January 15, 2002

World Supports India's Stand against Terrorrism

K.G. Joglekar (*Senior Indian Journalist)

In a way it is ironic that the focus at the eleventh summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) held in Kathmandu recently should not be on cooperation but on the fight against terrorism. This was a realisation of the harsh fact that terrorism has emerged as a grave threat not only to democracy but to human civilization itself. There is therefore, little point in talking about cooperation till this threat is ended.

The Heads of State and Heads of Government attending the seven-nation summit adopted a declaration which vowed to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It also pledged to prevent support and financing of organised terrorist activities in the participating countries. The Kathmandu Declaration called for implementation of the Convention adopted by SAARC in 1987 on suppression of terrorism. The Declaration supported the resolution of the UN Security Council on the need to fight terrorism. It said that terrorism violates the fundamental values of the United Nations and constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the 21st century. The leaders of the seven SAARC countries - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan rejected any justification of terrorism on ideological, political, religious or any other ground.

India has been fighting the evil of terrorism for the last two decades. It has given proof time and again that terrorist activity first in Punjab and then in Jammu and Kashmir was aided, abetted and planned by Pakistan. The terrorists were being given arms, ammunition, equipment and money by Pakistan which was running camps for training them. One estimate put the number of people killed by the terrorists at as high as fifty thousand. Most of them were innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with politics and wanted nothing more than to lead a quiet peaceful life. What is even more regrettable is that most of the victims were Muslims who were gunned down by militants trained by Pakistan which claims to be an Islamic country.

The world and particularly the Western countries like the United States and Great Britain turned a blind eye as India continued its grim battle against terrorism planned by its neighbour. India was alone in the fight. The Western countries ignored the massive evidence produced by India time and again clearly bringing out Pakistan's hand in terrorism. They did so for two reasons. Pakistan had helped them in forcing the Soviet troops out of Afghanistan and in installation of the Taliban regime there. And then the cold-blooded murders were taking place thousands of miles away.

The attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in which several thousand lives were lost, came as a grim reminder to the fact that the evil of terrorism can strike anywhere on the globe. The Pentagon in Washington, the nerve centre of America's military might or the business district in New York, the nerve centre of its economic might were also no longer safe. This made the world form a coalition of nations against terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban regime there would never have happened if the terrorists had not targetted Washington and New York. But that brought no relief to India. Terrorists flushed out of Afghanistan found an easy escape route to Jammu and Kashmir through Pakistan and stepped up their activities there. The battle continues. India is determined to fight the evil, alone if necessary, to end the scourge. The attack first on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly building in Srinagar on October 1, 2001 and then on Parliament House in New Delhi on December 13, 2001 were clear indications of the increased activity of the terrorists. Secondly, the steps taken by India - snapping rail and road links, banning its air space for Pakistani aircraft and downsising its diplomatic mission in Islamabad were proof of its determination. As the new year advanced, troops of India and Pakistan were on the border in an eyeball-to eyeball confrontation.

Indians are grateful that, though belated, the attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon have made the United States realize that they can no longer ignore the threat posed by terrorism not only to normal life or democracy but to civilisation itself. The Kathmandu Declaration adopted at the conclusion of the SAARC summit endorsed India's stand. Interestingly, the Pakistani ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, is a signatory to the Declaration and will have to prove his bona fides not by making hollow promises or shaking hands with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee but by concrete measures. He has taken some steps but clearly he has to do much more before India is satisfied that he is sincere. The US President, Mr. George W. Bush, hit the nail on the head when he asked the Pakistan President 'to make a clear statement to the world that he intends to crack down on terror'.

The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, was even more forthright. He said that incidents like the attack on the Kashmir Assembly or on the Parliament House in New Delhi had to be completely rejected before there can be any meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan. This is exactly what India has been saying all along. Unless Pakistan stops aiding militants and terrorists wanting to destabilise India, there can be no useful dialogue between the two countries.

In order to cloak its help to terrorists operating in India, the Pakistan President has tried to give them respectability by calling them jehadis (crusaders or freedom fighters). Even the Western countries which had so far supported Pakistan have seen through the game and have said that whatever the cloak that it chose to wear, terrorism is an evil which had to be eradicated. They have not been taken in by the cosmetic measures taken by Pakistan to prove its sincerity. Mere declarations of banning some organisations, seizing their funds or putting some persons in prison are not enough. These have to be backed by a resolve, stated and carried out, to give no aid to terrorists operating in India or any other country for that matter.

The people of India are not only amused but angry when some leaders of the Western countries advise India to be restrained in their reaction to Pakistan's actions. This is precisely what India has been doing for 58 long years in the hope that good sense will dawn on Pakistan. It is true that Pakistan feels that Kashmir is an issue between the two countries. But cannot this problem be kept to one side for the time being and avenues searched for cooperation in other areas? This was agreed to at the Shimla summit between leaders of the two countries held in 1972. But Pakistan has been trying to wriggle out of the commitment that it made in Shimla. India and Pakistan have fought four wars over Kashmir and Pakistan must realise for ever that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and that India would never agree to surrender it.

This is a harsh reality which Pakistan will find it difficult to accept. But then it has to remember that the European Union countries also have difference between Britain and Ireland, Britain and Spain over Gibraltar, and Austria and Italy over Tyrol. Similarly, the Association of South East Asian Countries (ASEAN) - became a success when Indonesia gave up its policy of confrontation with Malaysia and Singapore. The economies of the SAARC countries are in many ways complementary and not competitive. Cooperation will bring many benefits and help in the struggle against poverty. A confrontationist attitude and obsession over Kashmir will, on the other hand, only mean hardship for the people of both India and Pakistan. India will therefore watch with interest the steps that Pakistan takes against terrorists and the effectiveness of Western persuasion to make it adopt a rational attitude.