India's encounters with Islamic terrorism perpetrated by home grown militants supported by Al Qaida and its subsidiaries, has a long history. Long before Osama Bin Laden was a glint in the evil eyes of Bush-Cheney, India had been targeted for civilian deaths by Kashmiri militants, Al Qaida, Taliban and assorted Pakistan sponsored terrorists. Ironically, these holy warriors (then known as the freedom loving Mujahedins) had been armed to a large extent by the US government during the '80s and the '90s to fight the godless Russian commies in Afghanistan. Predicatably enough, once the Russians had packed up and left, those weapons were pointed towards India (at that time, enemy # 2 on the Islamic radicals' list of "things to do", after Israel . India was subsequently relegated to third place once the US went to the top of the list as Satan #1). Having rid the region of Russian influence and scored cold war points, the US cared little if the natives slaughtered each other and shrugged off the Indian-Pakistan problem as a historic and intractable cultural war.
Although there never was anything as spectacular as the one day event of 9/11, India's brush with terrorism has been more like Chinese water torture. Numerous incidents, including an Indian Airlines plane hijacking, spread over many years, at many different geographic locations. It was always clear to India that its neighbor and long time adversary, Pakistan has played a major role in this matter. Pakistan too was armed to its teeth by the US for decades in order to keep democratic India from becoming too big for its boots - until the twin towers in New York were hit and American politicians could no longer turn a blind eye to Pakistan's sponsoring role in global terror. The Indian government so far, unlike Israel, has shown remarkable restraint in retaliating against the menace of cross border terrorism.
The bone of contention between India and Pakistan is the disputed territory of Kashmir which both nations claim as theirs and from where Kashmiri Hindus have been methodically cleansed in order to make the Kashmir valley into a virtually all Muslim region. Kashmir is a long and complicated story whose roots go back to India's partition in 1947 into secular India and Islamic Pakistan. This blog post does not lend itself to recounting the historic aspects of the problem. But after yesterday's bomb blast in Mumbai where more civilians died than did in the London subway blast, many in India and the US are asking how long can India be asked to keep calm, faced with such provocation. Today's Washington Post asks this pertinent question : "How Much Will India Endure? Pakistan Needs to Respond to Militants"
"Yesterday's awful rush-hour bombings of trains in Bombay raise an important and ominous question: How far can India be pushed?
In December 2001 India and Pakistan almost went to war when a group of militants, based on Pakistani-controlled territory, attacked the Indian Parliament, killing nine people. India's response was to mobilize forces along its border with Pakistan. Predictably and understandably, Pakistan followed suit. The U.S. State Department ordered all non-vital personnel out of both countries, and the world prepared for what could well have been the first war ever between two nuclear powers.
But due largely to extensive, active and exhaustive mediation by central figures from the West, tensions were ratcheted down, and in time forces were demobilized.
This time, it is not the West that needs to show leadership but the two countries themselves. They need to back up their words with actions. The leaders of India and Pakistan stated in April 2005 that "the peace process was now irreversible"; unless they both take action, this is now in question.
Three years ago, at first very quietly and with great sensitivity, India and Pakistan launched what was called the "composite dialogue." The subjects ranged from economics to land to water to drugs to security. While many have suggested that these talks are going nowhere, they have led to some small but tangible progress.
This is all good. What hasn't happened is arguably even more impressive. Despite an attack on a religious complex in Ayodhya last July, again by militants based in Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that the dialogue would continue.
But -- and here's the crux of the matter -- how long can India, Indians and the Singh government withstand the constant pressure from militant groups before they have to react? By any measure of international diplomacy, they've already been extraordinarily patient; compare their restraint with Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldier or to the U.S. and Japanese responses to North Korea's missile tests... "
Hi Ruchira, Your post endeavors to put terrorism in the sub-continent in perspective. I have my own strong feelings (or should I say thoughts!) on this issue, some of which are on my blog .True, terrorism in this part of the world has its origins in American "Asia Strategy". However, the geo-political equations in the subcontinent and indeed the world, have undergone major changes since then. In the present context, India has the global standing and the wherewithal to take a tough stand against terror, if not retaliate. Though one can pick holes in the US battering Iraq and holding Saddam hostage, should India not show similar assertiveness if not aggression and send out a strong signal to terror groups? Do let me know what you think.
Posted by: Vasudha | July 17, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Vasudha:
That is all I am able to do - to put some of this in perspective and point fingers. Honestly, I have no answers.
I do see the need for better intelligence in India and the rest of the world for preventing as many such events as possible and punishing those who are caught. Beyond that I know little else.
My instinct is against pre-emptive wars, collective punishment and overwhelming force. After all, if those tactics worked, then Iraq would have been a success and Israel would have had peace with its neighbors by now! On the whole, India's restraint and efforts at diplomatic negotiations appear a better choice. But even there, if the negotiating partner is one as unreliable and lacking good faith as Pakistan, how much good can come out of that? But at least, India is not guilty of killing thousands of innocent people like the US and Israel are.
I don't think that much progress can be expected in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the citizens of the terrorist nations will have to put their feet down on this matter. After all, their lives too are at jeopardy.
My latest post,"Think out of the Biblical Box" is written half in jest. But can you think of any other solution?
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | July 17, 2006 at 09:06 AM