Lighting Bush fires

ARE we fighting USA’s war on terrorism? Or are the Americans fighting our war on terrorism? Three weeks after the telegenic horror of the Boeing Bombings of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, every Indian must ask himself these questions. For us, Terrorist Number One is President Pervez Musharraf. For USA, Ally Number One against Terrorism is the self-same President Pervez Musharraf. We are told that once Osama bin Laden has been ‘‘taken out’’, Pakistan will be ‘‘taken out’’ if it continues to behave as a terrorist state. In the meanwhile, say the Americans, so long as USA needs Pakistan in its war on terrorism, please do not embarrass us by asking us to take our collective Nelson’s Eye off Pakistani terrorism. Fair enough, if this is USA’s war on terrorism. But no, not fair enough if this is our war against terrorism.

I can hear US Ambassador Blackwill spluttering that this is not an American war on terrorism but the war on terrorism declared by the international community. (Revealing, is it not, that when the Americans say ‘‘international community’’ they pronounce it ‘‘inner-national community’’ — Freudian slip or is it merely our untutored ears deceiving us?) Proof that this is not their war but our war is proferred in the UN resolutions adopted without a dissenting voice. What could be more ‘‘international’’ than that? Two reservations. One, the US uses the UN like P. Chidambaran uses the Congress — resorting to it or repudiating it, as the narrowest self-interest dictates. Thus, when the Soviet veto blocked the Security Council, the US bypassed the Council and went to the General Assembly to secure its 1950 ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution authorising the US to fight the communists in Korea on behalf of all of us. When decolonisation in the sixties changed the composition of the UN General Assembly, the US bypassed the UN altogether to fight its wars in Indo-China on its own (two million civilian deaths in Vietnam; three million civilian dead in Cambodia; several uncounted thousands in Laos: not quite six million and thus a whisker short of Hitler’s final solution, unless, of course, you add the million innocent dead this last decade in Iraq). Now that the UN is restored as an ‘‘inner-national community’’, it is back for the US to the UN (in the same month as it is back to the Congress for Chidambaram).

My second and far more serious reservation is that the UN Charter envisages UN military action under day-to-day UN supervision, but did not envisage the UN delegating its collective security powers to the military forces of a single country or even a gaggle of allies. Which is why India, notwithstanding its support to the UN resolution, and the ardent desire of its external affairs minister to be recognised as a player, has no voice at all in determining military objectives and strategy in fighting a war being waged in its name. Leave alone military matters, India is not even involved in setting the political agenda. Would any self-respecting Indian government have agreed to ‘‘taking out’’ Pakistan being placed in Phase II? Indeed, would any self-respecting Indian government ever agree to anyone, US or UN, ‘‘taking out’’ a sovereign state of South Asia?

When, long years ago we made our tryst with destiny, we determined to hoe our own furrow. The number of non-aligned countries in the world was exactly one — us! — and in consequence we played a disproportionately important role in world affairs. Eventually, two-thirds of the international community joined us (which is, of course, why the US retaliated by repudiating the UN). But now that the US is back in the UN, should we be looking this gift horse in the mouth? Yes, because the UN’s war against terrorism did not begin on September 11. Since at least 30 years (if memory serves right, it was around the time of the Munich Olympics hijacking of 1972), the UN has been earnestly engaged in charting the war against terrorism. Three questions remain to this day unanswered. One, what is terrorism? Two, who are terrorists? Three, what calibrated measures, prophylactic and punitive, should the international community take against which kinds of terrorism?

Even today, the US is unwilling to name as terrorists those of its Sikh citizens in Yuba County, California, who are openly pledged to the terrorist war against India in the cause of Khalistan. Even today, neither France, Britain nor Canada is willing to follow India in banning the LTTE. Even today, the Netherlands provides such aid and succour to Naga terrorists that the Government of India’s emissary has to journey to Amsterdam to parley with them. So, what is this ‘‘terrorism’’ against which we are engaged to act, in concert with the ‘‘international community’’ but under the stewardship of the US military command and the agenda set by the US political command?

Next, who are terrorists? Osama bin Laden, yes, we are all agreed. But, no, we are not all agreed (at least not yet) that it was indeed bin Laden who was behind the Boeing Bombings. The Indian home minister has asked the US Ambassador to furnish the proof he has of bin Laden’s involvement in the WTC/ Pentagon outrage. The US is apparently outraged at this act of lese majeste: who, they ask, is this fellow-water of war against terrorism to ask for proof against whomever the US wants ‘‘dead or alive’’? Moreover, the home minister suggested to the US ambassador the names of a couple of terrorist outfits who kill every week in J&K more innocent Indians than died in the World Trade Center. This, the home minister has been patiently told, can wait till Phase II. The critical points is to get bin Laden now. Everything else must wait till later. But is Osama bin Laden our Number One priority? Will his capture, dead or alive, end terrorism in Andhra Pradesh and Assam, Bihar and Manipur, leave alone J&K? Are there no Indian interests to safeguard? Or are we content to leave it to the Marines? And is that why our forefathers struggled for Independence? Is this our tryst with destiny?

Finally, what is the most sensible action against terrorism? Reducing the rubble of Afghanistan to still more rubble? Blasting Osama to Kingdom Come with cave-busters? (Has National Geographic been commissioned to count the number of caves in Afghanistan that need busting?) Or does the real answer lie in the Bush administration arresting a few of the immigration officials who let in the terrorists who bombed the WTC? Or prosecuting some of the customs officers who let in their arms and ammunition? Or hauling up the aviation academies for the training they gave to the terrorists? Or sacking the police officers who failed to spot the movements of the terrorists? Or thramming the intelligence agencies for not identifying the operatives? Or taking criminal action against the banks who made millions out of moving terrorist money? Or holding airport security responsible for the most absurdly lax security? Or airlines management for encouraging 15-minute check-ins? Or Bush Senior for not sending in his ground forces after showing Saddam who was the Mother of the Battle?

Or flattening Afghanistan from the skies because the American army after Vietnam does not have the stomach to suffer what the Brits learned about warfare in Afghanistan in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th?

We need answers today — because today is the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. Hey Ram.

Earlier Columns