9/11 magnified
by 12/13
Did Osama Bin Laden think
that September 11 would so terrify Uncle Sam
that a cowering America would apologise unconditionally for all its sins,
past and future, against the world’s Muslims, instantly pullout all US
forces
from Saudi Arabia, apologise to Saddam Hussain and bulldoze Israel into
creating an independent state of Palestine overnight? Did the ‘fidayeen’
who launched a frontal assault on the most sacred symbol of Indian de
mocracy on December 13 expect to terrify the government and the people of
India into serving Kashmir on a platter to the self–appointed generals of
‘Allah’s armies’?
The answer to both these
questions can safely be given in the negative. But that prompts the question
whether there is no method in such madness. While the intention of the
terrorists in either case is a matter for speculation, the outcome of their
horrendous deeds is apparent: there’s more polarisation, more frenzy, more
hatred, more xenophobia, more clamour for retribution and revenge (more
violence in short) in the air today than there was before. Could it be that
on the current agenda of the perpetrators of both September 11 and December
13 was not some ‘enduring victory’ but merely the triggering of a
process that would render the Global Village, South Asia specially,
increasingly more volatile and inflammable?
That India must respond
decisively to the latest and the most extreme provocation in a chain of
terrorist outrages goes without saying. More than ever before, India is in
urgent need of a comprehensive plan of action against terror and those who
sustain it, as also a perspective that addresses the legitimate grievances
of Kashmiris from which terrorists seek their own legitimacy. For this what
we need quite clearly is cool headed thinking, not the if–America–can–take–on–terrorism–why–can’t–we
kind of macho sentiment that appeals to inflamed passions. The clamour for
‘hot pursuit’ and ‘terror for terror’ are greatly disturbing for two
reasons: firstly, because this is precisely what the jehadis are
asking for and, secondly, because the loudest demand for the no–holds
barred Indian offensive is being raised by the party and parivar on
whom the government at the Centre crucially depends for its survival.
The knowledge need not
paralyse our thinking or proposed plan of action; but only fools, and
extremely dangerous ones at that, will not factor into their calculation the
history of hostility on the subcontinent, the new reality of nuclear weapons
on both sides of the Wagah border, and the religious extremists and
war-mongers on both sides telling their respective governments there’s no
fun making bombs if they are not to be used.
Our cover story this month on
the targeting of innocent Hindus in Bangladesh and our special report on the
determined doctoring of history to mould India’s mind in the way Hindutva
wants it are further reminders of the tinder–box that South Asia is today.
In the article that he has contributed to this issue of CC on the
global challenge that September 11 has thrown both before Muslims and the
West, Pervez Hoodbhoy from Pakistan observes: "Our collective survival
lies in recognizing that religion is not the solution; neither is
nationalism. Both are divisive, embedding within us false notions of
superiority and arrogant pride that are difficult to erase".
If the argument is appealing
at the global level, its compelling in the context of South Asia where
religion is sought to be combined with nationalism for assembling an ever
more explosive cocktail. It is imperative that India fashions an appropriate
and adequate response to the menace of terrorism. But adventurism will only
trigger the time-bomb that we are all sitting on.
