindful of their lack of courage and insensitivity. They quote unjust
examples of USA's war on Afghanistan and Israel's attacks on
Palestinians
to justify their thirst for war. Both instances, however, represent
gross
conditioning. These have weakened the inner vitality of their own
people. I think this is a very heavy price any poor country would like
to
pay. We do not have wealth or weapons. Soul is our strength and its
vitality rests on truth and sensitivity. Let us feel the agony of Indian
and Pakistani masses and see beyond temporary irritants.
We live in a world of contradictions where intelligence agencies of
different countries work at cross purposes against each other and at
times
target political leaders. Aggrieved parties, criminals and mafia dons
also
target them. Hence VIPs always run a higher risk. Any flaws in their
security must be addressed forth with. However, security of VIPs is not
made out a case for war. We lost Rajeev Gandhi but we did not attack
LTTE
bases in Sri Lanka. Numerous coups were carried out by big powers in
third
world countries but none of the sponsoring countries were attacked. In
1979 a bomb blast killed 70 top leaders of Iran. In Cuba several
attempts
were made on President Castro's life. But there were no wars. Tighter
security arrangements were indeed made and these were helpful to a
significant measure.
As far as fidayeen attacks are concerned we must examine the nature,
cause
and strength of these groups dispassionately. The fidayeens are not the
criminals like Veerappan or Mafia dons who do it for money and to reign
their authority. They are intoxicated by the sectarian view of Kashmir
problem as also of the strife in Bosnia, Iraq, Palestine and other
places
where lakhs of Muslims have indeed perished. Their commitment has been
reinforced by religous fundamentalism to the level of self
sacrifice. However, fidayeens do not have the shrewdness of communalists
who strive to capture political power by polarising people. Communalists
do not attack the mightiest but the armless and the weak to create an
atmosphere of mistrust and hatred. Communalists of all religious
shades have been subservient to the interests of rich nations in last
fifty years. Now they wield enormous political power in many countries
including India and Pakistan. The fidayeens' leaders also served the
interests of big powers till a few years ago. Now they indulge in mafia
operations for their financial support. This is their weakest point
contrary to their hyperbole idealism. Their utter disregard for the
lives
of fidayeen youth and forcing them to hit against the might of the state
with no chance of success will eventually break them. At a subdued level
terrorism will always continue as long as Kashmir remains a dispute
between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri people, and no genuine initiative
emerges to break the deadlock.
A year ago the Government of India had invited Hizbul Mujahideen, the
largest terrorist outfit in Kashmir, for talks saying that they are the
indigineous group, i.e., of Indian origin. In September 2001, The Hindu
published a report that in last 11 years of militancy in Kashmir 1087
militants of foreign origin have been killed. This is only a small
fraction of total number of militants killed in Kashmir. These facts
imply
that militancy in Kashmir to a very significant extent has roots in
Kashmir. Only by winning over the people of Kashmir we may conter
terrorism over there. As far as ISI support to militants is concerned
it must be broken by intelligence and by political and diplomatic means.
To revenge seekers I may add that the people of Kashmir, for no
fault of theirs, have already paid a heavy price of 40,000 innocent
lives
to terrorist violence and the armed repression of it by the State.
The present situation has another dangerous dimension too. An air of
suspicion is being buit up against the Muslim masses. The forces who
raised terrorising slogans like "Babur ki auladon se badla lenge" a
decade ago are branding an entire community a terrorist. This must be
resisted resolutely. Terrorists beyond the frontires of disturbed states
have merely sporadic contacts which can be identified tactfully without
torturing the innocent. It is in this atmosphere that POTO would prove
disaserous.
At times I wonder whether there is room for nonviolent activism
against terror. Armed resistance of terror by the state is fraght with
ill
effects for the masses leading to their alienation. Nonviolence can
succeed if the activists can overcome the fear of death like the
fidayeens and develop a nonviolent mode of struggle against the genuine
grievances of the masses. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had created valiant
nonviolent fighters from the land known for warrior instincts as he
addressed their basic problems. Kashmir and Assam pose a serious
challenge
for nonviolent activism. So does the growing menace of sectarianism and
economic exploitation.
BY the time this short piece appears in print we will know if we have
taken one step closer to a war with Pakistan or taken two back from
the edge. There cannot be a more depressing note with which a
newspaper column ends the year: there can be no certainty about even
a few days of "peace" in South Asia. The unfortunate part is that
even if better sense prevails and an open war is avoided, this does
not mean that India and Pakistan will be any closer to living in
peace. It only means that we return to a situation which we seem to
have become inured to over the decades: open animosity and permanent
low-level conflict.
The strange thing about the widespread anger that has followed the
December 13 terrorism is that while most middle or upper middle class
Indians are usually contemptuous about politics and politicians, they
have lost no time in displaying a hurt pride about the terrorist
attack on Parliament. If only such anger was regularly channelled
into making our democracy work better, perhaps we would be in much
better shape. What we have instead is the frightening ease with which
many of the defence (un)thinkers, media commentators and the
jingoists have been able to whip up a war hysteria in which all of us
are either active participants or silent accomplices.
A day or two after the December 13 attack, there was one of those TV
shows in which pundits of different kinds answer questions from an
audience. These programmes seem more useful for what they reveal of
the minds of the (selected?) audience than for any informed debate.
This one was true to form. A college student asked a question which
went like this,``If the United States can bomb Afghanistan, if Israel
can bomb Palestine, why do we hesitate to bomb Pakistan?''As I have
subsequently learnt this is a widespread view. Even our former Prime
Minister Mr. V.P. Singh, who these days likes to wear the cap of a
wise senior statesman, has posed a similar question. There are many
things horrifying about such a query. It takes for granted that the
U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is just retribution for the murders of
September 11. It says that Palestine deserves to be bombed and that
Israel has nothing to answer for. And that all this applies as well
to any Indian attack on Pakistan. (If it was disconcerting that a
young Indian in his teens could articulate such a view, it was just
as worrying that none in that TV panel of pundits even bothered to
debate the premises of the question.)
The U.S. war on Afghanistan will henceforth confer legitimacy on the
action that any country may take any where in the world in revenge
for attacks on itself - real, imagined or threatened and irrespective
of whether or not the "target" country is guilty. That is the real
legacy of the U.S. bombing - not the end of the Taliban or the
Al-Qaeda network. As an aside, do we know what the civilian
casualties in such a war are? A friend recently referred me to a
careful compilation of the civilian deaths in the bombing of
Afghanistan. (Readers may want to see the site
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/index.html for this
compilation.)
On a very conservative basis, the barest minimum number of innocents
killed in Afghanistan between October 7 and December 3 was 3,752. The
actual toll is likely to have been much more. Nobody is raising any
questions about these dead civilians. Not the world media. and
certainly not the United Nations. The Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, may have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, but this year will
also go down as one in which the U.N. finally lost its fig leaf of
independence.
The civilian dead in Afghanistan number the same as the people
murdered in the terrorists attacks in the U.S.. An eye for an eye
then, except that we know that this is not going to end terrorism by
fundamentalists. In much the same way, we all know that a limited war
against Pakistan is not going to bring peace to Kashmir. Even when it
comes to destroying training camps, senior Army officers tell us that
these camps are little more than squares for drills and target
practices. Bombing the camps will not wipe out terrorism. It only
makes more likely the possibility of an open war between two nuclear
powers and with that the eruption of an Armageddon in South Asia.
There must be something wrong when peace becomes a contrarian theme.
But gloomy as such times are, one can only pray for peace in 2002.
Miracles may indeed happen.
New Delhi, Dec. 29: The Army Medical Corps is ready to deal with
any situation! arising out of a nuclear, chemical or biological war.
The director-general (Armed Forces Services), Lt.-Gen. R.K. Jetley,
said that the AMC does not need to take any special step to tackle
such a scenario. "We have a capsule on the issue in the training
that we impart and after the September 11 attack in the United
States all that we did was refreshing." Gen. Jetley was interacting
with reporters on the occasion of the 238th anniversary of AMC. He
said, "The recent conflict in the Asian region after the terrorist
attack on the World Trade Centre in New York followed by
biological warfare (anthrax) has given us the impetus to formulate
new strategies to protect and treat the fighting troops from the
devastating effects of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
Islamabad, Dec. 29: The Pakistan government on Saturday
directed all the cable TV operators in the country to stop relaying
broadcasts of all Indian satellite TV channels including the Star TV
network on the grounds that they indulged in propagating "injurious
material against the security of Pakistan." Pakistan said that
Indian channels were propagating injurious material against the
security of Pakistan and their relay by cable TV operators was in
violation of the conditions of the license issued by Pakistan
Television Authority to them. "PTA has hereby directed all cable TV
operators to stop relaying all Indian and Star satellite channels over
their network forthwith," it said.
The Kashmir University campus has been declared out of bounds for the
media and the vice-chancellor has instructed university teachers to
keep away from the media and avoid expressing their opinions on
political matters. This is nothing short of an assault on academic
freedom and fundamental rights and the silence of the national media
on it mirrors the media's indifference to all the other outrages
perpetrated in Kashmir.
It is not only India's secularism and democracy which are barred from
crossing the Pir Panjal range in Kashmir, so is its academic freedom.
The silence of India's media and academia on the recent assaults on
academic freedom in Kashmir fits into the pattern of similar
indifference to other outrages there.
First, the facts as reported in three dailies, in chronological
order. The Times of India published this very brief report in its
issue of October 21, 2001 from its Srinagar correspondent, under the
headline 'Kashmir Varsity Teachers Instructed Not to Discuss Politics
or Talk to Presspersons'. The report is reproduced in extenso:
The Kashmir University campus has been declared out of bounds for
journalists by its vice-chancellor Jalees Ahmad Khan Tareen.
University teachers have also been instructed to keep away from the
press and avoid talking about politics.
Sources said that governor G C Saxena, who is also the chancellor of
Kashmir University, was upset by some lecturers talking about the
situation in Jammu and Kashmir on private TV channels. The VC
subsequently passed the orders whereby all print and TV journalists
will require permission from the VC's office to enter the campus. The
controversy erupted when some university teachers made some
anti-national remarks during a discussion in a programme on a private
TV channel. A J and K minister was also participating in the
discussion. The government has taken objection to the remarks made by
a lady teacher in the programme and is contemplating action against
her, according to sources.
The fundamental rights of students and teachers were thus wantonly
flouted. A university campus is not a prison. It is a body corporate
set-up by statute and squarely falls within the definition of 'the
State' in Article 12 of the Constitution. In consequence the entire
Part III on fundamental rights applies to all concerned, the students
and the teachers included. "Reasonable restrictions" can be imposed
as are appropriate to an educational institution, in the interests
inter alia of discipline. This cannot serve as an excuse to deny or
abridge the rights.
Section 43(1) of the British Education Act, 1986 provides an
instructive parallel. "Every individual and body of persons concerned
in the government of any establishment to which this section applies
shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that
freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and
employees of the establishment and visiting speakers."
A university is a public body, not a cloistered establishment.
Journalists are even allowed access to prisons to see for themselves
and report to the public the conditions that obtain there. It is
insulting to suggest that a university campus should grant less
freedom of access to the press. Many newspapers have special
correspondents who report on developments on university campuses. The
vice-chancellor's order is plainly a violation of Article 19(1)(a)(b)
- respectively, the guarantees of freedom of speech and of assembly -
of the Constitution.
However, Tariq Bhat's report from Srinagar in The Indian Experss of
October 27 was even more disturbing. It read thus:
Alarmed by the recent utterances of some teachers and the anti-US and
pro-Taliban protests on the campus, Kashmir University is planning to
constitute an 'intelligence wing' to spy on 'erring' teachers,
scholars and students. The intelligence wing will record all
activities of staff and report the same to the vice-chancellor for
action. The idea of keeping an eye on staff, especially teachers, was
mooted by chief minister Farooq Abdullah, also the university
pro-chancellor, at the apex university council meeting on Sunday
[October 21] sources said. "The chief minister asked the VC to
constitute an intelligence wing, probe the activities of teachers and
students and throw all such elements out of the university", an
official who attended the meeting said.
[more ...]
ISLAMABAD, DECEMBER 28: AS INDIA and Pakistan continue trading fire across the border and imposing a range of political and economic sanctions on each other, frightened Pakistani villagers have begun fleeing their homes once again. This despite messages of reassurance from Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, who has gone out of his way to play down fears of a war. "There is no need for anyone to worry," Singh said on Thursday. His words may have been designed to calm fears in Islamabad, Washington and other diplomatic centers, but they appear have had little impact in the border regions.
WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD, Dec. 28. - US President Mi-George W Bush today said his administration was actively trying to bring calm in Indian subcontinent by asking India and Pakistan to stop escalation of force and praised Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf for moving against terrorists.
index | HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |