Caught between a rock and a hard place, India came off worst in the recent face-off with Pakistan-sponsored and Taliban-supported hijackers of the Indian Airlines flight IC-814. If there was the slightest doubt that the eight-day terror perpetrated by one of the world’s most vicious terrorist organizations had failed to elicit the support this country expected from the international community, particularly the United States and the UN Security Council, then the Prime Ministers’ ashen face said it all last Friday evening.
Even as one understands the Government’s limitations and endorses its decision to put the safety of innocent civilians above the demands of Justice and national interest, one cannot but share the general grief over the ultimate outcome. It is gratifying that a section of the hostages and their families shared the national concern over the consequences of this forced capitulation. As for the agony of families of policemen who died while arresting the released militants, it simply doesn’t bear thinking about. This poignant moment enveloped the whole nation in collective suffering.
Breast-beating is not this writer’s favoured past time. The issue of what could or should have happened at Amritsar, Lahore, or the UAE shall be left to experts who will now go into these issues. But if we are to respect the overwhelming national consensus that such a nightmare should not visit us again, we must find the moral and political courage to face the issues arising out of this tragedy. We must end the long-ingrained habit of dodging issues; only the bitter truth can provide an antidote for our pain.
First and foremost, we must admit that as a nation we were held to ransom by a carefully calibrated crusading viciousness. The Taliban (religiously-driven guerrillas who control most of Afghanistan) has been duplicitous, and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh’s diplomatic compulsions cannot disguise this reality. Certainly it mouthed the politically correct inanities that kept international pressure off its illegitimate regime, but its actual conduct was questionable.
The Taliban first took the line that it had no role in the incident beyond hosting the aircraft at Kandahar airport, and pressed India to directly negotiate with the hijackers, appearing as their facilitator. It reinforced this perception by insisting that it would not allow a commando operation, and protected the plane with virtually all the armoury available in Kandahar. At the same time it demonstrated its leverage with the pirates by telling them that no killings would be allowed on its territory.
What is truly amazing, however, is the Taliban’s conduct after India requested its intercession in the face of the hijackers’ fabulous wish list. It persuaded (sic) the pirates to drop two demands – a booty of Rs. 850 crores, and the exhumed body of a slain militant – on grounds that these were un-Islamic. It then washed its hands off the affair, leaving Indian mediators with the demand for release of jailed militants as a virtual non-negotiable.
The conclusion is inescapable that the Taliban, by thus de facto declaring terrorism and the holding of innocents to ransom as ‘kosher’ acts, put India in a position where it had no choice but to agree to the substance of the demand. The Vajpayee government could only quibble over the actual number of terrorists to be exchanged. It held out for eight painful days before coughing up Maulana Masood Azhar (the real goal of the hijackers) and two other prize catches.
But the humiliation was not India’s alone. All nations that claim to abhor terror and the politics of violence, all groups and peoples who dare speak of human rights, must share the dishonour. I ask Amnesty International, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and other like-minded organizations what they think about vegetarian Hindus receiving a daily sustenance of half an orange in sub-zero temperatures. As for the proliferation of arms in the aircraft after arrival at Kandahar, it deserves serious attention from the international community.
If there is any doubt about the Taliban’s complicity in the affair, its attitude towards the hijackers after the incident should clinch matters. The regime made it clear that it had no interest in arresting or detaining the brigands. Despite the highly publicized brutal murder of a passenger, the hijackers were given ten hours to go to a ‘destination of their choice’ (i.e. to escape), just the time needed to drive to Pakistan. Indeed, the hijackers drove off into the sunset with the aplomb of those familiar with the terrain.
India thus enters the new year with the dreaded legacy of terrorism fed by a potent mix of faith and drug-money, while domestically frustrated by a powerful secular elite. It will need all its courage, power, sagacity and tenacity to survive the combined onslaught. The counter attack will have to be two-pronged. On the one hand, zero tolerance will have to be enforced through bloody reprisals against militants, especially in Kashmir. If there is one thing the people of India have made clear in this sorry episode, it is that they do not wish the sacrifices of their soldiers, policemen, other officers and civilians, to go in vain.
On the other hand, there is an urgent need for all right-thinking citizens to re-examine the basic tenets of a polity that holds that the nation can survive such serious challenges to its integrity without firming up its foundational ethos. Let me emphasize that I have no desire to open unnecessary controversies; I agree with the Prime Minister that the temple and civil code be put on the back burner. The foundational ethos I speak of is not a ‘thing’ to be executed physically. It is, rather, a mind-set. It is a state of mind that agrees that the national character must justly be defined in terms of the Hindu majority, that minorities share it, while their rights and privileges are defined and protected within this framework. There is no question of denying them space.
Sadly, our public discourse today is crippled by a lack of basic honesty. Our dominant (mostly Hindu) elite refuses to recognize the majority community’s legitimate rights. I have no time for the minority versus majority debate. Rather, minorities should be concerned that a warped polity that denies its overwhelming Hindu-ness puts them equally at risk. After all, one truth we can no longer evade is that India has suffered decades of sustained violence from a determined neighbour not because of a piece of territory, but because it is a Hindu-majority country. In the recent saga that unfolded from Kathmandu to Kandahar, not one hijacker was a Kashmiri.
Our nationhood is under a vicious assault, and the undeniable fact is that at least two countries – Afghanistan and Pakistan – have joined forces to unleash this attack in the name of religion. Saudi billionaire, Osama bin Laden, who was supposedly denied all means of communication by the Taliban, poured venom on India during the hijacking incident. I appreciate minority leaders’ condemning the hijacking, but they will do themselves and the nation a sterling service if they re-open the concept of ijtihad (independent judgement)and declare their opposition to the theory of jihad (holy war) on grounds that it is out of tune with the spirit of the Age. Unless they do this, their opposition to co-religionists hell-bent upon jihad will be mere tokenism.
The Pioneer, 4 January 2000