Author: Ramesh Rao
Publication: Sulekha Spotlight
<http://www.sulekha.com>
Date: September 20, 2001
The world has changed, experts and
lay people alike are proclaiming since September 11, 2001, when the most
spectacular and complex act of terrorism ever conceived and enacted upon
brought to rubble America's symbols of might and power. The non-stop coverage
of events since that shocking morning has left us mostly benumbed, and
not very well-informed. That kind of 24 hour coverage, with the same list
of experts pontificating, humming and hawing, prevaricating, and speaking
psycho-political babble is indicative of one thing at least: the world
really has changed and not changed! Americans in general, and the American
media in particular, continue to be misinformed, blinkered, and provincial.
No doubt that what we are hearing on radio, watching on TV, and reading
in the major newspapers will merely reinforce in the minds of Americans
the images of the world, the status of world's religions, the nature of
the threat of terrorism, and the role of the world's players.
Have the American media, especially
television, from which most Americans get their news and views, done anything
different in the past five days than what they are used to? The same choice
of words, music, pictures, interviews, and the same experts, the same breathless
reporting, and the same lack of a global perspective. It is in these changed
times that they should have made arrangements to beam foreign coverage
of the events, to invite diplomats and experts from countries that have
faced the ravages of terrorism, to invite people of different ethnicities
to speak about the horrors and to express their opinions. Nope. Can't have
none of it. Dan Rather it is, with his Middle East expert Prof. Ajami,
day in and day out. Tom Brokaw it is, with his retinue of senior correspondents
-- Tim Russert, Stone, et al. Even on NPR, I have not heard really 'other'
voices, nor have I seen the kinds of experts and diplomats on PBS who could
have given the one decent news show some bite and depth.
For example, it is amazing to see
the difference between Indian and American media perceptions of the events
and the actors. The Indian press is clear about Pakistan's role in supporting
the Taliban. The U.S. media, in general, are ignoring the Indian and Pakistani
dimension and the dynamics in the region that should tell them that it
is India which has suffered the brunt of the 'Mad Mullahs' Disease,' and
it is Pakistan that has both concocted the disease and is spreading it.
The American inability to understand clearly this simple and basic feature
of the problem is inexplicable to outsiders, and to most Indian-Americans.
Also, note how most Muslim countries
have closed ranks -- they are Muslim first, and concerned about world civilization
second. This must be emphasized to Americans because they still do not
want to accept the magnitude of the Islamic militant threat. But that is
easier said than done. Why? Simply because the United States is first and
foremost a Christian nation, and the two biggest religions and the only
exclusivist religions in the world are Christianity and Islam. Christians
and Muslims share too much in common for Americans to understand the nature
of the claim that Allah is the only God, and Mohammed the last prophet
manufactured in God's mint. Hey, what is wrong with it, they think. They
are just like us!
I just watched the national prayer
meeting held at the National Cathedral, U.S., to mourn the victims of Tuesday's
tragedies. All the religious, peace, and spiritual messages were delivered
by Christian priests, starting with the tried, tested and very old Billy
Graham, and by rabbis and even a Muslim mullah. The same happened on Wednesday,
September 12, when Bill Moyers led a discussion among religious leaders
on WNET TV about the role of faith and religion in these trying times.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were represented. All these are Abrahamic
faiths. No one else was called, none other represented -- neither Hindu
nor Sikh, Buddhists nor Jains. May be, and to all purposes, for many Americans
any talk about Hinduism is the same as talk about the incomprehensible
rituals performed by voodoo practitioners! So much for the contribution
of Indian-Americans to the rich and multicultural society that is America.
Or is the ignoring of Hindus because we are a peace-loving lot and ours
is not an exclusive 'religion?'
There is also the politically correct
talk that it is not religion, in this case Islam, which is at fault, nor
the majority of Muslims but a handful of extremists who are misusing religion.
I believe that it is important to exercise care in describing religious
differences and practices, and to note that whatever is being said is not
aimed at fanning religious animosity or hatred. After all, the ordinary
American cannot and does not want to know the differences between peoples
and their faiths. So it is that Sikhs have been mistaken for Muslims: hey,
they wear turbans and beards! A turban, is a turban, is a turban, and a
beard is a beard, is a beard. Poor, hapless Sikhs! (http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/sep/14ny3.htm;
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/sep/13ny2.htm)
But in the long run, politically
correct talk ignores one of the fundamental and basic driving forces behind
conflict: religion. There are good and decent Muslims no doubt, and to
keep reiterating that indeed must be galling to many Muslims. These Muslims
would say that "the Koran and Islam do not preach hatred and violence.
It says that the way to influence 'non-believers' is through personal character
of peace and tolerance." They proclaim that the term 'jihad' is grossly
misunderstood. The true meaning of jihad is to 'fight against ignorance,'
they point out. To these people, the problem simply is that some mullahs
and zealots have used jihad for their own political and personal gains.
However, just as the proof of the
pudding is in the eating, the nature of a religion is in its practice.
One of my friends pointed out to the good Muslim who wrote about Islam
and its tenet of love and acceptance, that in the Koran (The Koran, translated
by A. J. Arberry, Simon & Schuster, New York) verse IX.5 says: "Then
when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you
find them, and take them, confine them, and lie in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform prayer, and pay the alms,
then let them go their way."
Muslims have many varied teachings
depending on who is doing the teaching. Also, the same preacher can and
does change the message depending on who the audience is. Thus, while not
disputing the many statements of love and peace in the Koran, one should
not ignore the fact that both kinds of messages get promoted by Islam depending
upon the situation. As my friend remarked, "The existence of a loaded gun
is not negated by the mere existence of positive things alongside, because
the use of the weapon is at the discretion of its owner. Given the long
history of misuse of the Koran to plunder, conquer, enslave, kill millions
of persons in India (as evidenced by chronicles of Islamic scholars who
accompanied the invaders), why not remove these dangerous weapons in the
first place? In other words, why not amend such verses so they may not
be misused at the sole discretion of some mullah? God has become misused
as a weapon of mass destruction!"
My friend does not merely want to
focus on Islam, for there are enough calls to violence and discrimination
in many of the world's religious texts. Therefore amendments to the holy
books of all religions by a panel of scholars from various religions could
be the first step in changing the world for the 21st century. What makes
such a project difficult though is that any such proposal is deemed blasphemous,
rather than seen as honest attempts to strengthen the religions of the
world. Any attempts to reinterpret or modernize the Koran are negated even
by those Muslims who seem very liberal in their views. How could a document
written for desert tribes of uneducated persons 1,300 years ago be left
in its original interpretation in the 21st century, my friend queries.
Demand, Not Request!
It is clear to us that the U.S.,
rather than appealing to Pakistan and approaching them with 'requests',
should demand certain steps from Pakistan with short deadlines and ultimatums,
such as the closure of all jihad training camps, periodic international
inspections that they are complying (along the lines of Iraqi inspections
by the UN), expulsion of all Taliban officials from Pakistan; demanding
the de-recognition of the Taliban by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates (the only three countries to have recognized the Taliban);
and full intelligence access and support to the U.S. about all Taliban
activities.
This list falls short of military
attack launching rights from Pakistan soil. While that refusal is to be
condemned as Pakistan's non-cooperation with the civilized world, the above
list of four demands, if not met, would constitute more than mere non-cooperation,
and should not even be at the discretion of Pakistan. Refusing to comply
with these should be deemed an act of aiding, abetting, and conspiring
with the Taliban. For readers who may not have followed the first few days
of developments, on September 13, Pakistan turned down a U.S. request for
deployment of U.S. special forces on its soil, according to the Washington
Post.
The issue of joint U.S. and Pakistani
action to force the Taliban to give up Bin Laden has been discussed regularly
for more than a year. This was done during visits to Pakistan by CIA Director
George Tenet, and General Tommy R. Franks, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.
Central Command. That itself is indicative of the American embrace of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan and all the dirty warfare it has launched
from within its national frontiers. Pakistan was a major staging ground
in the 1980s for covert U.S. operations and its support for Islamic rebels
fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Although some U.S. spokesmen have
claimed that "relations between the one-time allies have soured since the
end of the Cold War," including the short and rude visit of Clinton when
he did not shake hands with Musharraf, many in the U.S. defense and state
departments have deep and abiding faith with their Cold War ally, and still
continue to exercise their clout in the present administration, and in
shaping U.S. policy towards India and Pakistan.
For what else could explain the
U.S. now talking to the Pakistani "official" Lieutenant General Mahmood
Ahmed, head of the Inter-Services Intelligence, which was deeply involved
in the Taliban from the days when it was a fledgling military movement
in 1994 and is accused by anti-Taliban forces of still providing arms and
guidance?
Caught Between the Mullahs and the
'Merican Might
Helping the United States in a potential
attack on Bin Laden and the Taliban would be almost inevitable if Washington
concludes Bin Laden orchestrated the September carnage. Where will it leave
our 'suave' and clean-shaven General Musharraf? Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, leader
of one faction of the pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam party that was a
promoter from the earliest days, said that he would "appeal to the Pakistani
government that it should warn the U.S. and not allow it to use our airspace
or any other facilities for a possible strike on Afghanistan. If America
uses our soil then it means that we have lost our dignity and sovereignty...
if that happened 140 million Muslims (of Pakistan) would retaliate against
Musharraf's government." Hai Allah!
Musharraf has shown himself reluctant
to confront all but the most extremist fringe of Islamic groups. A meeting
of Pakistani political leaders spanning the spectrum agreed in August that
Musharraf should not allow U.N. monitors on Afghan soil to enforce the
sanctions on the Taliban designed to force the handover of Bin Laden. That
is because details have emerged over the past years of ISI involvement,
naming ISI officers who worked with the Taliban from 1994 to open a trade
route into Central Asia that Pakistan badly wanted. Musharraf in July defended
Pakistan's backing for the Taliban arguing that they control almost all
of Afghanistan and because they are overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns, whom
he sees as natural allies. Does one now understand the dilemma for Musharraf?
Backing a U.S. attack on the Taliban would enrage a substantial part of
Pakistanis. Inside his own army, which sets policy on Afghanistan, an estimated
20 percent of the men are Pashtun.
If he does not help Washington though,
the consequences could be worse. Pakistan's support for the Taliban has
already left it isolated, weakening a deeply indebted economy that mostly
survives on a flow of foreign assistance, and the money sent in by expatriate
Pakistanis.
What Can India Do?
There are reports that India's Research
and Analysis Wing (India's equivalent of the CIA) is extending intelligence
gathered on the Pak-Afghan axis and the training camps in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and also information about the terrorist groups that are active
in the region.
An aggressive and effective policy
against terrorism should be formulated by the Vajpayee government, and
one may hope that the Indian participation will be welcomed by the international
community in this now-declared global war against terrorism, which India
has been fighting in isolation for a long time. I said 'one may hope,'
and it is in that light one should see the FBI seeking and getting a number
of documents from India on September 14 with detailed information about
terrorist training camps in Pakistan. The material was handed over to FBI
officials at the U.S. embassy in Delhi after a high-level meeting with
the director of the Intelligence Bureau, K. P. Singh, and chief of RAW
Vikram Sood.
The FBI was given several videotapes
showing training methods the Taliban and others use to instill the 'jihadi'
mentality among the youths, hailing from a variety of Muslim countries
at camps located on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, within Pakistan as
well as in the illegally occupied parts of Kashmir. The files given to
the FBI include addresses of various dreaded terrorists and financiers
of the militant movement.
It is also in this light that we
should see Prime Minister Vajpayee's statement to the Indian public. He
harped on the basic ideals that India and the U.S. shared, democracies
each. He also mentioned the pain and suffering that India and Indians have
experienced over the last two decades in its own war against Islamic terrorists.
India has been alerting others to the fact that terrorism is a scourge
to all humanity, and that what happened in Mumbai (more than 700 killed
in a single day of bombings carried out by the jihadists based in Pakistan
and the Middle East) was bound to happen elsewhere, "that the poison that
propels mercenaries and terrorists to kill and maim in Jammu and Kashmir
will impel the same sort to blow up people elsewhere." Finally, what Vajpayee
said about the role of religion was pertinent: "As an integral part of
this battle, it is necessary that we bear in mind that no religion preaches
terrorism. The fringe elements of society, which seek to cloak terrorism
in a religious garb, do grave injustice to both their faith and its followers."
The Joker In The Pack?
The 'inscrutable' Chinese, as the
not-so-benign stereotype of the denizens of the new 'super power in the
making' goes, have resolved to strengthen ties with the Taliban regime
by signing a memorandum of understanding for economic and technical cooperation.
The agreement was reported Tuesday, the same day the terrorists hijacked
the four planes.
China's agreement with the Taliban
is the most substantial part of a series of contacts that Beijing has had
with Afghanistan over the last two years. Of all non-Muslim countries,
Beijing now has the best relationship with Kabul, according to Western
sources. Officials in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan said they worried that
Beijing was trying to curry favor with Kabul at the same time it made a
public show of opposing terrorism, which seemed to be supported by Afghanistan.
Lest it be forgotten, China helped form the Shanghai Cooperative Organization
that joins Russia and three central Asian nations in a loose grouping,
with one of its main purposes being to combat cross-border terrorism.
China is also surreptitiously talking
to the Taliban to close Afghan-based camps that are used to train Muslim
separatists from China's restive Xinjiang region. Those separatists on
occasion re-enter China and launch attacks on China's security services
or on civilian targets.
Sweeteners that the Chinese are
seeking to provide include renovating an American-built power station.
Now, with the Manhattan massacre, a senior American diplomat is said to
have cautioned China about trying to "play both sides against the middle
and anger the West and other countries." Will it heed this warning, or
will it, according to the forecast of some Indian astrologers, join forces
with the 'other side' in a new war of the worlds?
