Since September 11, many of us have taken a close interest in various debates and discussions on terrorism taking place in the media. One of the issues that have repeatedly come up is the unfairness involved in calling terrorist organisations such as “Al Qaeda” as “Islamic terrorists.” There is an un-stated implication that those who use this appellation are anti-Islam and are using this unfortunate episode to tar all Muslims and Islam with the same brush. Such an emotional response is understandable given that some crazy people in the West (terrorists?) have responded by killing people wearing turbans just because the currently most prominent terrorist wears one and by attacking anyone who has the same general features (“brown” as against “white,” “yellow” & “black,” who have different facial characteristics) as the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks. Responsible people of whatever religious affiliation who have used the term “Islamic terrorists” have, however, been at pains to state and reiterate that the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. Sufficient time has now passed for us to examine this issue dispassionately so that future debate is based on logic and not on emotions.
The question is whether the IRA are “Christian terrorists,” the “LTTE” “Hindu terrorists” and AQ, JEM, HUM, LET et al “Islamic terrorists” as described by some. The answer to this question lies in their objectives and ideology. The professed objective of the IRA is to get rid of British rule in Northern Ireland and to expel the British from Ireland. To my knowledge they have neither claimed that their objective is to establish a Christian or Catholic rule in Northern Ireland nor have they used Christian or Catholic theology to justify or support their terrorist actions. If this information is correct the IRA are better termed “Irish terrorists” and not “Christian terrorists”. The objective of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam is merely to establish a homeland for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Again their ideology may have elements of Tamil superiority, but to my knowledge they have neither professed that there objective is a Hindu state in Sri Lanka, nor have they used Hinduism in any form to justify their actions to the outside world. They are therefore referred to either as “Sri Lankan Tamil Terrorists” or just “Tamil terrorists,” even though the Tamil citizens of India, who do not agree with their ideology or approach, may not like the second appellation. It also does not imply that Sri Lankan Tamils or all Irish are terrorists.
The professed ideology of all the terrorist groups that have been referred to as “Islamic terrorists” or “Jehadis” is Islam. This by no stretch of imagination means that all Muslims are terrorists. Though “Jehad” in Islam means “struggle” these terrorist groups have defined “Jehad” as an armed “struggle” between their version of Islam and non-Muslim people and countries, sometimes by name (Americans) at other times in a generic sense. Their rhetoric and justification is all based on Islamic religious texts, even though the meaning and intent of these texts may be quite different from what they profess it to be and which many Muslims have clarified is a gross distortion of Islam.
In recent history the only other groups that can arguably be classed as religion based were the “Sikh terrorists” trained in or based in Pakistan. Sikhism and its greater glory was the professed ideology of many groups, which terrorised the population of Punjab even though they indiscriminately killed both Sikh and Hindu civilians. Their primary objective was the establishment of a Khalistan within India. Thus they are referred to as either “Sikh terrorists” or “Khalistani terrorists.” By analogy the use of the term “Islamic terrorists,” or in the case of Pakistan based anti-India terrorist groups “Pakistani Jehadis” does not appear to be inappropriate.
Islam has some unique features for which it is rightly appreciated. All Muslims are equal before Islam. The religion does not sanction or continence any distinction or discrimination based on wealth, caste, creed or nationality. This positive feature also means that terrorism based on a fundamentalist & blinkered interpretation of Islam is by its very nature one of the most international forms of terrorism since the demise of communism. Though individual terrorist groups may consist of one nationality (e.g. Philippines’ Abu Sayef, Indonesian ALF) their belief unites them as brothers in a common cause with Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Pakistanis with the same beliefs. Thus individuals indoctrinated with an ideology that glorifies (their version of) “Islam” and promotes hatred against the rest (Americans & their Arab “stooges”, Jews/Israelis, Hindus/Indians, godless communists/Central Asians/ Chinese) are as international as Al Qaeda even if their primary objectives is the “liberation” of a specific geographical area or country from its rulers.
Friday, November 23, 2001
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Since September 11, 2001 the news media have been full of news about terrorism. There is however a debate waiting to take place, which both the protagonists in the war that struck USA on September 11 as well as bystanders such as India have so far avoided. This is the debate inherent in the statement that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s Freedom Fighter.” One response to this issue is that “I know a terrorist when I see one.” This response may be adequate while the memories of September 11 are still fresh in everyone’s mind, but will be quite inadequate when fresh horrors overlay some memories but not others. Another response is to sweep the issue under the carpet because it may affect the view of the so-called “Coalition against terrorism” in a direction that is unfavourable to India on Kashmir. As I try to show below, it is in our interest to start laying down the terms of the debate by trying to define what such terms mean in the 21st century.
Who or what is a terrorist? Though the exercise may appear at first like peeling an onion it is an exercise worth carrying out. Let us start with the simplest and most obvious definition: A terrorist organisation (or individual) is one that targets civilians (with the purpose of maiming or killing) for the purported purpose of achieving any professed goal or ideology. The purpose of killing civilians may be to proclaim the terrorists existence or to “terrorise” the population. In any case the pre-meditated killing of civilians clearly and unambiguously defines an organisation as terrorist. Even if the primary objective is to terrorise civilians by blowing up a civilian facility in which a few civilian workers are known to be present, counts in my view as a premeditated killing of civilians.
A murderer also targets civilians, but his/her motives are very personal (revenge against a well specified individual or group, money etc.). A broader goal, objective or ideology than the purely personal is a fundamental element of any terrorist organisation. Even an individual terrorist such as the Unabomber had an ideology – anti-technology (modern version of Luddism) even though he did not publicise it. Anti-abortion extremists that blow up abortion facilities in the USA and environmental fundamentalists who blow up polluting factories and kill people present in them or passers by have a well-defined objective & professed ideology.
Can a State be a “terrorist” State? If we think of examples such as such as Chile, Argentina & other Latin American States under their right wing generals, Cultural Revolution China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, the answer seems obvious. We must move from emotionally charged examples to rigorous definition that is logical & consistent, so that difficult grey areas can also be addressed. Applying our earlier definition, a dictatorship (or oligarchy) that as a matter of sanctioned policy kills its own civilians to terrorise its population into docility and acceptance of its dictatorial rule can logically be classified as a terrorist state. A State that sponsors, supports or shelters terrorist groups, whether domestic or foreign, can by the same logic be called a terrorist state if it helps in the killing of civilians abroad.
Can groups of citizens who are trying to liberate their own country from such a “terrorist dictatorship” use terrorism without loosing their right to be called “freedom fighters?” The logical answer has to be an unambiguous no; the premeditated killing of innocent civilians must logically remain a terrorist act no matter who the perpetrator. The tag of “freedom fighter” does not save one from being labelled a “terrorist.” There are, however, grey areas in practice; The precise definition of “innocent civilian” becomes a little ambiguous. All those in the full knowledge of and participating in the administration of the policy of state sponsored killing of civilians are no longer innocent civilians and can in principle be targeted by genuine “freedom fighters.”
The distinction between dictatorship (oligarchy) and democracy is critical. In a true 21st century democracy it is impossible to imagine a democratically sanctioned policy of killing of innocent civilians so as to terrorise even a part of the population. The most fundamental right of every citizen is the right to life. A true democracy must have laws & institutions that protect this right against occasional abuses by organs of the State. Besides intellectual & media freedom, the right to criticise the leaders and the system, and elections that can change government, minority rights are an important component of true democracy. The majority does not have the right to deny to a minority the same rights that it enjoys (e.g. basic education, religious freedom). By the same token a minority has no inherent right to things that the majority does not enjoy (like special subsidies). Every one has the right to convince others of their own viewpoint and thus change a policy that they do not like. A minority (e.g. the “Black Panthers” in the USA) does not have the right to impose its own views on the majority by force and killing just as the majority does not have the right to use the organs of state to terrorise the minority.
Foreigners entering a democratic country for the purpose of killing anyone (civilian, policy or army) can unambiguously be classified either as terrorists or as invaders. A State cannot be classified as terrorist if it hunts down and kills such hostile foreigners. Citizens do not have the right to shelter such foreigners and are criminally liable if they do so. Thus most of the grey areas found in a dictatorship disappear in a true democracy where the minority enjoys full democratic rights. Killing of not only civilians but also the police and armed forces is a terrorist act in a true democracy.
The only grey area is a situation in which domestic terrorists have managed to operate in an area for some time and managed to terrorise the population. Can democratic rights be abridged to fight this terrorism? In my view a true democracy can and should pass laws that can temporarily and in a well specified area or ambit abridge democratic rights for a limited period of time. Given the general problem of deteriorating governance in developing countries there is strong danger of lazy administrators using such laws well beyond their intended orbit. Adequate safeguards must be built in to any such act. In such a fight against terrorists, some innocent civilian lives are inevitably lost. Such actions by the state and its organs cannot be classified as “State terrorism.” If there is individual malafide action (such as settling personal scores) outside the ambit of the special anti-terrorism law such malafide must be punished by the democratic state.
To conclude, any one who engages in, supports or protects the killers of innocent civilians is a terrorist no matter how elevated the professed objective. In a democratic country with adequate safeguards against aberrant behaviour by the organs of state, even those who kill policemen and soldiers who have not violated the law and are engaged in their normal peacetime activities classify as terrorists.
Who or what is a terrorist? Though the exercise may appear at first like peeling an onion it is an exercise worth carrying out. Let us start with the simplest and most obvious definition: A terrorist organisation (or individual) is one that targets civilians (with the purpose of maiming or killing) for the purported purpose of achieving any professed goal or ideology. The purpose of killing civilians may be to proclaim the terrorists existence or to “terrorise” the population. In any case the pre-meditated killing of civilians clearly and unambiguously defines an organisation as terrorist. Even if the primary objective is to terrorise civilians by blowing up a civilian facility in which a few civilian workers are known to be present, counts in my view as a premeditated killing of civilians.
A murderer also targets civilians, but his/her motives are very personal (revenge against a well specified individual or group, money etc.). A broader goal, objective or ideology than the purely personal is a fundamental element of any terrorist organisation. Even an individual terrorist such as the Unabomber had an ideology – anti-technology (modern version of Luddism) even though he did not publicise it. Anti-abortion extremists that blow up abortion facilities in the USA and environmental fundamentalists who blow up polluting factories and kill people present in them or passers by have a well-defined objective & professed ideology.
Can a State be a “terrorist” State? If we think of examples such as such as Chile, Argentina & other Latin American States under their right wing generals, Cultural Revolution China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, the answer seems obvious. We must move from emotionally charged examples to rigorous definition that is logical & consistent, so that difficult grey areas can also be addressed. Applying our earlier definition, a dictatorship (or oligarchy) that as a matter of sanctioned policy kills its own civilians to terrorise its population into docility and acceptance of its dictatorial rule can logically be classified as a terrorist state. A State that sponsors, supports or shelters terrorist groups, whether domestic or foreign, can by the same logic be called a terrorist state if it helps in the killing of civilians abroad.
Can groups of citizens who are trying to liberate their own country from such a “terrorist dictatorship” use terrorism without loosing their right to be called “freedom fighters?” The logical answer has to be an unambiguous no; the premeditated killing of innocent civilians must logically remain a terrorist act no matter who the perpetrator. The tag of “freedom fighter” does not save one from being labelled a “terrorist.” There are, however, grey areas in practice; The precise definition of “innocent civilian” becomes a little ambiguous. All those in the full knowledge of and participating in the administration of the policy of state sponsored killing of civilians are no longer innocent civilians and can in principle be targeted by genuine “freedom fighters.”
The distinction between dictatorship (oligarchy) and democracy is critical. In a true 21st century democracy it is impossible to imagine a democratically sanctioned policy of killing of innocent civilians so as to terrorise even a part of the population. The most fundamental right of every citizen is the right to life. A true democracy must have laws & institutions that protect this right against occasional abuses by organs of the State. Besides intellectual & media freedom, the right to criticise the leaders and the system, and elections that can change government, minority rights are an important component of true democracy. The majority does not have the right to deny to a minority the same rights that it enjoys (e.g. basic education, religious freedom). By the same token a minority has no inherent right to things that the majority does not enjoy (like special subsidies). Every one has the right to convince others of their own viewpoint and thus change a policy that they do not like. A minority (e.g. the “Black Panthers” in the USA) does not have the right to impose its own views on the majority by force and killing just as the majority does not have the right to use the organs of state to terrorise the minority.
Foreigners entering a democratic country for the purpose of killing anyone (civilian, policy or army) can unambiguously be classified either as terrorists or as invaders. A State cannot be classified as terrorist if it hunts down and kills such hostile foreigners. Citizens do not have the right to shelter such foreigners and are criminally liable if they do so. Thus most of the grey areas found in a dictatorship disappear in a true democracy where the minority enjoys full democratic rights. Killing of not only civilians but also the police and armed forces is a terrorist act in a true democracy.
The only grey area is a situation in which domestic terrorists have managed to operate in an area for some time and managed to terrorise the population. Can democratic rights be abridged to fight this terrorism? In my view a true democracy can and should pass laws that can temporarily and in a well specified area or ambit abridge democratic rights for a limited period of time. Given the general problem of deteriorating governance in developing countries there is strong danger of lazy administrators using such laws well beyond their intended orbit. Adequate safeguards must be built in to any such act. In such a fight against terrorists, some innocent civilian lives are inevitably lost. Such actions by the state and its organs cannot be classified as “State terrorism.” If there is individual malafide action (such as settling personal scores) outside the ambit of the special anti-terrorism law such malafide must be punished by the democratic state.
To conclude, any one who engages in, supports or protects the killers of innocent civilians is a terrorist no matter how elevated the professed objective. In a democratic country with adequate safeguards against aberrant behaviour by the organs of state, even those who kill policemen and soldiers who have not violated the law and are engaged in their normal peacetime activities classify as terrorists.
Friday, November 9, 2001
Indo-US Relations and Afghan Policy
The Art of Foreign Policy lies in making other countries (in the current case the USA) believe that certain policies and actions that are in our (India’s) interest are also in its own (USA’s) interest (and vice-a’-versa). This involves two basic steps: Understanding and appreciating (yes!) the underlying, sometimes unprofessed & hidden, interests of the USA and secondly formulating our policy in such a way that it has a visible overlap with the USA’s own interests. Please note that this does not preclude India (or the USA) from pursuing any other interests and policies that do not have such a real or apparent overlap. I am assuming that we know what our own interests are, even though there have been times in the past when we seemed to act as if the interests of humanity in general had the same priority as that of Indians.
Many commentators have rightly noted that the events of September 11 have had a traumatic impact on the American public and that it will change the way the American people and their government view the rest of the World and America’s role in it. To draw useful conclusions for Indian foreign policy one must first appreciate the shocking lack of knowledge and interest that the American Public and even the US congress had in the rest of the World till September 10th. Any Indian living in the USA would have told you that even on US national television news (as against State or local TV) international news coverage is completely insular and focussed extremely narrowly on USA’s parochial interests or actions abroad. As a result general knowledge about other countries even among US Congress-persons, academics and intellectuals has steadily declined since the end of the cold war.
September 11 has changed all this and there will be a much greater interest in learning about Islam, Islamic countries and countries with minority Muslim populations. This will inevitably include an interest in and openness to learning about Islamic fundamentalist groups and Madrasas teaching hatred against non-Muslims. India is well positioned to be the source of information, knowledge and expertise on Islam in South Asia. India has been asserting for several decades that the Pakistan government since the time of Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq has fostered an Islam-based hatred of India in its schools and religious institutions; That Kashmir is just a symptom of the desire for revenge against “Hindu” India; That the objective of the Pakistan government has been to bleed if not dismember India by not just supporting but starting terrorist insurgencies throughout India. The facts as they have emerged since September 11, support most of the statements made by India. As the facts (once fully known) speak so loudly for themselves an over-emphasis on the anti-India bent of this phenomenon is likely to be counter-productive.
One important focus of our foreign policy in the next 5 years must therefore be to exploit the opportunity provided by the renewal of US interest in our part of the world. We must supply information to and help Americans understand the source and nature of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and other countries of S. Asia and also contrast this with Indian philosophy & religious culture, the determinedly non-violent religions (Buddhism & Jainism) that it has spawned and the syncretic Indo-Islamic culture of India. One concrete new initiative that should be launched immediately is to initiate joint study and/or research programs between Indian and US universities & research institutes on any and all topics of interest to the USA in the backdrop of its “War against Terrorism”.
The operational objective and effectiveness of the post-sept. 11 anti-terrorist strategy of the USA in Afghanistan is now becoming clearer. With every passing day it looks increasingly like India’s traditional approach to economic policy-making and implementation: In other words it is based on very little data or solid information (intelligence), given systematic downgrading of internal expertise (on Islamic fundamentalism, Afghanistan) it is unable to plan ahead and makes ad hoc changes usually in response to representations & petitions by private parties and interest groups (Pakistan & other frontline States), it has multiple and often conflicting objectives (over throw the Taliban, get the top leadership of Al Qaida, please Musharaf) because all manner of interest groups have to be satisfied before it can be approved (State & defence departments, Arab dictatorships) and it fails to achieve most of its objectives as it is based on the assumption of a selfless and honest bureaucracy ( Pakistan Army, govt. institutions & ISI loyalty to US set goals).
Because of all these reasons the US campaign in Afghanistan has been far from successful, with the two primary objectives of elimination of the Al Qaida terrorist network and the elimination of the terrorist Taliban regime unfulfilled and slow progress in cobbling together a “broad-based multi-ethinic” government. Fulfilment of both these objectives is in the interest of India. Can we then formulate a more concrete action plan that more effectively serves the interest of the USA than the current floundering campaign that has vacillated between over-dependence on a less than fully trust worthy Pakistan establishment and excessive belief in its own technological prowess and between the “moderate Taliban option” and the anti-Taliban Northern alliance.
The most feasible and achievable objective in Afghanistan appears to me to be the setting up of a government in North and West Afghanistan consisting of the groups that are a part of the Northern Alliance. This is best done in the context of UN blessed Afghan Federation conceptually consisting of two sub-units, Northern and Southern Afghanistan. The latter would consist of the Pushtoon inhabited areas of South and East Afghanistan and contain about 40% of the Afghan population. The former would contain the areas inhabited by all other ethnic groups, which constitute about 60% of the Afghan population. At least in the medium term, each of the two constituent units would have complete internal autonomy, which for the time being would include their armed police/army. The Federal government could be headed by the former King and would eventually be responsible for external relations, external defence and currency. This division of powers would be reconsidered once complete peace is restored and stable & effective (non-terrorist) governments are functioning in both sub-units.
Once the broad outline of this interim solution is accepted, the “anti-terror coalition” must accelerate the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern alliance in all areas constituting “Northern Afghanistan.” This must be followed by aid, assistance and training in setting up an efficient administrative structure and social security net for the oppressed & starving Afghans in North Afghanistan. Such aid will also ensure that the coalition has a fair chance of winning the campaign for “hearts and minds” of Muslims all over the world. The fourth step would be to help this government track and eliminate the Taliban, Al Qaida terrorists and Pakistani ISI agents still living or operating within the territory of “Northern Afghanistan,” and to block oil & arms supply routes from Pakistan to Taliban controlled Southern Afghanistan that pass through (or close to) Northern Afghanistan. The formation of a functioning govt in Northern Afghanistan will ensure that both US and Indian objectives (as well as those of Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan & Tajikstan) are met speedily in at least 60% of Afghanistan. With secure supply lines to Iran and Central Asia, Northern Afghanistan will not be dependent on Pakistan and any contradictions arising from the USA’s geographical dependence on Pakistan can be confined to Southern Afghanistan.
By this time a Federal Government structure should be defined and agreed upon. A Federal govt can then be set up in Kabul under the aegis of the former King as soon as the Northern Afghan govt is securely in place. The US war effort can then be refocused on tracking and eliminating the Al Qaeda leadership in “Southern Afghanistan.” The first task of this federal government would be to facilitate the setting up of a non-Taliban government in Southern Afghanistan. The Pakistan government will inevitably play a role in the search for a non-terrorist government in Southern Afghanistan given that Pushtoons constitute 10% of its population. India may as well play a magnanimous role in the coalition by accepting and perhaps even proposing such a role for Pakistan and thus completely align Indian and US policy in Afghanistan. Once such a govt. is formed, the Coalition against terror can help it set up an effective administration and help it track down the terrorists and their Taliban supporters. The next step would be to set up a democratic decision making structure at the Federal level that gives due weight in decision making to the population of the two Afghan sub-units.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly adopted the words of Prime Minister Vajpayee that the US and India are “Natural allies.” He also stated that Pakistan is also an “ally” and US relations with the two countries are not a zero sum game. Given the greater identity of views between the new leadership of the Pentagon and India than has ever occurred in the past (when the Pentagon often lobbied for Pakistan), we should take Secretary Powell at his word. Senator Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee reportedly admitted that the greatest worry of the US govt. is that Pakistani nuclear weapons may fall into terrorist hands if Gen Musharraf is overthrown by Pakistani fundamentalists. I would suggest that India propose the setting up of a joint Indo-US planning group to deal with such an eventuality. This will help in aligning US and Indian interests in Pakistan and reassure India that Pakistan will not again pull the wool over US eyes by extracting major concessions while continuing to breed hate filled fundamentalists & Jehadis. We must on our part recognise that at the current time peaceful rhetoric coupled with hard-headed anti-terrorist action in Kashmir serves India’s interests much better than the opposite. This will reassure the US that we do not intend to do anything to make their task more difficult.
Many commentators have rightly noted that the events of September 11 have had a traumatic impact on the American public and that it will change the way the American people and their government view the rest of the World and America’s role in it. To draw useful conclusions for Indian foreign policy one must first appreciate the shocking lack of knowledge and interest that the American Public and even the US congress had in the rest of the World till September 10th. Any Indian living in the USA would have told you that even on US national television news (as against State or local TV) international news coverage is completely insular and focussed extremely narrowly on USA’s parochial interests or actions abroad. As a result general knowledge about other countries even among US Congress-persons, academics and intellectuals has steadily declined since the end of the cold war.
September 11 has changed all this and there will be a much greater interest in learning about Islam, Islamic countries and countries with minority Muslim populations. This will inevitably include an interest in and openness to learning about Islamic fundamentalist groups and Madrasas teaching hatred against non-Muslims. India is well positioned to be the source of information, knowledge and expertise on Islam in South Asia. India has been asserting for several decades that the Pakistan government since the time of Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq has fostered an Islam-based hatred of India in its schools and religious institutions; That Kashmir is just a symptom of the desire for revenge against “Hindu” India; That the objective of the Pakistan government has been to bleed if not dismember India by not just supporting but starting terrorist insurgencies throughout India. The facts as they have emerged since September 11, support most of the statements made by India. As the facts (once fully known) speak so loudly for themselves an over-emphasis on the anti-India bent of this phenomenon is likely to be counter-productive.
One important focus of our foreign policy in the next 5 years must therefore be to exploit the opportunity provided by the renewal of US interest in our part of the world. We must supply information to and help Americans understand the source and nature of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and other countries of S. Asia and also contrast this with Indian philosophy & religious culture, the determinedly non-violent religions (Buddhism & Jainism) that it has spawned and the syncretic Indo-Islamic culture of India. One concrete new initiative that should be launched immediately is to initiate joint study and/or research programs between Indian and US universities & research institutes on any and all topics of interest to the USA in the backdrop of its “War against Terrorism”.
The operational objective and effectiveness of the post-sept. 11 anti-terrorist strategy of the USA in Afghanistan is now becoming clearer. With every passing day it looks increasingly like India’s traditional approach to economic policy-making and implementation: In other words it is based on very little data or solid information (intelligence), given systematic downgrading of internal expertise (on Islamic fundamentalism, Afghanistan) it is unable to plan ahead and makes ad hoc changes usually in response to representations & petitions by private parties and interest groups (Pakistan & other frontline States), it has multiple and often conflicting objectives (over throw the Taliban, get the top leadership of Al Qaida, please Musharaf) because all manner of interest groups have to be satisfied before it can be approved (State & defence departments, Arab dictatorships) and it fails to achieve most of its objectives as it is based on the assumption of a selfless and honest bureaucracy ( Pakistan Army, govt. institutions & ISI loyalty to US set goals).
Because of all these reasons the US campaign in Afghanistan has been far from successful, with the two primary objectives of elimination of the Al Qaida terrorist network and the elimination of the terrorist Taliban regime unfulfilled and slow progress in cobbling together a “broad-based multi-ethinic” government. Fulfilment of both these objectives is in the interest of India. Can we then formulate a more concrete action plan that more effectively serves the interest of the USA than the current floundering campaign that has vacillated between over-dependence on a less than fully trust worthy Pakistan establishment and excessive belief in its own technological prowess and between the “moderate Taliban option” and the anti-Taliban Northern alliance.
The most feasible and achievable objective in Afghanistan appears to me to be the setting up of a government in North and West Afghanistan consisting of the groups that are a part of the Northern Alliance. This is best done in the context of UN blessed Afghan Federation conceptually consisting of two sub-units, Northern and Southern Afghanistan. The latter would consist of the Pushtoon inhabited areas of South and East Afghanistan and contain about 40% of the Afghan population. The former would contain the areas inhabited by all other ethnic groups, which constitute about 60% of the Afghan population. At least in the medium term, each of the two constituent units would have complete internal autonomy, which for the time being would include their armed police/army. The Federal government could be headed by the former King and would eventually be responsible for external relations, external defence and currency. This division of powers would be reconsidered once complete peace is restored and stable & effective (non-terrorist) governments are functioning in both sub-units.
Once the broad outline of this interim solution is accepted, the “anti-terror coalition” must accelerate the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern alliance in all areas constituting “Northern Afghanistan.” This must be followed by aid, assistance and training in setting up an efficient administrative structure and social security net for the oppressed & starving Afghans in North Afghanistan. Such aid will also ensure that the coalition has a fair chance of winning the campaign for “hearts and minds” of Muslims all over the world. The fourth step would be to help this government track and eliminate the Taliban, Al Qaida terrorists and Pakistani ISI agents still living or operating within the territory of “Northern Afghanistan,” and to block oil & arms supply routes from Pakistan to Taliban controlled Southern Afghanistan that pass through (or close to) Northern Afghanistan. The formation of a functioning govt in Northern Afghanistan will ensure that both US and Indian objectives (as well as those of Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan & Tajikstan) are met speedily in at least 60% of Afghanistan. With secure supply lines to Iran and Central Asia, Northern Afghanistan will not be dependent on Pakistan and any contradictions arising from the USA’s geographical dependence on Pakistan can be confined to Southern Afghanistan.
By this time a Federal Government structure should be defined and agreed upon. A Federal govt can then be set up in Kabul under the aegis of the former King as soon as the Northern Afghan govt is securely in place. The US war effort can then be refocused on tracking and eliminating the Al Qaeda leadership in “Southern Afghanistan.” The first task of this federal government would be to facilitate the setting up of a non-Taliban government in Southern Afghanistan. The Pakistan government will inevitably play a role in the search for a non-terrorist government in Southern Afghanistan given that Pushtoons constitute 10% of its population. India may as well play a magnanimous role in the coalition by accepting and perhaps even proposing such a role for Pakistan and thus completely align Indian and US policy in Afghanistan. Once such a govt. is formed, the Coalition against terror can help it set up an effective administration and help it track down the terrorists and their Taliban supporters. The next step would be to set up a democratic decision making structure at the Federal level that gives due weight in decision making to the population of the two Afghan sub-units.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly adopted the words of Prime Minister Vajpayee that the US and India are “Natural allies.” He also stated that Pakistan is also an “ally” and US relations with the two countries are not a zero sum game. Given the greater identity of views between the new leadership of the Pentagon and India than has ever occurred in the past (when the Pentagon often lobbied for Pakistan), we should take Secretary Powell at his word. Senator Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee reportedly admitted that the greatest worry of the US govt. is that Pakistani nuclear weapons may fall into terrorist hands if Gen Musharraf is overthrown by Pakistani fundamentalists. I would suggest that India propose the setting up of a joint Indo-US planning group to deal with such an eventuality. This will help in aligning US and Indian interests in Pakistan and reassure India that Pakistan will not again pull the wool over US eyes by extracting major concessions while continuing to breed hate filled fundamentalists & Jehadis. We must on our part recognise that at the current time peaceful rhetoric coupled with hard-headed anti-terrorist action in Kashmir serves India’s interests much better than the opposite. This will reassure the US that we do not intend to do anything to make their task more difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)