South Asian way of fighting terrorism

The attack by a suicide squad on the Lok Sabha on Thursday is a rude reminder to South Asian nations that terrorism cannot be considered as a secondary issue, it be treated in a subjective manner and that all forms of it have to be dealt with utmost severity by all established governments.

This attack has enraged most Indians whose knee jerk reaction has been to allege that Pakistani sponsored Kashmiri terrorist organisations were behind this attack. Reports say that the cry is ‘Do what America has done and what Israelis are doing in Palestine’. Fortunately even though many ministers and parliamentarians had been present in parliament when the incident occurred, none of them had been injured but regrettably 12 others had been killed. Had there been a mass massacre there could have been the possibility of even a nuclear confrontation even though Pakistan has firmly denied the allegation and President Musharaff has condemned the attack.

If India decides to go in pursuit of terrorist groups, which they allege, are based in Pakistani controlled Kashmir, it could lead to a major confrontation which the world and particularly South Asians will wish to avoid because of the situation in neighbouring Afghanistan. But the pressure on the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee would be such that he may have to respond in a way to satisfy those calling for blood. But there are limitations. India is not the sole superpower of the world.

Today, in South Asia, which includes Afghanistan, save for the Maldives, there is no country completely free of terrorism. This is despite the stand taken up by the seven SAARC countries against terrorism about a decade a go. There is the SAARC Convention on Terrorism enacted but about which little is heard of. SAARC itself has been comatose for two years and is attempting to wake up from deep slumber. The universal principle that was in play on terrorism before September 11: ‘Your enemy’s terrorist is your freedom fighter’ was and still is, very much applicable in this region.

The question is asked whether the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers of New York and the Pentagon brought about a change in policies towards all forms of terrorism in countries affected by it. Before September 11, to western nations only those radical groups, mostly Islamic, that threatened their security were considered terrorists. Groups that were categorised as foreign terrorists groups such as the LTTE came to be so called only because there was positive evidence that they were security threats. Well informed diplomatic sources told The Island this week that September 11 events did result in the US making greater scrutiny of LTTE’s activities but the Global War on Terrorism was yet confined against the Al Queda and bin Laden.

Thus, whether this enthusiasm to take on global terrorist networks could only be seen if and when the Al Queda and bin Laden are dealt with.

India’s role in the birth and continuation of Sri Lanka’s terrorism is too well known to be repeated here. But it is worthwhile noting that Mr. George Fernandes who was defence minister and went out following a bribery scandal is back again as the defence minister. And Mr. Fernandes has openly supported the LTTE. This once again is an example of terrorism being treated in an eclectic manner by a country severely affected by terrorism. Another example of the subjective attitude of India towards terrorism is that despite the LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakaran being sentenced to death by the Indian Supreme Court for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, when the LTTE were about to capture Jaffna town and Sri Lanka appealed for military assistance, India did not oblige. On the other hand, Pakistan rushed in armaments and helped to save the day for Sri Lanka.

On the other hand Sri Lanka has been maintaining a very studied diplomatic silence on the Kashmir issue not wanting to antagonise either India or Pakistan and failing to take a principled stand on terrorism.

Thus, the hard reality about terrorism is that the accepted thinking terrorism: ‘One country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter’ remains unchanged. This is good news to the Prabakarans, bin Ladens and Kashmiri terrorists who can continue with the murder of innocents.

There will those who will continue to say that terrorism can be eliminated only when the causes for it cease to be. The Kashmir issue is now fifty years old and when the causes will be eliminated could go on for another century or more. Should terrorists be permitted to go on till then?

But if Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal all decide to pool their resources and fight all varieties of terrorists to the end, can terrorism survive? It is idealistic thought no doubt, but that seems to be the only way.

Your comments to the Editor