INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO.442
B.RAMAN
"Even though the US does not rate highly Zardari's leadership qualities, it prefers him to Nawaz because of his willingness to maintain Musharraf's policy of co-operation with the US in its so-called war against terrorism in Afghanistan and his perceived amenability to pressure by the US because of its role in persuading Musharraf, when he was the President, to issue the NRO ( National Reconciliation Ordinance). The US is also hopeful that, unlike Nawaz, Zardari will avoid any humiliation of Musharraf and will let him continue to live in Pakistan without fearing any harassment by the Government. Well-informed PPP sources say that the entire scenario has been proceeding according to a tacit understanding reached with US officials during the visit of Yousef Raza Gilani, the Prime Minister, and Rehman Malik, his Advisor on Internal Security, to Washington DC, in the last week of July, 2008. According to these sources, this understanding provided for: launching of a special land-cum-air operation by the Pakistan military against Al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in the Bajaur Agency, permission to be accorded by the Gilani Government for continuing unmanned Predator strikes by the US intelligence agencies on terrorist hide-outs in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and US pressure on Musharraf to resign thus paving the way for the election of Zardari. The object of the entire exercise was to keep Nawaz out of power, marginalise him and keep up the present level of US-Pakistan co-operation against terrorism."
Extract from my article of August 27,2008, titled "AFTER TRICKY MUSH, TRICKY ZARDARI" at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2824.html
----------------------------------------------------
The same well-informed sources of the Pakistan People's Party cited in the above-mentioned article of August 27,2008, say that it is correct that Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari had been kept in the picture by officials of the Bush administration, including President George Bush himself, about the new rules of engagement approved by Bush in July before the visit of Gilani to Washington DC. Under these new rules of engagement, the US has been allowed to step up aerial attacks on suspected terrorist hide-outs in Pakistani territory by the Predator pilotless planes and undertake ground operations through special forces within a depth of not more than five kms if warranted by precise intelligence without informing the Pakistan Army beforehand. According to them, these rules of engagement also lay down that ground operations would be undertaken in such a manner as not to involve an accidental confrontation with the Pakistani security forces. As against three Predator strikes and no ground strike during the whole of last year when Pervez Musharraf was the President and the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), there have already been 12 Predator strikes and one ground strike since the Gilani Government came to office on March 18,2008.
2. These sources say that Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), was also briefed on these new rules of engagement during his meeting with Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, on board a US aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea on August 27,2008. However, Kayani has strongly denied this. A press release of the Inter-Services Press Office issued on September 10,2008, quoted Kayani as saying as follows while commenting on media reports: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all costs and no external force will be allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan. There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border."
3. Referring to his meeting with senior officers of the US on board USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft-carrier, on Aug 27, he said they were informed about the complexity of the issue that required understanding in depth and more patience for evolving a comprehensive solution.He said it was stressed that in such like situations, military action alone would not solve the problem. Political reconciliatory effort was required to get along with the military prong to win the hearts and minds of the people. During the discussions with the US officers, the imperative of public support at large for the military operations also came under focus."Ultimately it is our national interest which would always guide our policy. The trust deficit and misunderstandings (between the US and Pakistan armies) can lead to more complications and increase difficulties for all. The constraints of operating in these areas must never be lost sight of. There are no quick fixes in this war. Falling for short-term gains while ignoring our long-term interest is not the right way forward.To succeed, the coalition would be required to display strategic patience and help the other side the way they want it; rather than adopting a unilateral approach which may be counter productive. It is the multi-pronged approach, fully supported by the people of Pakistan, which will help us defeat the threat of internal terrorism," Kayani said.
4.These sources point out that before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto herself had said in media interviews that if she became the Prime Minister she would allow the US forces to search for Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory if they had reliable intelligence and allow the interrogation of Dr.A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, by an international team of investigators. She had also said that she would consider the arrest of Dawood Ibrahim, the Indian mafia leader, if he was found in Pakistan and hand him over to India. According to these sources. Zardari is merely following the policies as laid down by her. These sources say that both she and Zardari were concerned over the control established by Al Qaeda and the Taliban over the Pashtun tribal belt and wanted to fully co-operate with the US in neutralising them.
5. According to these sources, Zardari, Gilani and Kayani have been completely taken aback by the leakage of the information about the new rules of engagement to sections of the media by unidentified officials in Washington DC. They are reportedly indignant over this leakage, which, they fear, could worsen the situation in the tribal belt and result in a fresh upsurge of suicide terrorism directed against Pakistani security forces and leaders, including possibly Zardari himself. They say that this was a gentlemen's agreement reached in total secrecy and by leaking it out, the US has made it difficult for Pakistan to step up the co-operation with the US against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are unable to understand the motives of the US officials who leaked out this information and whether this leakage had the authorisation of Bush and other senior leaders.
6. Kayani is stated to be indignant over the officially-leaked allegations in sections of the US media that he was aware of the plans of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for a car bomb explosion outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7,2008. He reportedly feels that what he regards as such reckless media allegations in the US, inspired by unidentified officials, tend to damage his image in the eyes of his soldiers and this could be counter-productive.
7. Zardari and Gilani are in a dilemma due to the media leaks in the US and the strong reactions of Kayani and the Corps Commanders to it. While backing the strong line taken by Kayani without consulting the political leadership, Gilani has been urging that this matter should be left to be handled by the Pakistani Foreign Office through the US State Department and that everyone should refrain from comments or reactions, which might add to the already strong anti-US anger in the public. The "Dawn" of September 13,2008, has quoted Gilani as saying as follows during an Iftar (fast-breaking) party on September 12,2008: "Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has ruled out retaliatory action against incursions by US-led coalition forces into Pakistan’s territory and said that the Government will instead use diplomatic channels to dissuade the United States and the United Kingdom from taking such actions.Replying to a question about a US missile attack in North Waziristan on Friday morning, the Prime Minister said: “We can take up the issue of these attacks at the diplomatic level but we cannot go to war.”He said: “Pakistan is capable of dealing effectively with terrorists and militants on its soil.” He reiterated that Pakistan was capable of taking action against terrorism inside the country in an affective way.Mr Gilani said Pakistan had cordial relations with all countries and it could convince them that the situation in its areas was its internal matter. “We will convince both the US and the UK to respect our sovereignty.”
8. In the meanwhile, to convince the US of its sincerity in fighting terrorism, the Gilani Government has withdrawn the suspension of its military operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban elements in the Bajaur Agency. The Frontier Corps (FC) and the Air Force have again started attacking the terrorist strongholds and claim to have already killed over 100 jihadis, many of them allegedly foreigners. (13-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ISI-SPONSORED ATTACK ON INDIAN EMBASSY IN KABUL BOOMERANGS
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR: PAPER NO.440
B.RAMAN
(To be read in continuation of my earlier paper of September 4,2008, titled "US Special Forces Launch Hit & Withdraw Raid in S. Waziristan"at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2832.html )
The car bomb explosion outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7,2008, has boomeranged on Pakistan. According to reliable Pakistanipolice sources, the US has been able to collect independent evidence from its own sources that the plan for the explosion was drawn up byserving officers of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and executed through a suicide bomber selected by Serajuddin Haqqani, sonof Jalalludin Haqqani, the senior Taliban Commander.
2. These sources say that while the US has conclusive evidence on the role of some serving officers of the ISI in organising the explosion, itstill does not have adequate evidence to show whether Lt.Gen.Nadeem Taj, the Director-General of the ISI, who is related to Gen.(retd)Pervez Musharraf, was in the picture and whether clearance had been obtained at the political level.
3. The US generally does not act upon intelligence against Pakistan provided by India due to the possibility that it may be motivated. Itacts only when it is able to collect independent evidence from its own sources. The US has not yet been able to identify all the ISI officers,who had played a role in organising this attack just as it was able to identify in 1992-93 all the ISI officers, including Lt.Gen.Javed Nasir, thethen DG of the ISI, who had instigated the Afghan Mujahideen not to sell back the unused Stinger missiles to the US.
4. It may be recalled that after assuming office in January,1993, the then US President Bill Clinton had placed Pakistan in a list of suspectedState-sponsors of international terrorism and pressured Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, to sack Lt.Gen.Nasir and other officersidentified. Only thereafter was Pakistan's name removed from that list.
5. If the US succeeds in identifying all the officers involved in the Kabul explosion, it may demand their removal from the ISI. It is reportedthat the US investigation has not yet reached that stage.
6. However, the information so far collected by the US investigators on the role of some serving officers of the ISI in the Kabul explosion hasconfirmed the suspicions which it already had even before the Kabl explosion that some serving officers of the ISI and other wings of thePakistan Army have been leaking to Al Qaeda and the Taliban intelligence collected by the US agencies through human and technicalmeans. These suspicions arose following the arrest of some Pashtun tribals by the Taliban and their execution on charges of working forthe US intelligence.
7. Previously, the US was aware that some retired senior officers of the Pakistan Army and its ISI such as Nasir, Lt.Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul,another former DG, etc were allegedly helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda through advice and information. The US also had some vaguesuspicion of the involvement of serving ISI officers at junior level, who had served under Nasir and Gul, when they headed the ISI. Theinvestigation into the Kabul explosion reportedly confirmed the involvement of serving ISI officers even at senior levels.
8. Alarmed by this discovery, the US is reported to have stopped sharing sensitive intelligence with Pakistani Army and ISI officers. Underthe rules of engagement followed till the middle of July, while the US intelligence acted on all information, which called for instant airstrikes, it left it to the Pakistan Army to carry out ground operations where instant follow-up was not required. It was decided in July, withthe approval of President George Bush, that ground-level follow-up would also be done by the US special forces without informing theirPakistani counterparts.
9. The "New York Times" and the BBC, quoting American official sources, have reported that Bush signed a classified order in Julyauthorising ground actions inside Pakistani territory in the tribal belt by the US forces without informing the Pakistan Army beforehand.According to other sources unrelated to the NYT and the BBC,only after the US forces have withdrawn from the Pakistani territory wouldtheir action and the justification for it would be conveyed to the Pakistan Army. It is not clear whether the Presidential orders specify thedepths up to which US forces can enter into Pakistani territory.
10. There are three possible types of cross-border special operations. The first is the hot pursuit into Pakistani territory to kill or capturemembers of the Taliban or Al Qaeda fleeing after attacking NATO forces in the Afghan territory. The second is air-borne raids on suspectedterrorist hideouts to kill or capture Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives on the basis of intelligence about their presence in the hide-outs. Thethird is search and destroy operations on the basis of general and not specific intelligence regarding the location of training camps etc. Itwould seem that only the first two kinds of cross-border operations have been authorised for the present. These would involve the presencein Pakistani territory of the US forces for a very short duration. These would be hit and withdraw or hit and quit operations. The search anddestroy operations, which could involve a longish stay of the US forces in Pakistani territory, do not appear to have been authorised for thepresent.
11. The first raid in Pakistani territory under the new orders took place in the early hours of the morning of September 3,2008, when USSpecial Forces launched a hit and withdraw attack on three houses in the village of Jalal Khel, also known locally as Moosa Nika, in theAngoor Adda area of South Waziristan. The houses were located about one KM inside Pakistani territory from the border with Afghanistan.The village is about one kilometre from Angoor Adda and seven kilometres from the US military base at Machadat in Afghanistan's Paktikaprovince. The raid did not find any high-profile operative of Al Qaeda or the Taliban in the houses raided.The fact that the raid was made soclose to a Frontier Corps (FC)post and that the FC personnel did not react indicated a possible understanding between Admiral Mike Mullen,Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), when they met on board anAmerican aircraft-carrier on August 26, 2008, about the circumstances under which US Special Forces could launch hit and withdraw raidson suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistani territory close to the Afghan border without prior intimation to the Pakistani posts.
12. The speculation that the raid was made in pursuance of a secret understanding with Kayani created some embarrassment for thePakistan Government and Army. They condemned the raid, but in a low profile manner. But the reports from Washington on September10,2008, which quoted official sources as saying that Bush himself had authorised such raids without informing the Pakistan Army added tothe embarrassment of the Government and the Army. The embarrassment was increased further by comments made openly by Bush in anaddress to the National Defence University at Washington DC on September 9,2008, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the 9/11terrorist strikes in the US Homeland by Al Qaeda.Bush named Pakistan as among the major battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism andreminded Islamabad that it was its responsibility to eradicate terrorism from the tribal areas. He said: “Defeating these terrorists andextremists is also Pakistan’s responsibility — because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that itdoes not become a safe haven for terror.” He described Iraq, Afghanistan and "parts of Pakistan" as " theatres in the same overall struggle.In all three places, extremists are using violence and terror in an attempt to impose their ideology on whole populations.They murder toimpose their dark vision of the world.”
13.In an unusually strong statement on September 10,2008, Kayani said that his forces would not tolerate such incursions and woulddefend the country's sovereignty "at all costs." "No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," he added. Was it only aproforma protest to conceal any Pakistani secret approval of such raids or was it an expression of genuine indignation? It would be difficultto answer this question at present.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
(To be read in continuation of my earlier paper of September 4,2008, titled "US Special Forces Launch Hit & Withdraw Raid in S. Waziristan"at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2832.html )
The car bomb explosion outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7,2008, has boomeranged on Pakistan. According to reliable Pakistanipolice sources, the US has been able to collect independent evidence from its own sources that the plan for the explosion was drawn up byserving officers of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and executed through a suicide bomber selected by Serajuddin Haqqani, sonof Jalalludin Haqqani, the senior Taliban Commander.
2. These sources say that while the US has conclusive evidence on the role of some serving officers of the ISI in organising the explosion, itstill does not have adequate evidence to show whether Lt.Gen.Nadeem Taj, the Director-General of the ISI, who is related to Gen.(retd)Pervez Musharraf, was in the picture and whether clearance had been obtained at the political level.
3. The US generally does not act upon intelligence against Pakistan provided by India due to the possibility that it may be motivated. Itacts only when it is able to collect independent evidence from its own sources. The US has not yet been able to identify all the ISI officers,who had played a role in organising this attack just as it was able to identify in 1992-93 all the ISI officers, including Lt.Gen.Javed Nasir, thethen DG of the ISI, who had instigated the Afghan Mujahideen not to sell back the unused Stinger missiles to the US.
4. It may be recalled that after assuming office in January,1993, the then US President Bill Clinton had placed Pakistan in a list of suspectedState-sponsors of international terrorism and pressured Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, to sack Lt.Gen.Nasir and other officersidentified. Only thereafter was Pakistan's name removed from that list.
5. If the US succeeds in identifying all the officers involved in the Kabul explosion, it may demand their removal from the ISI. It is reportedthat the US investigation has not yet reached that stage.
6. However, the information so far collected by the US investigators on the role of some serving officers of the ISI in the Kabul explosion hasconfirmed the suspicions which it already had even before the Kabl explosion that some serving officers of the ISI and other wings of thePakistan Army have been leaking to Al Qaeda and the Taliban intelligence collected by the US agencies through human and technicalmeans. These suspicions arose following the arrest of some Pashtun tribals by the Taliban and their execution on charges of working forthe US intelligence.
7. Previously, the US was aware that some retired senior officers of the Pakistan Army and its ISI such as Nasir, Lt.Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul,another former DG, etc were allegedly helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda through advice and information. The US also had some vaguesuspicion of the involvement of serving ISI officers at junior level, who had served under Nasir and Gul, when they headed the ISI. Theinvestigation into the Kabul explosion reportedly confirmed the involvement of serving ISI officers even at senior levels.
8. Alarmed by this discovery, the US is reported to have stopped sharing sensitive intelligence with Pakistani Army and ISI officers. Underthe rules of engagement followed till the middle of July, while the US intelligence acted on all information, which called for instant airstrikes, it left it to the Pakistan Army to carry out ground operations where instant follow-up was not required. It was decided in July, withthe approval of President George Bush, that ground-level follow-up would also be done by the US special forces without informing theirPakistani counterparts.
9. The "New York Times" and the BBC, quoting American official sources, have reported that Bush signed a classified order in Julyauthorising ground actions inside Pakistani territory in the tribal belt by the US forces without informing the Pakistan Army beforehand.According to other sources unrelated to the NYT and the BBC,only after the US forces have withdrawn from the Pakistani territory wouldtheir action and the justification for it would be conveyed to the Pakistan Army. It is not clear whether the Presidential orders specify thedepths up to which US forces can enter into Pakistani territory.
10. There are three possible types of cross-border special operations. The first is the hot pursuit into Pakistani territory to kill or capturemembers of the Taliban or Al Qaeda fleeing after attacking NATO forces in the Afghan territory. The second is air-borne raids on suspectedterrorist hideouts to kill or capture Taliban or Al Qaeda operatives on the basis of intelligence about their presence in the hide-outs. Thethird is search and destroy operations on the basis of general and not specific intelligence regarding the location of training camps etc. Itwould seem that only the first two kinds of cross-border operations have been authorised for the present. These would involve the presencein Pakistani territory of the US forces for a very short duration. These would be hit and withdraw or hit and quit operations. The search anddestroy operations, which could involve a longish stay of the US forces in Pakistani territory, do not appear to have been authorised for thepresent.
11. The first raid in Pakistani territory under the new orders took place in the early hours of the morning of September 3,2008, when USSpecial Forces launched a hit and withdraw attack on three houses in the village of Jalal Khel, also known locally as Moosa Nika, in theAngoor Adda area of South Waziristan. The houses were located about one KM inside Pakistani territory from the border with Afghanistan.The village is about one kilometre from Angoor Adda and seven kilometres from the US military base at Machadat in Afghanistan's Paktikaprovince. The raid did not find any high-profile operative of Al Qaeda or the Taliban in the houses raided.The fact that the raid was made soclose to a Frontier Corps (FC)post and that the FC personnel did not react indicated a possible understanding between Admiral Mike Mullen,Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), when they met on board anAmerican aircraft-carrier on August 26, 2008, about the circumstances under which US Special Forces could launch hit and withdraw raidson suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistani territory close to the Afghan border without prior intimation to the Pakistani posts.
12. The speculation that the raid was made in pursuance of a secret understanding with Kayani created some embarrassment for thePakistan Government and Army. They condemned the raid, but in a low profile manner. But the reports from Washington on September10,2008, which quoted official sources as saying that Bush himself had authorised such raids without informing the Pakistan Army added tothe embarrassment of the Government and the Army. The embarrassment was increased further by comments made openly by Bush in anaddress to the National Defence University at Washington DC on September 9,2008, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the 9/11terrorist strikes in the US Homeland by Al Qaeda.Bush named Pakistan as among the major battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism andreminded Islamabad that it was its responsibility to eradicate terrorism from the tribal areas. He said: “Defeating these terrorists andextremists is also Pakistan’s responsibility — because every nation has an obligation to govern its own territory and make certain that itdoes not become a safe haven for terror.” He described Iraq, Afghanistan and "parts of Pakistan" as " theatres in the same overall struggle.In all three places, extremists are using violence and terror in an attempt to impose their ideology on whole populations.They murder toimpose their dark vision of the world.”
13.In an unusually strong statement on September 10,2008, Kayani said that his forces would not tolerate such incursions and woulddefend the country's sovereignty "at all costs." "No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," he added. Was it only aproforma protest to conceal any Pakistani secret approval of such raids or was it an expression of genuine indignation? It would be difficultto answer this question at present.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
AL QAEDA HAS CHANGED TACTICS, BUT AS DEADLY AS EVER
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR—PAPER NO.439
B.RAMAN
(This was carried by the “Times of India” in its Editorial page on September 11,2008)
Despite the set-backs suffered by Al Qaeda in Iraq, it is constantly on the look-out for opportunities for another act of mass casualty terrorism anywhere in the world where an opportunity presents itself.
Mass casualty operations of the 9/11 kind in countries far removed from the terrorist sanctuaries have been rendered difficult by the enforcement of strict travel and immigration control measures. It has become difficult for terrorists normally resident in one country to go to another country with which there is no common border for carrying out a terrorist strike. The trend is, therefore, increasingly to depend on local residents in the targeted country for carrying out a terrorist strike. Hence, the phenomenon of home-grown jihadis.
From the messages disseminated by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the No.2 to Osama bin Laden, in recent months, it is clear that Al Qaeda is trying to adapt itself to the new ground realities by promoting the concept of a global intifada in the place of a global jihad. Its message to Muslims all over the world has been---- hit wherever you can, whenever you can and in whatever way and with whatever means you can.
US counter-terrorism experts have managed to drive a wedge between the secular Iraqi Arabs of the national resistance movement and the Wahabi Saudi Arabs and their associates from other Arab countries, who constitute the bulk of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This has affected Al Qaeda. It still manages to carry out sporadic terrorist strikes in the Sunni area, but not on the same scale and not as frequently as before.
However, US experts have not succeeded in similarly driving a wedge between the Pashtuns of the Taliban and the Arabs, Uzbeks and Chechens of Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations. The Taliban and Al Qaeda remain firm in their solidarity with each other. Pakistan’s reluctance to act firmly against Al Qaeda sanctuaries in its Pashtun belt and its collusion with the Taliban have posed a cruel dilemma for the US---- either act on its own against the sanctuaries in Pakistani territory, thereby running the danger of driving more Pashtuns into the arms of the Taliban and Al Qaeda or continue bleeding helplessly in Afghanistan. There have been some indications that the US may no longer be averse to undertaking unilateral strikes on the ground in Pakistani territory. Deniable air strikes have been there since 2002, but ground strikes have been avoided till now.
The majority of the Muslims all over the world still do not take seriously Al Qaeda’s goal of an Islamic Caliphate, but they have started paying attention to the call of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to take Islam back to the days of its pristine purity Thus, one finds Al Qaeda and its associates mastering and using modern means of communication and motivation through the Internet etc not for taking their community forward towards modernization, but backwards towards archaic concepts and beliefs.
There is no evidence in South Asia to indicate that formerly peaceful groups are now becoming radical because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or other reasons. However, there are three trends which need attention: First, organizations, which were already radical, are becoming more radical due to external (anti-US anger in Pakistan) or internal ( anger over domestic grievances in India) reasons. Second, an increase in the flow of new recruits of individual Muslims to these organizations. Thus, formerly peaceful Muslims are now tending to get radicalized. Third, first signs of concern in the Indian Muslim community over this phenomenon. This has led to an open condemnation of resort to terrorism by some leaders of the Muslim community and a reported split in the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) between those advocating terrorism and those advocating peaceful political means.
Radicalisation in some measure or the other has been there in sections of the Indian Muslim community at least since the 1970s,but what is of comparatively recent origin is pan-Islamisation. Al Qaeda was not the originator of pan-islamic tendencies, but it took advantage of them to promote the concept of a global jihad or a global intifada. There were not many takers for its ideas in the past, but it has now started attracting followers from small sections of the Indian Muslim youth in India as well as abroad.
Anger is the basic root cause of all terrorism. The anger is often caused by domestic or external factors. While India may not have much control over the external factors, it should be able to detect in time signs of anger due to domestic reasons and take action to address them. Unaddressed anger at the domestic level drives the angry into the arms of trans-national organizations such as Al Qaeda in course of time.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
(This was carried by the “Times of India” in its Editorial page on September 11,2008)
Despite the set-backs suffered by Al Qaeda in Iraq, it is constantly on the look-out for opportunities for another act of mass casualty terrorism anywhere in the world where an opportunity presents itself.
Mass casualty operations of the 9/11 kind in countries far removed from the terrorist sanctuaries have been rendered difficult by the enforcement of strict travel and immigration control measures. It has become difficult for terrorists normally resident in one country to go to another country with which there is no common border for carrying out a terrorist strike. The trend is, therefore, increasingly to depend on local residents in the targeted country for carrying out a terrorist strike. Hence, the phenomenon of home-grown jihadis.
From the messages disseminated by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the No.2 to Osama bin Laden, in recent months, it is clear that Al Qaeda is trying to adapt itself to the new ground realities by promoting the concept of a global intifada in the place of a global jihad. Its message to Muslims all over the world has been---- hit wherever you can, whenever you can and in whatever way and with whatever means you can.
US counter-terrorism experts have managed to drive a wedge between the secular Iraqi Arabs of the national resistance movement and the Wahabi Saudi Arabs and their associates from other Arab countries, who constitute the bulk of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This has affected Al Qaeda. It still manages to carry out sporadic terrorist strikes in the Sunni area, but not on the same scale and not as frequently as before.
However, US experts have not succeeded in similarly driving a wedge between the Pashtuns of the Taliban and the Arabs, Uzbeks and Chechens of Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations. The Taliban and Al Qaeda remain firm in their solidarity with each other. Pakistan’s reluctance to act firmly against Al Qaeda sanctuaries in its Pashtun belt and its collusion with the Taliban have posed a cruel dilemma for the US---- either act on its own against the sanctuaries in Pakistani territory, thereby running the danger of driving more Pashtuns into the arms of the Taliban and Al Qaeda or continue bleeding helplessly in Afghanistan. There have been some indications that the US may no longer be averse to undertaking unilateral strikes on the ground in Pakistani territory. Deniable air strikes have been there since 2002, but ground strikes have been avoided till now.
The majority of the Muslims all over the world still do not take seriously Al Qaeda’s goal of an Islamic Caliphate, but they have started paying attention to the call of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to take Islam back to the days of its pristine purity Thus, one finds Al Qaeda and its associates mastering and using modern means of communication and motivation through the Internet etc not for taking their community forward towards modernization, but backwards towards archaic concepts and beliefs.
There is no evidence in South Asia to indicate that formerly peaceful groups are now becoming radical because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or other reasons. However, there are three trends which need attention: First, organizations, which were already radical, are becoming more radical due to external (anti-US anger in Pakistan) or internal ( anger over domestic grievances in India) reasons. Second, an increase in the flow of new recruits of individual Muslims to these organizations. Thus, formerly peaceful Muslims are now tending to get radicalized. Third, first signs of concern in the Indian Muslim community over this phenomenon. This has led to an open condemnation of resort to terrorism by some leaders of the Muslim community and a reported split in the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) between those advocating terrorism and those advocating peaceful political means.
Radicalisation in some measure or the other has been there in sections of the Indian Muslim community at least since the 1970s,but what is of comparatively recent origin is pan-Islamisation. Al Qaeda was not the originator of pan-islamic tendencies, but it took advantage of them to promote the concept of a global jihad or a global intifada. There were not many takers for its ideas in the past, but it has now started attracting followers from small sections of the Indian Muslim youth in India as well as abroad.
Anger is the basic root cause of all terrorism. The anger is often caused by domestic or external factors. While India may not have much control over the external factors, it should be able to detect in time signs of anger due to domestic reasons and take action to address them. Unaddressed anger at the domestic level drives the angry into the arms of trans-national organizations such as Al Qaeda in course of time.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
VIENNA & AFTER
B.RAMAN
The significant decision of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), which met for the second time at Vienna from September 4 to 6,2008, to waive the application to India of the embargo on nuclear trade as laid down in the guidelines adopted by the NSG in 1992 havebeen greeted with unwarranted euphoria on the one side and unbalanced or even motivated criticism on the other.
2. Many media reports and New Delhi-based analysts given to hype have projected the decision as marking the end of 34 years of nuclearisolation for India, which was imposed on it after it carried out its first nuclear test (Pokhran I) in 1974 when Indira Gandhi was the PrimeMinister. After 1974, the US and Canada had imposed bilateral embargoes on India, but there were no universal embargoes. India continuedto interact commercially and scientifically with other countries--- particularly with the then USSR and France---in the nuclear field till 1992. Itwas during this period before 1992 that India signed the agreement with the USSR for the purchase of the Koodankulam I and II nuclearpower stations, which are now under erection in Tamil Nadu by a joint team of Russian and Indian engineers and scientists. To talk of 34years of nuclear isolation is, therefore, incorrect. Bilateral isolation imposed by the US in 1974 did not mean universal isolation by theinternational community till 1992.
3.The Export Guidelines, adopted by the NSG in 1992 under US pressure, made these embargoes universal and came in the way of freshcontracts even with countries such as Russia and France. Despite this, Russia rejected pressure from the Clinton Administration in the USnot to go ahead with the implementation of the contract relating to Koodankulam I and II even though signed before 1992 and has goneahead with its implementation. It was even prepared to sign supplementary contracts under the same pre-1992 agreement for theconstruction of more reactors at Koodankulam. It was the Manmohan Singh Government, which decided not to sign the supplementarycontracts proposed by Russia till the waiver was granted by the NSG lest there be any misunderstanding with the US, which took theinitiative for granting an NSG waiver to India.
4. What the waiver granted on September 6,2008, has done is to restore the status quo ante as it was before 1992. There are no longer anyuniversal embargoes on nuclear trade with India. but the bilateral embargoes imposed by the US after Pokhran I in 1974 still remain. Thesewill be removed only after the so-called 123 Agreement on civil nuclear co-operation signed by India and the US is approved by the USCongress and is formally signed by the two countries. The optimistic expectation is that this will be done before the end of September,2008.When that happens, the status quo ante as it was before 1974 in the nuclear interactions between the US and India will be restored.
5. Though the universal embargoes stand removed, national embargoes or restrictions will remain, wherever they exist unless they srespecifically waived or removed by the country concerned. Thus, Australia has imposed an embargo on the sale of uranium to countries,which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This embargo will continue to stand in the way of the sale of uranium toIndia by Australia unless a waiver is granted by the Australian Government. The previous Government of John Howard was prepared to grantsuch a waiver after the NSG granted its waiver to India, but the present Government headed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is not.
6. Even in the case of the US, it will not be bilateral nuclear trade with sky being the limit as projected by some analysts . It will be bilateralnuclear trade subject to the limits laid down in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress. It is an India-specific legislation enacted by the USCongress and , in effect, lays down the conditions, which would govern the nuclear trade with India once the waiver is granted by the NSGand the US Government removes its bilateral embargoes. Thus, the Hyde Act will be very relevant in determining the extent of the nucleartrade between India and the US and the conditions under which it will be carried on. The argument often advanced by the Government ofIndia and its supporters that the Hyde Act is a matter between the US President and the Congress about which India does not have to worryis equally incorrect.
7. Even after the grant of the waiver by the NSG and the coming into force of the 123 agreement between India and the US, interestedcountries will continue to use nuclear co-operation and trade as an instrument of coercive diplomacy to achieve foreign policy objectives innon-nuclear related matters. The US has suspended the implementation of its civil nuclear co-operation agreement with Russia after itstroops intervened recently in Georgia. Similarly, Australia, taking the cue from the US, has suspended the process for the ratification of itsagreement with Moscow for the sale of uranium. Both the countries have made it clear that the suspension will remain in force till theRussian troops are withdrawn from Georgia. India too could be the victim of such coercive pressures in future in case it has seriousdifferences with the US on foreign or other policy matters of interest to the US.
8. Nuclear co-operation with the US could be a double-edged sword. That was the lesson from 1974. It will be unwise to forget that lesson.Arule of prudence will be to avoid over-dependence on the US to meet our nuclear energy and technology requirements and to diversify oursources of procurement. The question is: Will the US allow it or will it demand more than its pound of flesh in return for the leadership roleplayed by it in securing a waiver in favour of India from the NSG India has reasons to be grateful to the US for all that it has done tofacilitate the restoration of the status quo ante, but that feeling of gratitude should not make us tie the future of our nuclear power projectsand industry to the whims and fancies of US policy-makers.
9.A lot of time and energy has been spent on examining whether our agreements with the US and the commitments made by us through theUS in the margins of the parleys at Vienna would affect our future manoeuvrability in matters such as nuclear testing, acquisition ofstrategic fuel reserves for our nuclear power stations and our acquiring the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. These are importantmatters, but equally, if not more important, is the question whether, in our anxiety to secure the US support for the waiver, we haveinformally bartered away our right to purchase our nuclear equipment and technology from wherever and from whomsoever we want. Isthere an informal commitment made by the Government to the US that all other conditions being equal, preferential treatment will be givento US suppliers? From the evasive remarks coming out of the Government as to whether we intend going ahead with signing thealready-negotiated contracts with Russia, one cannot avoid the suspicion that such a commitment probably exists.
10.Some Russian analysts also seem to suspect that such a commitment exists. Dmitry Yevstafiev of the PIR Centre of Russia has beenquoted by "The Hindu's" Moscow correspondent as saying as follows (September 9): " The waiver would push India closer towards the US. India is clearly drifting towards the US. We (Russia) may have tactical gains, but the strategic outlook for us is dim." What he means is thatwhile Russia may be able to participate in the expansion of the existing projects concluded or initiated before 1992, the prospects of Russia supplying new power stations are not that good.
11.The only way of removing these suspicions from the minds of the public will be for the Government to sign the contracts with Russia foradditional reactors ar Koodankulam as soon as the US Congress approves the 123 Agreement and go ahead with their implementation. Ifthe present Congress does not approve the 123 Agreement due to any reason and the matter gets postponed to the next Congress whichwill come into office only in January next, the Government of India should not hesitate to go ahead with signing the already-negotiatedcontracts with Russia. If it does not and waits indefinitely for a nod from the US, that will only confirm these suspicions.
12. Even though the US Government is not supposed to intervene in private contract negotiations between US companies and their foreigncounterparts, it does try to exercise political pressure to secure a decision in favour of US companies. One has often seen it in the case ofnegotiations of the Boeing with foreign countries for the sale of Boeing aircraft for their airline companies. Similar political pressure onbehalf of US nuclear equipment suppliers will be a fact of life.
13. The post-waiver world of nuclear commerce will be different from the pre-1992 world. We got Koodankulam I and II at concessionalprices from Mikhail Gorbachebv's USSR and Boris Yeltsin's Russia. We will be negotiating our future contracts with Russia of Vladimir Putinand his successors. Putin's Russia has already shown that it could be as money-minded as the US companies. We had the unpleasantexperience of its hard bargaining tactics from the way it sought to impose on us a cost escalation in respect of an old and re-conditionedaircraft carrier being bought for our Navy. It imposed the cost escalation when the implementation of the contract was half-way through. Wehave also been seeing how after completing the two nuclear power stations for Iran, it has avoided their commissioning by delaying thesupply of nuclear fuel on the ground that that there was a delay in Iran meeting its payment obligations. Another reported reason is that Russia is demanding a cost escalation from Iran as it did in respect of the aircraft-carrier for our Navy.
14. While the status quo ante as before 1992 has been restored, we are going to handle our future negotiations in a world different from thepre-1992 world. While we have reasons to be happy with the undoubted diplomatic success achieved by us, we must keep our feet firmly onthe ground, identify the ground realities of today and see how to come to terms with them without damaging our national interests.
15. Vienna has added to our fears and misgivings about China.Can China's word in any matter be trusted? This question bothered us afterthe Sino-Indian war of 1962. During the 1950s, maps started circulating in Communist China showing large parts of India near the border inArunachal Pradesh and Ladakh as Chinese territory. Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly took this up with Chou En-lai. He assured Nehru that thesewere KMT-era maps and that we should not worry about them. He promised that these maps would be revised after the Communists settleddown in power. They did not revise them. Instead, they invaded India in order to enforce their claims as indicated in these very maps.
16. In the 1980s and the 1990s, the Chinese violated repeatedly all international restrictsions on the sale of nuclear and missile equipmentand technologies and helped Pakistan acquire a nuclear and missile capability. When the US discovered this and took it up with Beijing, ittotally denied helping Pakistan in the military nuclear field and put the blame for the violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime onprivate entities as if so-called private companies in China can hoodwink the Government.
17.During their meetings with each other, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had agreed in principle that anyborder settlement between the two countries should not involve an exchange of populations and should be restricted to unpopulated areas.The Chinese subsequently wriggled out of this and reportedly said that this would not apply to Tawang in Arunachl Pradesh. They aredemanding that India should agree to transfer the Tawang Tract to China even if it is a populated area.
18. They have now added to the suspicions in the minds of many in India by the way they reportedly conducted themselves in Vienna. Duringthe last two years, they had repeatedly assured the Indian leaders and other interlocutors that they would not pose a problem in the way ofthe NSG granting a waiver, but in Vienna, their role was allegedly far from helpful. They did not openly try to oppose a consensus, but theytried to delay it for as long as they can by encouraging the opposition of smaller nations such as Austria and Ireland. They were evidently hoping that negotiations fatigue would set in and delay a consensus before the US Congress completed its term.
19. The "Mail Today", a New Delhi-based daily, reported as follows on September 8,2008: " Addressing Saturday's meeting (of the NSG) atVienna, Cheng Jingye, head of the Chinese delegation, said it was China's hope that the decision taken by the NSG would stand the test oftime and contribute to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear power. It was also China's hope that the NSGwould equally address the aspirations of all parties for the peaceful use of nuclear power while adhering to the nuclear non-proliferationmechanism." The second point was apparently made with Pakistan in the Chinese mind.
20. This has been the standard Chinese formulation. It was expected even before the Vienna meeting that the Chinese would reiterate thisformulation without standing in the way of a consensus. This is what the Chinese ultimately did at Vienna, but the way they avoided playinga role in support of India has given rise to a perception in the minds of many in India that this was yet another instance of the Chinese notkeeping their word. This suspicion will continue to influence Indian attitude to China despite the spectacular improvement in trade andother fields.
21. Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, who visited New Delhi on September 8 and 9, 2008, for talks with Indian leaders stronglydenied reports emanating from Indian media sources in Vienna that China had tried to block a consensus at Vienna.He said: " I am surprisedby these reports. Facts speak louder than words. China has always worked responsibly towards consensus both in the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the NSG." Despite his denial, the suspicion persists that China's attitude at Vienna was far from positive.
22.Why did China hum and haw at Vienna before going along with the consensus? Was it out of a feeling of solidarity with Pakistan, whichwill not be a beneficiary of a similar nuclear trade? Or was it a futile attempt to save face for the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whichhas doggedly opposed Indo-US co-operation whether in the nuclear or any other field?(11-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStrudies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The significant decision of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), which met for the second time at Vienna from September 4 to 6,2008, to waive the application to India of the embargo on nuclear trade as laid down in the guidelines adopted by the NSG in 1992 havebeen greeted with unwarranted euphoria on the one side and unbalanced or even motivated criticism on the other.
2. Many media reports and New Delhi-based analysts given to hype have projected the decision as marking the end of 34 years of nuclearisolation for India, which was imposed on it after it carried out its first nuclear test (Pokhran I) in 1974 when Indira Gandhi was the PrimeMinister. After 1974, the US and Canada had imposed bilateral embargoes on India, but there were no universal embargoes. India continuedto interact commercially and scientifically with other countries--- particularly with the then USSR and France---in the nuclear field till 1992. Itwas during this period before 1992 that India signed the agreement with the USSR for the purchase of the Koodankulam I and II nuclearpower stations, which are now under erection in Tamil Nadu by a joint team of Russian and Indian engineers and scientists. To talk of 34years of nuclear isolation is, therefore, incorrect. Bilateral isolation imposed by the US in 1974 did not mean universal isolation by theinternational community till 1992.
3.The Export Guidelines, adopted by the NSG in 1992 under US pressure, made these embargoes universal and came in the way of freshcontracts even with countries such as Russia and France. Despite this, Russia rejected pressure from the Clinton Administration in the USnot to go ahead with the implementation of the contract relating to Koodankulam I and II even though signed before 1992 and has goneahead with its implementation. It was even prepared to sign supplementary contracts under the same pre-1992 agreement for theconstruction of more reactors at Koodankulam. It was the Manmohan Singh Government, which decided not to sign the supplementarycontracts proposed by Russia till the waiver was granted by the NSG lest there be any misunderstanding with the US, which took theinitiative for granting an NSG waiver to India.
4. What the waiver granted on September 6,2008, has done is to restore the status quo ante as it was before 1992. There are no longer anyuniversal embargoes on nuclear trade with India. but the bilateral embargoes imposed by the US after Pokhran I in 1974 still remain. Thesewill be removed only after the so-called 123 Agreement on civil nuclear co-operation signed by India and the US is approved by the USCongress and is formally signed by the two countries. The optimistic expectation is that this will be done before the end of September,2008.When that happens, the status quo ante as it was before 1974 in the nuclear interactions between the US and India will be restored.
5. Though the universal embargoes stand removed, national embargoes or restrictions will remain, wherever they exist unless they srespecifically waived or removed by the country concerned. Thus, Australia has imposed an embargo on the sale of uranium to countries,which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This embargo will continue to stand in the way of the sale of uranium toIndia by Australia unless a waiver is granted by the Australian Government. The previous Government of John Howard was prepared to grantsuch a waiver after the NSG granted its waiver to India, but the present Government headed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is not.
6. Even in the case of the US, it will not be bilateral nuclear trade with sky being the limit as projected by some analysts . It will be bilateralnuclear trade subject to the limits laid down in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress. It is an India-specific legislation enacted by the USCongress and , in effect, lays down the conditions, which would govern the nuclear trade with India once the waiver is granted by the NSGand the US Government removes its bilateral embargoes. Thus, the Hyde Act will be very relevant in determining the extent of the nucleartrade between India and the US and the conditions under which it will be carried on. The argument often advanced by the Government ofIndia and its supporters that the Hyde Act is a matter between the US President and the Congress about which India does not have to worryis equally incorrect.
7. Even after the grant of the waiver by the NSG and the coming into force of the 123 agreement between India and the US, interestedcountries will continue to use nuclear co-operation and trade as an instrument of coercive diplomacy to achieve foreign policy objectives innon-nuclear related matters. The US has suspended the implementation of its civil nuclear co-operation agreement with Russia after itstroops intervened recently in Georgia. Similarly, Australia, taking the cue from the US, has suspended the process for the ratification of itsagreement with Moscow for the sale of uranium. Both the countries have made it clear that the suspension will remain in force till theRussian troops are withdrawn from Georgia. India too could be the victim of such coercive pressures in future in case it has seriousdifferences with the US on foreign or other policy matters of interest to the US.
8. Nuclear co-operation with the US could be a double-edged sword. That was the lesson from 1974. It will be unwise to forget that lesson.Arule of prudence will be to avoid over-dependence on the US to meet our nuclear energy and technology requirements and to diversify oursources of procurement. The question is: Will the US allow it or will it demand more than its pound of flesh in return for the leadership roleplayed by it in securing a waiver in favour of India from the NSG India has reasons to be grateful to the US for all that it has done tofacilitate the restoration of the status quo ante, but that feeling of gratitude should not make us tie the future of our nuclear power projectsand industry to the whims and fancies of US policy-makers.
9.A lot of time and energy has been spent on examining whether our agreements with the US and the commitments made by us through theUS in the margins of the parleys at Vienna would affect our future manoeuvrability in matters such as nuclear testing, acquisition ofstrategic fuel reserves for our nuclear power stations and our acquiring the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. These are importantmatters, but equally, if not more important, is the question whether, in our anxiety to secure the US support for the waiver, we haveinformally bartered away our right to purchase our nuclear equipment and technology from wherever and from whomsoever we want. Isthere an informal commitment made by the Government to the US that all other conditions being equal, preferential treatment will be givento US suppliers? From the evasive remarks coming out of the Government as to whether we intend going ahead with signing thealready-negotiated contracts with Russia, one cannot avoid the suspicion that such a commitment probably exists.
10.Some Russian analysts also seem to suspect that such a commitment exists. Dmitry Yevstafiev of the PIR Centre of Russia has beenquoted by "The Hindu's" Moscow correspondent as saying as follows (September 9): " The waiver would push India closer towards the US. India is clearly drifting towards the US. We (Russia) may have tactical gains, but the strategic outlook for us is dim." What he means is thatwhile Russia may be able to participate in the expansion of the existing projects concluded or initiated before 1992, the prospects of Russia supplying new power stations are not that good.
11.The only way of removing these suspicions from the minds of the public will be for the Government to sign the contracts with Russia foradditional reactors ar Koodankulam as soon as the US Congress approves the 123 Agreement and go ahead with their implementation. Ifthe present Congress does not approve the 123 Agreement due to any reason and the matter gets postponed to the next Congress whichwill come into office only in January next, the Government of India should not hesitate to go ahead with signing the already-negotiatedcontracts with Russia. If it does not and waits indefinitely for a nod from the US, that will only confirm these suspicions.
12. Even though the US Government is not supposed to intervene in private contract negotiations between US companies and their foreigncounterparts, it does try to exercise political pressure to secure a decision in favour of US companies. One has often seen it in the case ofnegotiations of the Boeing with foreign countries for the sale of Boeing aircraft for their airline companies. Similar political pressure onbehalf of US nuclear equipment suppliers will be a fact of life.
13. The post-waiver world of nuclear commerce will be different from the pre-1992 world. We got Koodankulam I and II at concessionalprices from Mikhail Gorbachebv's USSR and Boris Yeltsin's Russia. We will be negotiating our future contracts with Russia of Vladimir Putinand his successors. Putin's Russia has already shown that it could be as money-minded as the US companies. We had the unpleasantexperience of its hard bargaining tactics from the way it sought to impose on us a cost escalation in respect of an old and re-conditionedaircraft carrier being bought for our Navy. It imposed the cost escalation when the implementation of the contract was half-way through. Wehave also been seeing how after completing the two nuclear power stations for Iran, it has avoided their commissioning by delaying thesupply of nuclear fuel on the ground that that there was a delay in Iran meeting its payment obligations. Another reported reason is that Russia is demanding a cost escalation from Iran as it did in respect of the aircraft-carrier for our Navy.
14. While the status quo ante as before 1992 has been restored, we are going to handle our future negotiations in a world different from thepre-1992 world. While we have reasons to be happy with the undoubted diplomatic success achieved by us, we must keep our feet firmly onthe ground, identify the ground realities of today and see how to come to terms with them without damaging our national interests.
15. Vienna has added to our fears and misgivings about China.Can China's word in any matter be trusted? This question bothered us afterthe Sino-Indian war of 1962. During the 1950s, maps started circulating in Communist China showing large parts of India near the border inArunachal Pradesh and Ladakh as Chinese territory. Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly took this up with Chou En-lai. He assured Nehru that thesewere KMT-era maps and that we should not worry about them. He promised that these maps would be revised after the Communists settleddown in power. They did not revise them. Instead, they invaded India in order to enforce their claims as indicated in these very maps.
16. In the 1980s and the 1990s, the Chinese violated repeatedly all international restrictsions on the sale of nuclear and missile equipmentand technologies and helped Pakistan acquire a nuclear and missile capability. When the US discovered this and took it up with Beijing, ittotally denied helping Pakistan in the military nuclear field and put the blame for the violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime onprivate entities as if so-called private companies in China can hoodwink the Government.
17.During their meetings with each other, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had agreed in principle that anyborder settlement between the two countries should not involve an exchange of populations and should be restricted to unpopulated areas.The Chinese subsequently wriggled out of this and reportedly said that this would not apply to Tawang in Arunachl Pradesh. They aredemanding that India should agree to transfer the Tawang Tract to China even if it is a populated area.
18. They have now added to the suspicions in the minds of many in India by the way they reportedly conducted themselves in Vienna. Duringthe last two years, they had repeatedly assured the Indian leaders and other interlocutors that they would not pose a problem in the way ofthe NSG granting a waiver, but in Vienna, their role was allegedly far from helpful. They did not openly try to oppose a consensus, but theytried to delay it for as long as they can by encouraging the opposition of smaller nations such as Austria and Ireland. They were evidently hoping that negotiations fatigue would set in and delay a consensus before the US Congress completed its term.
19. The "Mail Today", a New Delhi-based daily, reported as follows on September 8,2008: " Addressing Saturday's meeting (of the NSG) atVienna, Cheng Jingye, head of the Chinese delegation, said it was China's hope that the decision taken by the NSG would stand the test oftime and contribute to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear power. It was also China's hope that the NSGwould equally address the aspirations of all parties for the peaceful use of nuclear power while adhering to the nuclear non-proliferationmechanism." The second point was apparently made with Pakistan in the Chinese mind.
20. This has been the standard Chinese formulation. It was expected even before the Vienna meeting that the Chinese would reiterate thisformulation without standing in the way of a consensus. This is what the Chinese ultimately did at Vienna, but the way they avoided playinga role in support of India has given rise to a perception in the minds of many in India that this was yet another instance of the Chinese notkeeping their word. This suspicion will continue to influence Indian attitude to China despite the spectacular improvement in trade andother fields.
21. Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, who visited New Delhi on September 8 and 9, 2008, for talks with Indian leaders stronglydenied reports emanating from Indian media sources in Vienna that China had tried to block a consensus at Vienna.He said: " I am surprisedby these reports. Facts speak louder than words. China has always worked responsibly towards consensus both in the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the NSG." Despite his denial, the suspicion persists that China's attitude at Vienna was far from positive.
22.Why did China hum and haw at Vienna before going along with the consensus? Was it out of a feeling of solidarity with Pakistan, whichwill not be a beneficiary of a similar nuclear trade? Or was it a futile attempt to save face for the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whichhas doggedly opposed Indo-US co-operation whether in the nuclear or any other field?(11-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStrudies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, September 5, 2008
TALIBAN'S CONTINUING ANGER AGAINST CHINA
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO.437
B.RAMAN
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has not forgotten the role of China in exercising pressure on the then President Pervez Musharraf to order commando action inside the Lal Masjid of Islamabad from July10 to 13,2007. The commando action led to the death of Abdul Rashid, a cleric popular with the Pashtun tribals, and of a large number of tribal girls from the Pashtun tribal belt studying in a girls' madrasa attached to the Masjid. The madrasa was destroyed during the commando action.
2. Before the commando action, there was an incident in Islamabad in which students studying in the girls' madrasa attached to the Lal Masjid---some of them Uighurs--- kidnapped six Chinese women working in a massage parlour of Islamabad and accused them of working as prostitutes. They were subsequently released. It was after this incident that the Chinese authorities strongly took up with Musharraf the question of taking action against the madrasa students who were responsible for the kidnapping. Unnerved by the strong Chinese reaction, Musharraf ordered the commando action, which resulted in a huge tragedy.
3. The commando action led to a wave of suicide terrorism by tribals from the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in tribal as well as non-tribal areas, including in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Two of the retaliatory attacks after the commando action were directed against Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. In the first attack in Peshawar, three Chinese working for a company importing meat, skin and hide from Pakistan were killed. Chinese engineers travelling to work in a bus in Hub in Balochistan escaped unhurt when a suicide bomber blew himself up near their bus, killing a large number of policemen and civilians. Following these incidents, the Pakistan Government tightened physical security for Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. A Joint Task Force consisting of representatives of the Pakistani security agencies and the Chinese Embassy was set up to co-ordinate the physical security measures.
4. There are different estimates of the total number of Chinese living and working in Pakistan----varying between 3,500 and 5,000. They consist of three categories. In the first category are the Chinese engineers and technicians working in Chinese State-aided projects such as the Gwadar port construction and the Saindak copper-gold extraction projects in Balochistan, the construction of a hydel power station in the FATA and the expansion of the reservoir capacity of the Mangla dam in Mirpur in POK. All these Chinese are well-protected by the Pakistani security forces, but despite this, some of the engineers working in Gwadar and FATA were killed in terrorist attacks in recent years, some allegedly by the Uighurs and one by the late Abdullah Mehsud of South Waziristan, a former detenu in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
5. The second category consists of independent Chinese businessmen running small-scale business enterprises employing not more than half a dozen Chinese per enterprise like the one in Peshawar, which came under attack. The third category consists largely of single Chinese women in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi working in massage and beauty parlours, dental and native Chinese medicine clinics etc. These two categories do not enjoy any special protection. They are dependent on the local police of the area, where they are living and working, for their protection.
6. There was a campaign of slander against these single Chinese women by the clerics of the Lal Masjid and their Uighur students, which led to the kidnapping of some of them working in Islamabad. While the clerics were describing them as prostitutes corrupting the morals of Muslims, the Uighur students studying in the madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid were accusing them of being agents of the Chinese intelligence agencies sent to Pakistan to monitor the activities of the Uighurs in Pakistan before the Beijing Olympics.
7.Taken aback by the Pashtun anger against the Chinese, the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad tried to reassure the Pakistani religious elements that China had nothing against the Lal Masjid. It denied reports that Beijing forced Musharraf to act against the Masjid following the kidnapping of some Chinese women by the madrasa students.
8. The "China Daily" reported as follows on July 18, 2007: "China did not push Pakistan for operations against the Red Mosque, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Luo Zhaohui said. It is the consistent policy of China not to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries, he told The News, a major Pakistani daily. Luo said he was considering an invitation to visit the mosque but it was made impossible due to the unstable security situation. "We enjoy very cordial relations with the ruling party here and likewise we maintain friendly ties with other segments of the society including the political parties of the opposition," he said. "I had no knowledge as to why Chinese nationals are being targeted and were the victims in five recent incidents", Luo said, referring to several Chinese who were killed in that country. He said if Chinese continued to be targeted, cooperation between the two countries could suffer. To protect the 3,000 Chinese working in Pakistan, China and Pakistan have decided to set up a Joint Task Force (JTF), the Ambassador revealed."
9. Following these initiatives by the Chinese Embassy, the anger against the Chinese seemed to have subsided. The fact that this was really not so became evident on August 29,2008, when two Chinese engineers, Zhanggua and Lung, along with their security guard Imranullah and driver Khalil, went missing in the Khall area of the Dir Lower district in the NWFP.They were working for the Zong mobile company, which was running mobile phone services in Dir Upper and Lower districts. They were kidnapped while they were being drven in a car. Following this incident, the Chinese Embassy advised 15 other Chinese engineers working in the area to leave the area. They did so.
10. Subsequently, Muslim Khan, who described himself as a spokesman of the TTP in the Swat Valley, claimed that the Chinese engineers were in the custody of the TTP, which wuld be shortly announcing its demands for their release. Initially he said: “Our aim is to hit the government’s interests wherever they are. We kidnap everyone irrespective of whether he’s Pakistani or Chinese and we’ll continue to do this until they stop killing our people.” But the daily newspaper "The News" reported on September 4,2008, as follows: " The militants' spokesman was critical of the 'Chinese role' in pressurising the Pakistani Government to launch Operation Silence on the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad. The Lal Masjid administration had taken hostage Chinese women who were running a massage centre in Islamabad last year who were later released unharmed. He said the US also played a role in forcing Pakistan to attack the mosque and seminary in which hundreds of students and their teachers were reportedly killed." (5-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat. Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has not forgotten the role of China in exercising pressure on the then President Pervez Musharraf to order commando action inside the Lal Masjid of Islamabad from July10 to 13,2007. The commando action led to the death of Abdul Rashid, a cleric popular with the Pashtun tribals, and of a large number of tribal girls from the Pashtun tribal belt studying in a girls' madrasa attached to the Masjid. The madrasa was destroyed during the commando action.
2. Before the commando action, there was an incident in Islamabad in which students studying in the girls' madrasa attached to the Lal Masjid---some of them Uighurs--- kidnapped six Chinese women working in a massage parlour of Islamabad and accused them of working as prostitutes. They were subsequently released. It was after this incident that the Chinese authorities strongly took up with Musharraf the question of taking action against the madrasa students who were responsible for the kidnapping. Unnerved by the strong Chinese reaction, Musharraf ordered the commando action, which resulted in a huge tragedy.
3. The commando action led to a wave of suicide terrorism by tribals from the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in tribal as well as non-tribal areas, including in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Two of the retaliatory attacks after the commando action were directed against Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. In the first attack in Peshawar, three Chinese working for a company importing meat, skin and hide from Pakistan were killed. Chinese engineers travelling to work in a bus in Hub in Balochistan escaped unhurt when a suicide bomber blew himself up near their bus, killing a large number of policemen and civilians. Following these incidents, the Pakistan Government tightened physical security for Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. A Joint Task Force consisting of representatives of the Pakistani security agencies and the Chinese Embassy was set up to co-ordinate the physical security measures.
4. There are different estimates of the total number of Chinese living and working in Pakistan----varying between 3,500 and 5,000. They consist of three categories. In the first category are the Chinese engineers and technicians working in Chinese State-aided projects such as the Gwadar port construction and the Saindak copper-gold extraction projects in Balochistan, the construction of a hydel power station in the FATA and the expansion of the reservoir capacity of the Mangla dam in Mirpur in POK. All these Chinese are well-protected by the Pakistani security forces, but despite this, some of the engineers working in Gwadar and FATA were killed in terrorist attacks in recent years, some allegedly by the Uighurs and one by the late Abdullah Mehsud of South Waziristan, a former detenu in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
5. The second category consists of independent Chinese businessmen running small-scale business enterprises employing not more than half a dozen Chinese per enterprise like the one in Peshawar, which came under attack. The third category consists largely of single Chinese women in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi working in massage and beauty parlours, dental and native Chinese medicine clinics etc. These two categories do not enjoy any special protection. They are dependent on the local police of the area, where they are living and working, for their protection.
6. There was a campaign of slander against these single Chinese women by the clerics of the Lal Masjid and their Uighur students, which led to the kidnapping of some of them working in Islamabad. While the clerics were describing them as prostitutes corrupting the morals of Muslims, the Uighur students studying in the madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid were accusing them of being agents of the Chinese intelligence agencies sent to Pakistan to monitor the activities of the Uighurs in Pakistan before the Beijing Olympics.
7.Taken aback by the Pashtun anger against the Chinese, the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad tried to reassure the Pakistani religious elements that China had nothing against the Lal Masjid. It denied reports that Beijing forced Musharraf to act against the Masjid following the kidnapping of some Chinese women by the madrasa students.
8. The "China Daily" reported as follows on July 18, 2007: "China did not push Pakistan for operations against the Red Mosque, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Luo Zhaohui said. It is the consistent policy of China not to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries, he told The News, a major Pakistani daily. Luo said he was considering an invitation to visit the mosque but it was made impossible due to the unstable security situation. "We enjoy very cordial relations with the ruling party here and likewise we maintain friendly ties with other segments of the society including the political parties of the opposition," he said. "I had no knowledge as to why Chinese nationals are being targeted and were the victims in five recent incidents", Luo said, referring to several Chinese who were killed in that country. He said if Chinese continued to be targeted, cooperation between the two countries could suffer. To protect the 3,000 Chinese working in Pakistan, China and Pakistan have decided to set up a Joint Task Force (JTF), the Ambassador revealed."
9. Following these initiatives by the Chinese Embassy, the anger against the Chinese seemed to have subsided. The fact that this was really not so became evident on August 29,2008, when two Chinese engineers, Zhanggua and Lung, along with their security guard Imranullah and driver Khalil, went missing in the Khall area of the Dir Lower district in the NWFP.They were working for the Zong mobile company, which was running mobile phone services in Dir Upper and Lower districts. They were kidnapped while they were being drven in a car. Following this incident, the Chinese Embassy advised 15 other Chinese engineers working in the area to leave the area. They did so.
10. Subsequently, Muslim Khan, who described himself as a spokesman of the TTP in the Swat Valley, claimed that the Chinese engineers were in the custody of the TTP, which wuld be shortly announcing its demands for their release. Initially he said: “Our aim is to hit the government’s interests wherever they are. We kidnap everyone irrespective of whether he’s Pakistani or Chinese and we’ll continue to do this until they stop killing our people.” But the daily newspaper "The News" reported on September 4,2008, as follows: " The militants' spokesman was critical of the 'Chinese role' in pressurising the Pakistani Government to launch Operation Silence on the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad. The Lal Masjid administration had taken hostage Chinese women who were running a massage centre in Islamabad last year who were later released unharmed. He said the US also played a role in forcing Pakistan to attack the mosque and seminary in which hundreds of students and their teachers were reportedly killed." (5-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat. Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
THE HINDU-CHRISTIAN DIVIDE (CONTD)
Dear Mr. Raman,
I read your article on the Hindu-Christian divide and respectfully beg to differ with you on a few points. You say that India is 80% Hindu and that Hindus have a right to form organisations. You are factually correct. But does this assertion imply that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Bahais and others have secondary rights by virtue of being in a minority? If I got it wrong and if indeed "Indians" regardless of religion have equal rights then should we be dividing Indian society by religion in the first place? What does India being 80% Hindu have anything to do by way of justifying Hindu anger over conversions? Conversions then should be wrong regardless of Hindus being the majority.
Besides, does India "belong" to the Hindus that they are so angry over conversions? Aren't we all ethnically the same? We look the same, our language, food, cultural mores and values are the same.
On a side note, a poor tribal in Orissa, oppressed by the caste system has every incentive to convert to Christianity or Buddhism or any faith that promises him or her a better life. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Hindu groups, even if they oppose conversions peacefully, are fundamentally protesting personal liberties. Bribing people into a new religion is wrong but violently or even constitutionally preventing them is wrong.
I wish groups like the VHP spent more time fighting against caste oppression instead of spreading these myths about Hinduism's original claims on the tribals of Orissa or on the people of India.
Please know that I mean no offence to your valuable work.
Best,
Alaphia
(The writer is the former correspondent of NDTV in Chennai, who now lives in the US )
In France, the birth place of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the Catholics are in a preponderant majority. While non-Catholics have been Prime Ministers rarely has a non-Catholic become the President. In the UK, the Anglican Protestants, are in a majority. Only an Anglican Protestant can be the head of State (The Crown). Rarely has a Catholic become the Prime Minister. In all Muslim countries, while the Muslims have the right to convert a non-Muslim to Islam, non-Muslims do not have the right to convert a Muslim to their faith. In many Muslim countries, converting a Muslim to another religion is punishable with death.If a non-Muslim wants to marry a Muslim, he or she has to embrace Islam.In Pakistan last week, four Muslim women were buried alive as a punishment for being friendly with men.Muslims should look inwards and remove despicable practices in their religion before they give sermons to others. India is the homeland of the Hindus. It is the birthplace of their religion, culture and civilisation. India is as holy to the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Jains and the Sikhs as Saudi Arabia is to the Muslims and Palestine and Jerusalem are to the Christians and the Jewish people. The Hindus being in a preponderant majority along with the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, have every right to safeguard their interests, religion, culture and civilisation. They have to do it in such a manner as not to infringe on the rights of the Muslims and Christians, who are equal citizens of the country. Equality of rights does not mean freedom for the Muslims and the Christians to eradicate Hinduism from India through conversions. Take care. Raman
I read your article on the Hindu-Christian divide and respectfully beg to differ with you on a few points. You say that India is 80% Hindu and that Hindus have a right to form organisations. You are factually correct. But does this assertion imply that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Bahais and others have secondary rights by virtue of being in a minority? If I got it wrong and if indeed "Indians" regardless of religion have equal rights then should we be dividing Indian society by religion in the first place? What does India being 80% Hindu have anything to do by way of justifying Hindu anger over conversions? Conversions then should be wrong regardless of Hindus being the majority.
Besides, does India "belong" to the Hindus that they are so angry over conversions? Aren't we all ethnically the same? We look the same, our language, food, cultural mores and values are the same.
On a side note, a poor tribal in Orissa, oppressed by the caste system has every incentive to convert to Christianity or Buddhism or any faith that promises him or her a better life. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Hindu groups, even if they oppose conversions peacefully, are fundamentally protesting personal liberties. Bribing people into a new religion is wrong but violently or even constitutionally preventing them is wrong.
I wish groups like the VHP spent more time fighting against caste oppression instead of spreading these myths about Hinduism's original claims on the tribals of Orissa or on the people of India.
Please know that I mean no offence to your valuable work.
Best,
Alaphia
(The writer is the former correspondent of NDTV in Chennai, who now lives in the US )
In France, the birth place of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the Catholics are in a preponderant majority. While non-Catholics have been Prime Ministers rarely has a non-Catholic become the President. In the UK, the Anglican Protestants, are in a majority. Only an Anglican Protestant can be the head of State (The Crown). Rarely has a Catholic become the Prime Minister. In all Muslim countries, while the Muslims have the right to convert a non-Muslim to Islam, non-Muslims do not have the right to convert a Muslim to their faith. In many Muslim countries, converting a Muslim to another religion is punishable with death.If a non-Muslim wants to marry a Muslim, he or she has to embrace Islam.In Pakistan last week, four Muslim women were buried alive as a punishment for being friendly with men.Muslims should look inwards and remove despicable practices in their religion before they give sermons to others. India is the homeland of the Hindus. It is the birthplace of their religion, culture and civilisation. India is as holy to the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Jains and the Sikhs as Saudi Arabia is to the Muslims and Palestine and Jerusalem are to the Christians and the Jewish people. The Hindus being in a preponderant majority along with the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, have every right to safeguard their interests, religion, culture and civilisation. They have to do it in such a manner as not to infringe on the rights of the Muslims and Christians, who are equal citizens of the country. Equality of rights does not mean freedom for the Muslims and the Christians to eradicate Hinduism from India through conversions. Take care. Raman
THE HINDU-CHRISTIAN DIVIDE
B.RAMAN
Every Indian, who wishes to see India grow in unity, strength and prosperity, will be concerned over the implications of the emergence of a growing Hindu-Christian divide in the Indian civil society.
2. The recent shocking incidents of violence in some parts of the State of Orissa have brought home to us the extent to which the poison inthe relations between the two communities has spread. What one saw in Orissa was nothing less than a mini version of what one saw inGujarat in 2002.
3. In Gujarat, the massacre of a group of Hindu pilgrims travelling in a railway compartment by a group of Muslim fanatics when the trainhad stopped at a railway station called Godhra, led to widespread retaliatory attacks on members of the Muslim community in different partsof the State. The brutal violence witnessed during these incidents committed initially by the Muslims and subsequently by the Hindus shouldbe a matter of shame to us as a nation.
4. In Orissa, the brutal murder of a highly-respected leader of the Hindu community belonging to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by a groupof suspected Christian elements led to widespread attacks by members of the Hindu community----most of them allegedly belonging to theVHP--- on the Christan community. The casualties in Orissa were thankfully small as compared to those in Gujarat in 2002, but the brutalitywitnessed on both sides----initially by alleged Christian elements and subsequently by alleged VHP members--- was no less disturbing thanwhat one had seen in Gujarat in 2002.
5. The seeds of the Hindu-Muslim divide were initially sown by the British during the pre-1947 colonial days. It resulted in the creation ofPakistan and the subsequent violent incidents between the Hindu and Muslim communities in different parts of India. The jihadi terrorismwitnessed in different parts of India since the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a group of Hindus in December,1992,marked a new phase inthe continuing divide between some sections of the Hindus and the Muslims. Forunately, this mental divide remained confined to smallsections of the two communities. The two communities as a whole have till now not allowed the attempts of these small sections to spreadthis poison further to succeed. One of the objectives of the repeated jihadi terrorist strikes is to aggravate this divide.
6. The seeds of the Hindu-Christian divide were sown much later---long after India became independent. Even in the 1950s and the 1960s,there were concerns over the objectionable activities of foreign Christian missionaries in Indian territory. These activities perceived asobjectionable not only by large sections of the Hindu community, but also by the intelligence and security agencies and by highly-respected leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi consisted of attempts to indulge in large -scale conversion of underprivileged Hindusand animist tribals in Central India into Christianity with the help of large, unrestricted flow of funds from the Vatican and from Catholic andBaptist organisations in the US and the role played by foreign missionaries such as the late Rev.Michael Scot in instigating the insurgency in the North-East where many of the inhabitants in Nagaland and Mizoram are Baptists.
7. Just as the flow of money from so-called Muslim charity organisations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries sought tosustain and aggravate the divide between the Muslims and the Hindus, projected as infidels, and to promote jihadi terrorism in Indianterritory, the flow of money from the Vatican and Christian missionary and fundamentalist organisations in the West tended to create amental divide between the Hindus and the Christians and promote and sustain the insurgency in our North-East.
8. But the leaders of India in the post-independence years sought to see that the concerns over the role of the foreign Christian missionariesand the massive funds at their disposal did not create unwarranted suspicions in the minds of the Hindu community against their Christianfellow-citizens. They realised that if they allowed such suspicions to appear in the relations between the two communities, they would onlybe playing into the hands of foreign missionary organisations, which wanted to create a mental divide. They refrained from viewing ourChristian fellow-citizens as surrogates of the foreign missionary organisations.
9. This conscious attempt not to allow suspicions about foreign Christian missionary organisations create prejudices in our mind about ourChristian fellow-citizens started disappearing after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led coalition came to power in Delhi in 1998. For thefirst time, there was a greater aggressiveness and less sensitivity in the interactions between the Christian organisations----foreign as wellas indigenous-- and Hindu organisations such as the VHP. It would be incorrect to blame the Government of A.B.Vajpayee for thisdevelopment. No Government policy directly encouraged this development. But the silence of the Government in the face of an aggressivecampaign against certain aspects of the activities of Christian organisations and against certain elements of the Christian community bythe VHP indirectly led to the emergence of the first signs of a mental divide between the two communities. I was myself a witness to thispost-1998 aggressive anti-Christian campaign by the VHP on some occasions.
10. This aggressive campaign by the VHP led to an equally aggressive counter-campaign by some of the indigenous Christian organisations against the VHP and those associated with it, directly or indirectly. Some members of the community of Indian origin in the US---Hindus aswell as Christians--- joined this campaign, with the Hindus in the US supporting the VHP and the Christians of Indian origin in the USsupporting anti-VHP organisations.
11. From an anti-conversion campaign, which in my view is justified if peaceful and in accordance with law, it took on additional dimensionsof a disturbing nature. One such dimension was anti-Vatican. Sonia Gandhi, who before 1998 was projected as of Italian origin and henceunsuitable to be the Prime Minister of India, was post-1998 sought to be projected as a Roman Catholic with suspected ties to the Vatican.She was projected as the source of the greater aggressiveness exhibited by the Christian organisations. There was a discernible attempt tomerge the anti-Christian and the anti-Sonia campaigns.
12. This aggression and counter-aggression, rhetoric and counter-rhetoric totally lacking in a sense of balance between the VHP on the oneside and some Christian organisations on the other threaten to create fresh pockets of social and religious disharmony in the alreadyfragile Indian society. If India is to take its place as an important power in the world and as the equal, if not the better, of China, it isimportant for all right-thinking people----whatever be their religion or language or political background--- to come together to strongly opposethese new divisive trends in our society and nation.
13. The Hindus constitute the preponderant majority of this nation with 80 per cent of the population. India is their homeland and they haveevery right to protect their interests and to safeguard the essentially Hindu nature of this country. They have a right to have organisationssuch as the VHP to help them in doing so. At the same time, they have an important responsibility to carry out their activities in a peacefulmanner in such a way as not to add to the divisions in our society. We have to find ways of making the interests of different religious groupsand communities compatible with each other and not antagonistic to each other.
14. The way the VHP and the Christian organisations determined to oppose it are carrying on their activities is threatening to create more pockets of mutual antagonism than pockets of unity and harmony. This is not good for India.(3-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Every Indian, who wishes to see India grow in unity, strength and prosperity, will be concerned over the implications of the emergence of a growing Hindu-Christian divide in the Indian civil society.
2. The recent shocking incidents of violence in some parts of the State of Orissa have brought home to us the extent to which the poison inthe relations between the two communities has spread. What one saw in Orissa was nothing less than a mini version of what one saw inGujarat in 2002.
3. In Gujarat, the massacre of a group of Hindu pilgrims travelling in a railway compartment by a group of Muslim fanatics when the trainhad stopped at a railway station called Godhra, led to widespread retaliatory attacks on members of the Muslim community in different partsof the State. The brutal violence witnessed during these incidents committed initially by the Muslims and subsequently by the Hindus shouldbe a matter of shame to us as a nation.
4. In Orissa, the brutal murder of a highly-respected leader of the Hindu community belonging to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by a groupof suspected Christian elements led to widespread attacks by members of the Hindu community----most of them allegedly belonging to theVHP--- on the Christan community. The casualties in Orissa were thankfully small as compared to those in Gujarat in 2002, but the brutalitywitnessed on both sides----initially by alleged Christian elements and subsequently by alleged VHP members--- was no less disturbing thanwhat one had seen in Gujarat in 2002.
5. The seeds of the Hindu-Muslim divide were initially sown by the British during the pre-1947 colonial days. It resulted in the creation ofPakistan and the subsequent violent incidents between the Hindu and Muslim communities in different parts of India. The jihadi terrorismwitnessed in different parts of India since the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a group of Hindus in December,1992,marked a new phase inthe continuing divide between some sections of the Hindus and the Muslims. Forunately, this mental divide remained confined to smallsections of the two communities. The two communities as a whole have till now not allowed the attempts of these small sections to spreadthis poison further to succeed. One of the objectives of the repeated jihadi terrorist strikes is to aggravate this divide.
6. The seeds of the Hindu-Christian divide were sown much later---long after India became independent. Even in the 1950s and the 1960s,there were concerns over the objectionable activities of foreign Christian missionaries in Indian territory. These activities perceived asobjectionable not only by large sections of the Hindu community, but also by the intelligence and security agencies and by highly-respected leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi consisted of attempts to indulge in large -scale conversion of underprivileged Hindusand animist tribals in Central India into Christianity with the help of large, unrestricted flow of funds from the Vatican and from Catholic andBaptist organisations in the US and the role played by foreign missionaries such as the late Rev.Michael Scot in instigating the insurgency in the North-East where many of the inhabitants in Nagaland and Mizoram are Baptists.
7. Just as the flow of money from so-called Muslim charity organisations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries sought tosustain and aggravate the divide between the Muslims and the Hindus, projected as infidels, and to promote jihadi terrorism in Indianterritory, the flow of money from the Vatican and Christian missionary and fundamentalist organisations in the West tended to create amental divide between the Hindus and the Christians and promote and sustain the insurgency in our North-East.
8. But the leaders of India in the post-independence years sought to see that the concerns over the role of the foreign Christian missionariesand the massive funds at their disposal did not create unwarranted suspicions in the minds of the Hindu community against their Christianfellow-citizens. They realised that if they allowed such suspicions to appear in the relations between the two communities, they would onlybe playing into the hands of foreign missionary organisations, which wanted to create a mental divide. They refrained from viewing ourChristian fellow-citizens as surrogates of the foreign missionary organisations.
9. This conscious attempt not to allow suspicions about foreign Christian missionary organisations create prejudices in our mind about ourChristian fellow-citizens started disappearing after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led coalition came to power in Delhi in 1998. For thefirst time, there was a greater aggressiveness and less sensitivity in the interactions between the Christian organisations----foreign as wellas indigenous-- and Hindu organisations such as the VHP. It would be incorrect to blame the Government of A.B.Vajpayee for thisdevelopment. No Government policy directly encouraged this development. But the silence of the Government in the face of an aggressivecampaign against certain aspects of the activities of Christian organisations and against certain elements of the Christian community bythe VHP indirectly led to the emergence of the first signs of a mental divide between the two communities. I was myself a witness to thispost-1998 aggressive anti-Christian campaign by the VHP on some occasions.
10. This aggressive campaign by the VHP led to an equally aggressive counter-campaign by some of the indigenous Christian organisations against the VHP and those associated with it, directly or indirectly. Some members of the community of Indian origin in the US---Hindus aswell as Christians--- joined this campaign, with the Hindus in the US supporting the VHP and the Christians of Indian origin in the USsupporting anti-VHP organisations.
11. From an anti-conversion campaign, which in my view is justified if peaceful and in accordance with law, it took on additional dimensionsof a disturbing nature. One such dimension was anti-Vatican. Sonia Gandhi, who before 1998 was projected as of Italian origin and henceunsuitable to be the Prime Minister of India, was post-1998 sought to be projected as a Roman Catholic with suspected ties to the Vatican.She was projected as the source of the greater aggressiveness exhibited by the Christian organisations. There was a discernible attempt tomerge the anti-Christian and the anti-Sonia campaigns.
12. This aggression and counter-aggression, rhetoric and counter-rhetoric totally lacking in a sense of balance between the VHP on the oneside and some Christian organisations on the other threaten to create fresh pockets of social and religious disharmony in the alreadyfragile Indian society. If India is to take its place as an important power in the world and as the equal, if not the better, of China, it isimportant for all right-thinking people----whatever be their religion or language or political background--- to come together to strongly opposethese new divisive trends in our society and nation.
13. The Hindus constitute the preponderant majority of this nation with 80 per cent of the population. India is their homeland and they haveevery right to protect their interests and to safeguard the essentially Hindu nature of this country. They have a right to have organisationssuch as the VHP to help them in doing so. At the same time, they have an important responsibility to carry out their activities in a peacefulmanner in such a way as not to add to the divisions in our society. We have to find ways of making the interests of different religious groupsand communities compatible with each other and not antagonistic to each other.
14. The way the VHP and the Christian organisations determined to oppose it are carrying on their activities is threatening to create more pockets of mutual antagonism than pockets of unity and harmony. This is not good for India.(3-9-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)