Address Kashmir's alienation

EVER SINCE THE United States proclaimed its intention to mount a global `war' on terrorism in ``all its forms'', as a response to the September 11 carnage, India has been investing considerable energy in getting the Governments worldwide, especially those in the West, to appreciate better its own concerns in Jammu and Kashmir as the victim of `transborder terrorism' for two decades and enlist their support. It sought to impress on Washington and other partners in the coalition the apparent incongruity in Pakistan being coopted as the `key' player in the anti- terror campaign because of Islamabad's perceived role as the `generator' and `promoter' of militancy in the troubled Valley. Given the immediate objective of the current Afghanistan-specific phase of `war', namely neutralising Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, Pakistan's active participation is indeed a geopolitical and strategic necessity, but Washington has been reiterating its commitment to root out the scourge of terrorism universally, even while acknowledging India's concerns in J&K. If the daring fidayeen attack on the high-security legislature complex in Srinagar on October 1 by the infamous Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad was a big challenge to the Government of India and its authority, it became an acute embarrassment for the Bush administration because of the terrorist outfit's known base of operations and its obvious linkages with Al-Qaeda, and Washington obviously did not want to be seen as being utterly insensitive to India's concerns as reflected in its persistent demand for blacklisting the likes of the JeM. It has placed the JeM in the `watch' list, just a step away from being designated as a terrorist organisation. It needs to be noted that the outfit is still to be banned by the Government of India.

The terrorism-related concerns voiced by New Delhi are unquestionably genuine. It is also unexceptionable that India should have, in the post-September 11 context, unhesitatingly and without any reservation joined the international campaign against terrorism and, in the process, sought to benefit from whatever gains that might accrue from it collaterally in combating the evil at home. A remarkable upshot is of course the U.N.'s most recent resolution that binds member-states to taking stringent and specific legislative anti-terrorism measures. But official India would be deluding itself if it thought the U.S. or any other country for that matter is willing to or is in a position to fight its battle against militancy in J&K. The way the Vajpayee regime has been responding to terrorism-related issues and events in the past four weeks suggests a lack of a coherent perspective, as was discernible for instance in the tone and tenor of the Prime Minister's letter to the American President, Mr. George W. Bush, after the October 1 suicide bomber attack in Srinagar. Secondly, for all its horrendous, barbaric and totally reprehensible aspects, terrorism especially of the type encountered in J&K is rooted in a bewilderingly complex array of socio-political and historical factors and no surgical intervention by way of, say, destroying the training camps or hot pursuit strategies can provide a permanent cure; and this is to assume that such procedures are carried out successfully and without any negative spinoffs.

In fact, even in the immediate context, New Delhi's combative effort as part of the current global anti-terrorism campaign will gain enormous moral weight if only the Vajpayee administration is seen as taking some quick and credible initiatives by way of addressing the basic issues that have led to the alienation of the people of J&K, a critical factor behind the spurt in militancy and which has of late taken on the abominable terrorist traits. Needless to say, the Farooq Abdullah Government also has a crucial role and a substantial share of responsibility in this respect. As has been repeatedly pointed out in these columns, the foremost among the necessary initiatives is that of devolving more powers to the State in keeping with the special status guaranteed to it under the Constitution for historical reasons.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : History by fiat