Opinion
-
News Analysis
Say `no' to terrorism and war
By K.K. Katyal
``No to terrorism, no to war'' - this needs to be the slogan of all right-thinking people in India and Pakistan so as to ensure that the subcontinent is spared the scourge of an armed conflict.
Terrorist violence, which had already taken a heavy toll of life and caused widespread dislocation, recently touched an ominous high with the strike at the citadel of democracy in India, the Parliament House. If not checked, it could lead to terrible catastrophes. As for war, the danger now looms large on the subcontinental horizon, as shown not only by the rhetoric on the two sides of the border but also by the movement and deployment of troops and armour. The threat is by no means unreal. The two sides may be taking the preparatory steps merely to exercise leverages but could one guard against the incremental build-up escalating to an armed conflict? Or could one be sure that there is no unintended clash through an accident or miscalculation?
There is a case for simultaneity in tackling both terrorism and the war threat. For two reasons. One, there is a close linkage between the two: It is the unabated terrorist violence, and its recent ghastly intensification, that led to preparation for war. Two, opinion in favour of peace and restraint could be mobilised in the two countries if both the issues are clubbed. In India, the campaign against war (though desirable by itself) will not work unless the popular concern over terrorism too is sought to be addressed. In Pakistan, a drive against terrorism will not take off unless the people feel assured against the eruption of war, which to them is the culmination of Indian hegemonistic designs. Taken together, the two issues have a good chance of winning support in both the countries though for different reasons.
In India, as we know, the continued orgy of violence and destruction evokes intense anger, and it is in that frame of mind that the talk of war appeals to the people. Mount a campaign against terrorism and the people will rally behind it in vast numbers. There will be no difficulty for various outfits, political and non-political, taking up this cause - and once that is done, the talk of war would lose its appeal, at least in part. In Pakistan, it should not be difficult for a good number of NGOs and human rights activists to mobilise public opinion against war and, through it, against terrorism. Given the ascendancy of the fundamentalists and religious extremists, it is not as easy a job there as it is in India but it is not impossible either.
The force of public opinion is a major factor in matters related to war and peace. Especially in the first case, as it is easy to whip up nationalistic frenzy among the people, a majority of them, by nature, being excitable. An excited public opinion forces the hands of the government concerned, reducing its decision-taking space. Hence the need and importance of channelising the popular public mood through constructive, positive channels.
How a Government feels pressured by public sentiment has been evident in the past, both in India and Pakistan. In 1971, for instance, when the influx of lakhs of refugees from the then East Pakistan created a major problem. In India, the people were restive and indignant calling for extreme steps against Pakistan.
The Prime Minister of the day, Indira Gandhi, found herself in a tight spot. She called her Principal Secretary, Mr. P.N. Haksar, and the then Army Chief, Gen. Sam Manekshaw, for discussion - with the obvious intention of hustling the armed forces into action. Reflecting her sentiments, Mr. Haksar in a characteristically blunt manner told the Army Chief: ``You are mere paper tigers, you are peacetime generals.'' The General knew what they were aiming at but kept his cool and said: ``It is for you to take the political decision on war. But it is for me to decide when to start and how.'' The point to be noted is that the Government found it hard to resist the public pressure.
The synchronised, if not combined, mobilisation of opinion on the twin issues in the two countries may help counter the shrill rhetoric and war cries. This could avert a confrontation, even though it may not necessarily lead to an engagement.
The stand taken by the U.S., though based on faulty logic (as seen here), too, could aid the process. Whatever its rationale, the U.S. is for strong action against the two terrorist groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, held responsible by India for the strike on the Parliament House, the earlier attack on the State Legislature building in Srinagar, and other heinous crimes. This represents a common element in the positions of New Delhi and Washington. The U.S. exhortations for restraint are, coupled with its denunciation of the two organisations and action against them, an endorsement of ``no terrorism, no war''.
The U.S, however, is wrong in its assumption that these groups pose a threat to Pakistan as well and counts on its President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to take effective steps against them. Mark the latest statement by the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, condemning the terrorist attacks on Parliament and the Kashmir legislature) - ``These attacks were meant to strike at India's democracy and kill its leaders but were also intended to undermine Pakistan. I have strongly condemned the attacks. I call upon President Musharraf to take decisive action against the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammed and other terrorist organisations, their leaders, finances and activities.... He has said he would move against those involved in the attacks. As President Musharraf does so, he will have our full support''. That has been the refrain of the statements from Washington in the past two weeks. New Delhi could not be blamed if it does not accept the reasoning. But India would do well to watch the implementation of the operative suggestion.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
