Difficulties in fighting terrorism: equivocation, innuendoes and proxy war

Portentous events like the brutal murder of Mirwas Moulvi Farooq on May 21, 1990 when President George Bush’s special envoy Robert Gates was to visit New Delhi to discuss the Kashmir issue and the equally brutal murder of 36 Sikhs on March 20, 2000 in Chittisingpora when President Bill Clinton was beginning his tour of India are terrorist acts shrouded in mystery. The first resulted in Governor Jagmohan being forced to put in his papers and the second in the cold blooded murder of five innocent Kashmiri Muslims by the security forces, the exhuming of their bodies and the furor over their DNA report. The murder of the five was passed off as proof of cross border terror and the event was hastened to coincide with the closing day of the Clinton visit. Coalesces into these two events are all the three difficulties of equivocation, innuendoes and proxy war.

Equivocation is making statements in such a way to mislead people.
There is greater need to be unequivocal on matters of terrorism now than ever before. The International Criminal Court has issued notice to President Omar al Basher of Sudan to face charges of genocide in Dahfur. This is crystal clear case of using terrorism against a people by no other than the ruler of the country with active connivance of the Sudanese of Arab origin (the Janjiwad) and help from China. Among the charges are mass rape and massacre. It is highly objectionable that the attitude of the two leading Muslim organizations is ambiguous. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference should have been loud and clear in condemnation of the terror of Janjiwad.. The government arms and supports this group against the Muslims of Dahfur region who are of African origin. There is no insurgency there as there is in the south of Sudan where the Christians are up in arms fighting the government forces. The disaster in Dahfur is truly humanitarian. However, the accusation against the Dahfur people that they could be potential for subversion is a ruse. It is ambivalent.

Just how difficult has it become to fight terrorism is evident from the prosecution in London of the eight suspects in the plot to blow up aircraft with liquid bomb in 2006. The accused claim that it was a publicity stunt to draw attempt to the mistreatment of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The eight accused are Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, Tanvir Hussain, 27, Assad Sarwar, 28, Mohammed Gulzar, 26, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, and Waheed Zaman, 24. The scientist whose opinion the court sought called the ingenious liquid device to blow up planes as prosecution fantasy and the judge remarked that there was no evidence that the accused had fabricated a bomb and that they were dealing with a conspiracy rather than an actual blowing up of planes.(NYT 15-7-8). The role of Pakistan is quite definite. Six of the accused are of Pakistani origin Gulzar had Toshiba batteries manufactured in Pakistan and was waiting for instructions from Pakistan. This would mean that it was an outfit that was controlled from Pakistan. Moreover Sarwar visited Pakistan in 2006 where a Kashmiri fighting for azadi had shown him how to make liquid bomb. Till now the court has found out their intention to blow up planes albeit they had not yet bought even the tickets to fly.
The equivocal nature of this case is: when does latent terror become manifest terror. These are English born would be bombers, at least Ali, Sarwar and Hussain, admit to plot to draw attention to the plight of fellow Muslims elsewhere including Palestine.
Innuendoes are indirect references to people which can damage the character of them. The US is engaged in what it calls a war on terror. The Democratic candidate in the next presidential election is Barack Obama of Muslim origin. Currently there is a good deal of innuendoes in the news discussion as to whether he can really fight terrorism. Obama says that the war in Iraq is a distraction of American foreign policy from its war on terror. Real terrorism is in Afghanistan. His rival the Republican candidate John McCain opposes him on Iraq war. The New Yorker Magazine carried a cartoon this week that may remind you of the odious Danish cartoons. These cartoons stereotype Muslims as terrorists even when they are not.

The subcontinent of India has a tripartite angle of terror. Pakistan is responsible for terror in India and Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has directly named it for the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The explosion has the hallmark of al Qaeda which is at loggerheads with India and Pakistan as well as the Afghan government. One source of equivocation is of course the blame that it is proxy war between India and Pakistan. If it were just that it would not have international ramification on the scale of al Qaeda leashed terror.
An element of ambiguity is in the assertion of MK Narayanan who blames Pakistan for the blasts but wants to confront the terrorists responsible for the event. The National Security Advisor told Times Now news channel about the bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul: “We not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence (on the involvement of Pakistan)," While denying this as insinuation, he went on to say: "I think we need to pay back in the same coin. We are quite clear in our mind.” But when newsmen pressed him to name culprits, he nuanced: “Those who are responsible." This would mean that the terrorists and Pakistan are two different entities. However this is wiser than rushing our troops to the border as we did in the huge mobilization in the aftermath of the attack on our Parliament on December 13, 2001. What the National Security Advisor denies as insinuation is nothing else but equivocation.
Proxy means acting on behalf of others. When government forces cannot do because the government does not want its name sullied they use proxy.
When there was attack on his life in April, President Karzai hinted at retaliation. How else is this going to happen except by proxy war? All the three countries have resorted to proxy war because they think that their strategic interest is better served through this means than open warfare. But the suffering of the people is veritable human disaster. Ahmed Shah Warlaj was in the queue outside Indian embassy. In the bomb blast his two sons, two daughters and sister in law died. Two tender aged daughters of his were injured seriously.

There have been almost relentless terrorist attacks in Pakistan, even more so after the show down at the red mosque of Islamabad. On Sunday July 6, 2008 there was a deadly attack in which eleven police officers were killed and twenty two injured near the red mosque where the militants were observing the first anniversary of the attack on the red mosque. Within twenty four hours there was the horrendous blast at the Indian embassy in Kabul.
As if India and Afghanistan were not enough, Pakistan seems to have taken on the US in this proxy war. An aerial attack on the al Qaeda hideout by the US killed eleven Pakistani soldiers in the North Western province. In retaliation militants killed nine American soldiers on Sunday July 13, 2008 in an assault in the region bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. (WP)