A few home truths

In Advani’s US visit lie hopes for de-escalation

With Home Minister L.K. Advani setting off for the United States, India’s war against terrorism has entered its second phase. Politico-military measures have dominated the actions since December 13 with India taking the counter-terrorism war to Pakistan. The just concluded SAARC summit has endorsed India’s stand that UN Security Council Resolution 1373 should receive full and strong support from all member countries, including Pakistan. The leaders of South Asian governments strongly asserted that terrorism was not acceptable on ‘‘ideological, political, religious or any other ground’’. They went on to affirm their resolve to prevent, fight and suppress terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and have agreed to increase cooperation among the countries of the region for what amounts to a comprehensive war against terrorism. What will matter most in the coming months and years is the degree of implementation which has been promised by the heads of states, including General Pervez Musharraf.

It would only be appropriate that Advani should open the second phase of the counter-terrorism war which would focus heavily on international diplomacy. Advani’s credentials are impeccable. He is not only the senior leader in the Cabinet after the prime minister, but as home minister he has all the facts and details at his disposal. These he will no doubt employ to great effect with the strength emanating from the recognition of convergence of interests between the US and India in this area. He is well-placed to persuade the US that while its war against terrorism has succeeded to a large extent, the end is still a long way away. The real roadblock on the way to a more peaceful society and consequent search for prosperity is the policy Pakistan has pursued in employing terror as an instrument of foreign and security policy, the roots of which go back to the time of General Zia-ul Haq.

In today’s world no country can pursue its national interests in isolation from the environment in the international system. It is but reasonable that we should address ourselves increasingly to the international community for diplomatic persuasion. The US will remain the most important in cooperative measures against international terrorism although we will still have to fight our own battles. But we should also address the major countries of the world and their leadership, armed as the government is with the SAARC Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and the Kathmandu Declaration. The central point is that terrorism is the antithesis of democracy which by definition is non-violent. India is not only the largest democracy in the world, but it is often ignored that it also has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Cross-border terrorism in the name of religion has killed 22,000 Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir since 1988. The attack on Parliament not only galvanised India’s leadership into taking coordinated measures across the full spectrum, but it also brought into focus the reality that terrorism in the name of ‘‘freedom struggle’’ could not be justified under any circumstances. It is well that Advani’s visit comes on the heels of a consensus against terrorism which provides a strong basis for diplomacy.