Indian Media

The Vajpayee administration seems to have recognised the need for continued restraint in dealing with Pakistan in the present international climate of rising sentiments against the politics of terrorism. It is, therefore, a welcome turn in the articulation of New Delhi's foreign policy objectives that the Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, has ruled out any intention of embarking on ``hot pursuit'' of the Kashmir-related terrorists across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir ``at this moment.'' Yet, the need for genuine strategic restraint by India and a reciprocal gesture by Pakistan cannot be adequately underlined in the emerging global context of complex uncertainties. America's increasing military involvement in Afghanistan, which straddles India's strategic neighbourhood, is the defining element of this volatile international situation. New Delhi's dilemma centres on its apprehensions about the nature and scope of the ``rewards'' that the U.S. might bestow on Pakistan for a possibly sustained support of the ongoing American action in Afghanistan. The U.S. wants to ``take out'' Osama bin Laden's terror-network and unseat his Taliban ally, until recently Islamabad's protege, in Kabul. Now, Osama's patronly sway over some of the terrorist groups that operate in Jammu and Kashmir - Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba in particular - is a matter of intelligence-profiling by India and the West. Yet, as Pakistan continues to portray the separatist terror in Jammu and Kashmir as an aspect of a ``freedom struggle,'' New Delhi appears eager to ensure that theatre-specific definitions of terrorism do not complicate the delicate interactions among India and Pakistan as also the U.S.

This strategic environment accentuates the tactical significance of Mr. Advani's new assurances that India will not consider undertaking any hot pursuit into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir ``at this point of time.'' As the acknowledged hawk among those shaping New Delhi's Pakistan policy, Mr. Advani has signalled an apparent sense of moderation, although he wants to reserve what he tends to project as India's arguable ``right'' under ``international law'' to go in ``hot pursuit'' of the terrorists across the LoC. In a sense, the U.N. Security Council's recent resolution on the mandatory steps to combat terrorism seems to have lent itself to the interpretation of ``hot pursuit'' as the sovereign ``right'' of states. However, the resolution itself is in the process of being interpreted as a nuanced aspect of ``international law.'' What can be said at this stage about Mr. Advani's statement is that it can enhance India's credentials as a responsible power. This will not be negated by the reported suggestion from the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, for military action against Pakistan despite Mr. Advani's note of restraint for the present.

Significant, too, is the Union Home Minister's tacit reasoning that the restraint itself is linked to India's desire to see the evolving ``global battle against terrorism'' succeed. His aim is to turn the spotlight on the current U.S.' campaign in relation to Afghanistan with Pakistan's tactical assistance. A possible scenario is that the U.S.' efforts to strangulate Osama's terrorist superstructure may produce a beneficial spin-off for New Delhi if the ruthless anti-India groups targeting Kashmir are deprived of oxygen in the process. At another level, India can legitimately expect that Pakistan discourage the various Kashmir- related terrorist outfits that operate openly in the territory under its control with or without Islamabad's official patronage. In a sense, India wants to ride the crest of a rising tide of international opinion against the politics of terrorism. Yet, New Delhi cannot afford to ignore the distinction between the political dispute over Kashmir and the challenge of terrorism. A suitable India-Pakistan re-engagement will really be a logical corollary to the policy of restraint now indicated by New Delhi even as the question of the degree of autonomy for the people of Kashmir needs also to be addressed with a greater sense of urgency.

-- Editorial, Hindu, Chennai, October 22, 2001

Even as the Americans begin their ground offensive in Afghanistan, there is no certainty about how or when the war will end.

The immediate objective is clear — get Osama bin Laden dead or alive. But what if this goal proves elusive? Or, if it is reached, what would be the fate of Bin Laden’s host, the Taliban? The present replay of the Great Game, therefore, may prove to be even more messy than its 19th century version. At that time, the two main players were Czarist Russia and British India. Now, there are many pokers in the fire. Apart from the US, which is the only major player, there are many minor players — Pakistan, Iran, the Central Asian republics, Russia and India. Perhaps China, too, would like to have a finger in the pie.

With so many interested parties focusing on Afghanistan, the Great Game may well become a free-for-all. If the Americans made the mistake of abruptly leaving the scene after the Soviet withdrawal, there is every possibility that they will now make the other mistake of overstaying their welcome. In fact, the belief in Washington that the US should have continued the Gulf war till Saddam Hussein either died or was ousted may now persuade them to remain in Afghanistan for a long time. It is possible, of course, that the others may urge it to do so although under the cover of the UN. At least in the short term, the American involvement will not be a bad idea since it is unlikely that the other players will be able to ensure any stability in Afghanistan by themselves.

But even with the American presence, the post-Taliban dispensation will be a hotbed of intrigue and animosity with the possibility of occasional violent outbreaks. The reason is that all the neighbouring countries will try to ensure that their own interests are safeguarded. Pakistan would like the presence of a ‘moderate’ Taliban in the new set-up although its preference sounds like a contradiction in terms. India may favour the Northern Alliance, fractious as it is. However, the difficulty is that Afghanistan has never had a tradition of democracy. It is also surrounded by dictatorships. The suggestion, therefore, that a government comprising all the major tribal groups can be constituted will not be easy to implement. As the only multicultural democracy in the region, India can set an example but perhaps do no more than that, for any interventionist stance may be resented by the Afghans. Yet, the crucial role which India can play in bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century is obvious. No other country in the region can replicate this role.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 22, 2001

The U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, has frequently spoken about his country's resolve to do what it takes to win the ongoing military offensive against an identified axis of terror that links Afghanistan's uncivilised Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden, prime suspect behind last month's devastating terrorist strikes against America. But the plight of innocent Afghan civilians reflects a largely unspoken tragedy of this war, which the U.S. launched earlier this month by carrying out aerial and missile strikes against what it saw as a network of military and terrorist infrastructure facilities inside Afghanistan. The United Nations, which might be expected to play the lead role in a latter-day reconstruction of that hapless country, has already lost several aid workers. They were killed during the initial phase of America's raids. More recently, the fire-bombing of a Red Cross warehouse, which contained humanitarian relief supplies, has brought nothing but anguish to the civilised world. The Taliban officials have also taken some international reporters round several sites of civilian homes that seemed to have been destroyed in the U.S. military attack. From America's own perspective, its tendency to quibble over the actual causes of such civilian deaths and other collateral damage is not much of a face-saver. Surely in this context, Washington has tried to underline the objectives of this ``anti-terror'' war in some political terminology of absolute idealism. However, the larger international community has already begun to visualise the likely humanitarian burdens and economic costs of this war as also its potential fallout in a vast geopolitical context.

Indeed, the U.S. is increasingly coming under much international scrutiny, if not also commensurate pressure at this stage, for what is being perceived as another manifestation of a cavalier conduct which America has historically come to be associated with. In prime focus is Washington's penchant for an awesome high-tech war against an intransigent regime and its terrorist allies in an utterly impoverished country. The massive picture of a disproportionate use of deadly firepower is not at all mitigated by America's own fanfare about its token air-drops of food supplies and medicines. These humanitarian sorties are said to be designed to enliven the spirits of the ordinary Afghans who have known nothing but misery since the Taliban began exercising control over their lives in 1996. However, America's argument about the benevolence implicit in its pie-from-the-sky mission is simply lost in the din and bustle of the roaring U.S. military machine. Moreover, it is anybody's guess whether the inhuman Taliban has allowed the ordinary Afghans to benefit from America's symbolic gesture of limited humanitarian relief which is but a sop to soothe their frustrations.

If the looming humanitarian catastrophe has not blown up in the face of the global community at this moment, the reasons vary. At one end, there is the assortment of economic and other disabilities that prevent the many affected Afghans from leaving the theatre of war. At the other end of the spectrum, the United Nations does not yet appear to have coordinated its policies with those of the U.S. in a bid to provide the victims of the intensifying war with an escape route through a reasonably safe corridor or the like. It is in this overall humanitarian context that China, which is currently playing host to Mr. Bush at a regional meeting, has pointedly asked him to avoid civilian casualties and target only the terrorists. India, too, should take the initiative to galvanise international action on such humanitarian issues. On a different but related plane, issues of morality may come into play in the emerging international debate about the political space that could be assigned to the ``moderate'' elements of a notoriously cruel Taliban in a future Afghan Government.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 20, 2001

The world has become extremely cagey about cracking jokes or enjoying them. Quite understandably so, one might add. What would have left people in stitches before September 11 may no longer be deemed as tasteful comedy. (Certainly not the classic sketch from a British comedy programme showing Muslims praying in a mosque with the voice-over droning: "And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.")

But there has also been a flip side to this constriction on the comic. British Home Secretary David Blunkett recently outlined proposals to introduce a legislation to outlaw ‘incitement to religious hatred’. In these surcharged times, what constitutes ‘incitement’ and what doesn’t has become blurred. Some people like Rowan ‘Mr Bean’ Atkinson fear that even when the fog has cleared, people will be liable to imprisonment for performing parody — an integral part of any comedy routine.

In a letter to the The Times of London, the British comedian stated his concern about the new laws being used to curb the freedom of speech because of their highly subjective nature. If he is worried about Britain taping the comic mouth shut, he should witness the hysterics on display in India. Three students were arrested on Thursday for distributing anti-war pamphlets in a Delhi college. A week before, six others were charged with ‘sedition’. While the students opposed the ongoing bombing campaign on Afghanistan, they had also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. Clearly, they were not guilty of sedition which, if the dictionary is to be believed, means "conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a State or monarch".

It is rather strange that the Indian government deems a bunch of pacifist youngsters to be more threatening to the nation than hoodlums forcing their way into a communally sensitive and a judicially proscribed structure. The parallel with the possible advent of a new British touchiness about jokes that poke fun at people (which, in essence, is what comedy is all about) is not too forced. While desi Keystone Cops are ‘doing their job’ by locking up dissenters of ‘the official position’, their videshi counterparts may find it tough going to distinguish between Ayatollah Khomeini jokes and the ranting of a mad mullah from a Finsbury Park mosque. Mr Blunkett has called any fear of laws being misused to gag free speech ‘wide of the mark’. One wishes that one could have believed similar words of comfort in India.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 20, 2001

Every time the US drops a bomb and it does not kill Osama, the image that comes to mind is of Big Moose of Archies’ fame saying, "Duh!" Or rather, "Duh?" which isn’t the same thing at all. For the average American has such a limited vocabulary that those who try to fill that cloud of confusion over their heads often resort to writing blurbs like ???? or #@&*$, or even Kreeegaaah!

Like Big Moose, their response to every situation seems to consist of giving every suitor of Big Ethel (Ms Freedom?) a big thwack on the head. Pakistan, in this vein, would be like the ‘wascally’ Bugs Bunny, forever raiding carrots from Elmer Fudd’s (India’s) fields. Fudd, of course, keeps firing ineffectually in the air with his airgun. If this image is too kind, make Pakistan Captain Haddock, forever firing thousands of blistering barnacles at the whole world which he feels does not understand him.

Following this drift, Bill Clinton was Dennis the Menace, not quite grown up, pants perpetually at half-mast, playing all those pranks with Mama Hillary cleaning up behind him. George W, although it is early days yet, seems a bit like Donald Duck, whose face you see frequently on TV, keychains, stickers etc., but whose claim to fame you can’t quite remember, except being an ‘Unca SamDonald’ to his nephews Tony Blair and Colin Powell and, of course, Condoleezza Rice. Sorry George, you just can’t be cast as Superman, not till you start wearing your CIA underwear over your pants, not till tall buildings are safer in your reign.

Which brings us to the crucial question: Who is Osama bin Laden? Dr No? Frankenstein’s monster? King Kong? More likely, he is the cartoonist, the evil genius scripting a story full of violence for the kids who adore such vicarious stuff. Just as writers and illustrators have done for years with the forever warring pairs: Tom and Jerry, Sylvester and Tweety Pie, Willie E. Coyote and the Road Runner...

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 20, 2001

A charm offensive by the U.S. Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell, during his brief visit to South Asia at this critical moment seems to have pleased India's leaders as also Pakistan's military-political establishment. This cannot conceal, though, Washington's anxiety about how to engage the two countries without aggravating their suspicions about each other and presumably also about America's long-term agenda behind its ongoing `campaign' against international terrorism in the name of a grand alliance for that purpose. Now, Gen. Powell surely does not appear to have encountered any insurmountable challenges in either Islamabad or New Delhi. Yet, it will be naive to conclude that the Indo-U.S. dialogue as also the Pakistan-America engagement have been put on separate but definitive tracks in the uncharted context of America's new doctrine of friends and foes in a war of sentiments against international terror. It is indeed evident that the exuberant bonhomie of Gen. Powell's latest encounter with his Indian interlocutors, in particular, has had the quality of glossing over the unfulfilled promise on the bilateral front. More significantly, the transparent tendency of the Vajpayee administration to lean unduly on Washington for waging New Delhi's own battles against terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir may have also blurred the distinction between the myths and realities of the presently-evolving Indo-U.S. equation.

In a substantive perspective, therefore, both India and the U.S. can and should attempt to enhance their interactions to a higher plane of well-defined purposes. Inviting the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, for talks in Washington on November 9, the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, has reaffirmed America's interest in building a broad-based partnership with India. Besides the promotion of ``closer cooperation on a range of security and economic issues that advance common objectives'', America's intentions encompass its call to strengthen the emerging anti- terror coalition in the international arena and to foster stability in South Asia. A plain fact is that the U.S. is trying to convince India that its friendship is not being devalued in the context of Washington's compulsions in having befriended Pakistan as an ally in the current fight against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in neighbouring Afghanistan. India and the U.S., for long estranged democracies, began a conscious process of engagement during the final year of the previous Clinton administration. Yet, if the two countries now find it necessary to make a virtual new beginning, the reason can be traced almost entirely to Washington's radically changed perspective of stability in South Asia in the totality of America's own sense of an unforeseen urgency to insulate itself from the politics of terror.

For India, this offers a fresh opportunity to reassert its strategic independence. Not long ago, New Delhi was leaning towards endorsing the Bush administration's plans for a missile defence system. Instead, the Vajpayee administration should now seek to retrieve and salvage India's overall strategic autonomy in foreign policy and be more conscious of the reality that the U.S. itself should not be given room to play zero-sum games in regard to India and Pakistan. Surely, Pakistan's President and Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, will expect the U.S. to reciprocate his current support for its actions in Afghanistan. He makes no secret of his eagerness to see the U.S. become more cognisant of Islamabad's strategic concerns about the Kashmir `cause' despite the recurring terrorist blots on that. Gen. Powell, on his part, gave Pakistan something to smile about by affirming the salience of the Kashmir issue. Not surprisingly, the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, has characterised that as an example of an Indo-U.S. disagreement that need not become disagreeable at the same time. If this is any sign of maturity, New Delhi should sustain it by seeking a more balanced engagement of the U.S. now.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 19, 2001

COLIN Powell’s reputation as an unruffled diplomat survives his trip to India and Pakistan. A minefield of difficulties awaited him on Kashmir, terrorism and the future of Afghanistan but he treated them, in public at least, as mostly semantic problems. Having thanked Islamabad and New Delhi for their support and told each capital what it wanted to hear, he emerged unscathed. Has he left the coalition against terrorism in this part of the world in robust health? For the most part, and despite the gunfire on the LoC, yes. The crucial part of the trip was, ten days after the bombing of Afghanistan began, to shore up Pakistan’s will as it continues its high-risk stance of backing Washington. That seems to have been achieved. Lifting sanctions on Pakistan and promising economic and military assistance surely helped. Even more significant from Islamabad’s point of view was the consultation on government-formation in Afghanistan after the Taliban. A consultative process suggests Pakistan is recognised as indispensable not only to the strike against Al-Qaeda but to the long-term stabilisation of Afghanistan as well. Islamabad has certainly shown remarkable flexibility and acted quickly in inviting former king Zahir Shah over for discussions. Between Shah and the so-called moderate Taliban there could be two Pashtun cards in play.

Powell made clear that Washington has no intention of being dragged into the Kashmir quagmire at this time and will stick with the formula that differences be resolved through bilateral dialogue. That is a wise and well-considered stance. But India is no longer content with a hands-off US posture. Ironically, it is New Delhi that seems now, through diplomacy and military action on the LoC, to want Washington to intervene albeit tangentially and in the context of cross-border terrorism. Perhaps Powell’s broad public assertion that India’s battle against terrorism was America’s battle was backed by more specifics in private. But it is unreasonable to expect Washington to crack the whip in Islamabad just now or Musharraf to open more fronts against his government by taking on the jehadis head-on. India must not count on a reduction of terrorist activities any time soon and will have to be vigilant at all times everywhere.

A disturbing quality of ad hocism about the Vajpayee government’s foreign policy in the new post-September 11 era is becoming obvious. Carping about aid to Pakistan and an unbroken run of complaints about its new importance in Washington’s scheme of things does not add up to a policy. After recognising the terrorist assault on the US was an assault on freedom and the rule of law everywhere, after boldly offering to assist Washington’s campaign, the government is suddenly and unaccountably racked by doubt and confusion. The Pakistan factor blots out all possibilities, opportunities and requirements. By the time Vajpayee takes up the invitation to visit Washington, the government should have a clear idea of what it wants and how it is going to achieve those objectives. It makes sense to look beyond the immediate picture and take a long-term view of the south-Asian region.

Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 18, 2001

As Pakistan tries desperately to preserve what it can from the broken fragments of its Afghan policy, Kashmir was bound to come into the limelight again. Islamabad’s fear is that its loss of control over Afghanistan will be compounded by the end of its proxy war in Kashmir.

Hence, the equation yet again by Pervez Musharraf of Kashmir with Palestine and his reference to the need for ‘self-determination’ to root out terrorism. If he is admitting in the process that there is terrorism in Kashmir, it may be because the links between the jehadis in his country and in Afghanistan are no longer a secret even to the Americans. However, the plea for ‘self-determination’ from a dictator cannot but sound ironical.

This is a time when India has to play its cards with great care. Although the Americans have decided to intervene in the matter of the Palestinian ‘State’, their policy towards Kashmir remains largely unchanged. As before, the US wants the dispute to be resolved through negotiations. However, it is the reference to the ‘aspirations’ of the Kashmiri people and to the state as a nuclear flashpoint which must continue to worry India. Evidently, Colin Powell’s visit to the subcontinent has made no change to these perceptions in the West. All that has happened is that Islamic terrorism in Kashmir has been recognised, but with a reluctance presumably because of the belief that India is some kind of an occupying force in the state.

The best course for New Delhi is to act in a manner which does not precipitate a crisis. The temptation to take advantage of Pakistan’s present difficulties may be high, but forbearance may yield better results. Clearly, it will take weeks, if not months, for any kind of clarity to emerge about the future dispensations in Islamabad and Kabul. In any case, the Taliban will no longer be in a position to sponsor terrorism while its mentors in Pakistan will also be partly subdued. So, even if terrorism remains a potent force, its virulence will be checked, at least in the subcontinent. If so, it will be possible for India to take more energetic steps to counter any sense of alienation among the ordinary people.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 18, 2001

The intensive shelling of some Pakistani military positions by the Indian Army on Monday night has exposed the fragility of the Vajpayee administration's strategic thinking on the Kashmir issue in the present volatile international situation. New Delhi should first guard against making any move that might result in a dangerous drift towards full-scale hostilities with Pakistan. To say this is not to ignore or belittle the sense of outrage that the Indian Army in the Mendhar and Akhnoor sectors of Jammu and Kashmir obviously felt as regards the Pakistan-encouraged terrorist infiltration into the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) in this particular instance. However, an apparently trigger-happy response to the perception of a provocative infiltration carried the elementary hallmark of routine ground- level tactics. The available accounts indicate that India's field commanders considered it prudent to target some Pakistani military infrastructure in a ``punitive action'' that was aimed at pre-emptively discouraging such terrorist infiltrations in the future. In a sense, there is nothing very unusual about the latest infiltration or even the Indian response except for their timing, but this reality is of critical importance. There can be no two opinions indeed about the need for utmost vigil by India's military forces. Not arguable, too, is the principle of sustaining their morale at a very high pitch. However, New Delhi should move beyond the threshold of statesmanship while meeting the suspected efforts by Pakistan to raise the diplomatic- military stakes concerning Jammu and Kashmir at this enormously sensitive stage.

The spiralling tensions in India's extended neighbourhood are undeniably the direct consequence of Washington's ongoing war in Afghanistan. Moreover, official Pakistan was among the first to make common cause with the U.S. over what is now turning into an unpredictable and messy adventure. The ongoing American military offensive in Afghanistan is also beginning to cause considerable discomfort within the Islamic bloc. In the books of the Vajpayee administration, Pakistan therefore figures as an increasingly unstable state in quest of America's strategic support over the Kashmir issue at this time. New Delhi's transparent concern is that Islamabad may see the Kashmir `cause' as the political glue that could keep Pakistan together in these circumstances. This explains the External Affairs Ministry's denunciation of Pakistan for ``exaggerating'' Monday night's ``incidents along the LoC'' so as to ``misuse'' the U.S. Secretary of State's current visit to South Asia.

What New Delhi has so far failed to see in today's nebulous international environment is the sagacity of adopting a policy of strategic restraint in regard to Pakistan. Instead, some policy- planners, such as Mr. L. K. Advani with no hands-on responsibility for navigating India's foreign policy through uncharted but troubled waters, have even advocated a ``hot pursuit'' of the Kashmir-related terrorists behind the Pakistani lines along the LoC. Now, it requires no elaborate reasoning to recognise that India's national interest will be best served at this moment by a decision against imitating America's current ideas and manoeuvres that include the notion of a hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden, don of international terror. A policy of meaningful caution about the U.S.' aims will indeed enable New Delhi to exercise strategic restraint in respect of Pakistan too. It will be a foolhardy recipe at this juncture if New Delhi were to shift its stance, unwittingly or otherwise, from its own admirable record of military and political restraint as practised with consummate ease at the height of the Kargil crisis not long ago. In a sense, India's stature on the international stage rose dramatically in that Kargil context. Those moral and political gains must not be frittered away. Given also the inter-linked political destinies of India and Pakistan, the two can and should seek to coexist through a continuous process of dialogue before and after a settlement of the Kashmir issue.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 17, 2001

The ‘punitive action’ taken by the Indian army against Pakistani positions in Kashmir shows how the wheel is coming full circle in the region. Although the shelling by the Indian side cannot be put in the category of ‘hot pursuit’, an idea which has long been aired on this side of the border, it nevertheless underlines how India’s patience is wearing thin. This is for the first time since the beginning of the proxy war by Pakistan that the Indians have decided to hit at the staging posts on the other side of the Line of Control. It undoubtedly represents an escalation of sorts and one hopes that the government has taken into account all the implications of the move. The provocation apparently was the infiltration of terrorists in the Mendhar sector. But whereas India has preferred till now to deal with the subversives after they had entered, it has now evidently decided to target those Pakistani positions which help the militants to cross over.

Considering that even during the Kargil conflict, India had resisted the temptation of crossing the LoC, confining even the air attacks to our side of the border, the latest action denotes a dramatic departure from past policy. What may have paved the way for it is the belief that, notwithstanding Pakistan’s preoccupation elsewhere, it will not desist from persisting with its proxy war in Kashmir. As much was evident from the fidayeen attack on the legislative building in Srinagar by the Jaish-e-Mohammed. What is more, the links between this terrorist outfit (now banned by the US) and the Al-Qaeda have since come to light. The revelation that one of those released by India at the time of the Kandahar hijack had sent money to Mohammed Atta, who was involved in the attack on the twin towers in New York, emphasised how wide the terror network is.

Evidently, India can no longer afford to make it easy for the terrorists to enter Kashmir at will because of our respect for the LoC. The need to remind Pakistan that, in future, it will have to pay for its abetment of terrorism has become all the greater after the Al-Qaeda included Kashmir as one of the areas on its agenda. For Pakistan, the cosy period when it coddled the Taliban and fomented trouble in India is clearly over. As the religious extremists turn on their former patrons in Pakistan, the Musharraf regime must realise that it cannot pretend to oppose terrorism in the West while encouraging it in the East. To save itself from the monster which it has created, Pakistan will have to disown — in word and deed — the proxy war it has waged in Kashmir for over a decade. Otherwise, its present internal difficultiesc will be compounded by external factors.

Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 17, 2001

It’s fear. The fear of flying and high rise architecture. The fear of togetherness in private and public spaces. The visible fear of an invisible enemy. It’s not a psychic disorder in a clinical sense. Nor is it like the soliloquy of hi-tech horror inside a dark theatre hall which you actually enjoy in its seductive, cathartic fantasy. It’s tangible, this apocalyptic sense of a foreboding, like a diabolical omen foretold, like a letter which arrives and you want to open the envelope, but you still hesitate, not because it is a hate-mail or carries an unhappy message, but in anticipation of a powder which might kill.

If the millionth television image of the two aircraft crashing into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11 was like an action-replay of a dagger thrust deep into the heart of ‘Free America’, the days that have followed have not been easy. It’s difficult to build up a global coalition against terrorism when war seems so fragmented and so infinite, and it does not really help even if you are a superpower. Who knows when this nightmare will end, and who knows which fanatical suicide bomber is waiting in which car or high rise structure, thinking of nothing but that precise moment when he will "open his heart to paradise".

This is precisely the American dilemma and, unlike the movies, there is no end to this horrific reality. And it’s not even the threat of a conventional war where the enemy is visible. Perhaps, with fool-proof security and an alert civil society, one can eliminate bio-terrorism aimed at innocent citizens. But how to cope with this shadow which stalks the sleepless nights of an affluent society? New York, for instance, is a dynamic and pulsating cosmopolitan entity. This was proved by the resilience and quiet dignity with which the people there coped with the aftermath of Terrible Tuesday. But this is one Tuesday which has changed the remains of the day, for every day arrives like a manuscript with several pages missing.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 17, 2001

After a lull of many months, the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir suddenly came alive on Monday night with heavy fire from the Indian side destroying a dozen Pakistani posts in the Mendhar and Akhnoor sectors. It appears that this marks the start of a ‘‘pro-active approach’’ by the Indian army. Certainly a military spokesmen describes it as such and for the army to take ‘‘punitive action’’, in response to what it says are Pakistani army attempts to send militants across the LoC, is a departure from recent practice. The change of tactics, if indeed that is the case, will probably receive popular support in India. It follows the worst-ever terrorist strike in Kashmir of October 1 when 40 people were killed outside the Assembly building by a suicide bomber and three accomplices. The Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed initially claimed responsibility for the massacres which caused widespread outrage in India.

A pro-active policy on the LoC may be designed to meet domestic demands for a tougher Indian response to cross-border terrorism. It may also be intended to send the kind of message Washington needs to hear. The Bush administration is seen by many within the government and in the country generally to focus exclusively on its own agenda, to take India’s support for granted but not take sufficiently into account terrorist assaults on India at present and over the last decade. Perhaps the tension at the LoC will be a reminder that India is left with no choice but to act on its own to mitigate the terrorist threat. It should help to concentrate US secretary of state Colin Powell’s mind on these issues. There is an obvious American dilemma in Pakistan’s importance as a frontline state in the US-led campaign against terrorism and Pakistan’s role in aiding terrorists who strike in India. Powell will doubtless argue for putting objectives into sequence, getting Osama bin Laden first and dealing with other forms of terrorism later. India’s fear is that Washington will not pursue what some analysts in the US for politically expedient reasons are already calling ‘local’ terrorism. Because Pakistan is a potential long term US ally, a blind eye will be turned to its activities as was the case throughout the 1980s.

Monday’s action on the LoC will sharpen all these issues when Powell meets Indian leaders. Hopefully India’s concerns will be thoroughly discussed. At the same time India’s expectations from the Americans need to be moderated by a better appreciation of international terrorism, by the fact that the elimination of Al-Qaeda will reduce the terrorist threat in this region and that Pakistan will come under some pressure to cut its links with jehadi groups. As for the LoC, the risks attendant on a pro-active military approach are serious and call for careful consideration. Monday’s action ended quickly, in a matter of hours. Other border engagements may not be so short and swift but could escalate tensions and lead to protracted action. Pakistan’s army certainly needs to be deterred from taking advantage of Islamabad’s present privileged position to send new batches of jehadis into Kashmir. But risky military action should be avoided.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 17, 2001

The latest threats of possible, but not yet definitively established, connections between germs and terror tactics should not be allowed to cloud logical reasoning and the preparedness of public health authorities across the world… Reports from the U.S. of … anthrax only escalate long-felt fears of the possible deployment of biological weapons in warfare… To effectively counter the micro-agents of terror, urgent action in a coordinated manner through exchange of information and sharing of resources is called for. [It] is necessary as it would mark the commencement of an arduous engagement of a hitherto untested dimension of warfare… the possibility of the use of micro-organisms implies a wider spectrum of threat… none of which should be exaggerated…

As public fear and panic… tend to stun systems into inaction, the need of the hour is substantiated information on the source of the latest anthrax attacks on individuals… the earlier occasions of a somewhat similar tactic - the use of… sarin… [in Japan].… resulted in less than intended fatalities, raising serious questions on the effectiveness of delivery mechanisms. Reports of the possible involvement of states … are indeed serious charges that require coordinated international efforts in order to vaporise the possible space available to sinister-minded terror groups. Such efforts gain a sense of urgency … given the close network that non-state players tend to put in place, an `advance' made available to one grouping is soon at the command of several others. Curbing the possibilities of terrorist groups either developing or gaining control over chemical and biological weapons is also important as such a development will transform the striking powers of terrorist organisations from that of limited damage to mass destruction. Given the complexities involved in this operation, the role of intelligence agencies in collecting and presenting unimpeachable evidence is vital, followed by strong international action.

… the Union Government's recent alert to all State Governments must be followed up with a serious appraisal of both the possible threats as well as the current status of the nation's health system - both public and private - to counter the possible infectious agents listed… There is also the need to evolve contingency plans that should form part of a larger and more comprehensive public health policy … ad hoc approaches will not work in effectively checking mass casualties…. Maintaining vigil and infusing public confidence are important starting points in countering man's vulnerability to methodically-planned carnage by man.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 16, 2001

The latest propaganda videotape from Al-Qaeda is fresh proof of increasing desperation within the terrorist camp. In bringing up Kashmir, the Al-Qaeda… [has made]… transparent attempts to win over people …. and turn them against the US. It is also very clearly intended to sow confusion in Muslim countries like Pakistan which are supporting the military attacks on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, except for fringe elements, most people ought to be able to see through the game and recognise it for the cynical self-serving exercise it is … Today bin Laden focuses on Kashmir; tomorrow it may well be Chechnya or Xinjiang or Nigeria. Anything will do as long as it provokes reaction in the streets.

Vis a vis Kashmir, of course, matters are somewhat more complex. There is no evidence that Kashmir has ever been a bin Laden priority but the Al-Qaeda connection is both direct and long-standing through the terrorist groups who have trained there and draw sustenance from it. Was there a message for them in the latest tape? … In any case, it would be wise to read the latest Al-Qaeda videotape as a bid to stir up trouble within India. As the US closes in on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime begins to implode, as desperation grows, India’s security forces will have to stay on high alert. Above all, the propaganda on Kashmir is meant to fuel suspicion among Pakistanis about the Musharraf government which had agreed to make Pakistan the key frontline state… Those in India who imagine there can be any movement forward with Islamabad on the Kashmir issue in this situation, do not have their feet on the ground. While guarding against fresh terrorist atrocities in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country, New Delhi’s best policy would be to keep relations with Pakistan on an even keel and wait out the immediate war on Al-Qaeda. After that there should be less insistence on Washington doing the Vajpayee government’s work for it and more effort on resuming the bilateral dialogue.

Bin Laden’s purpose is to turn the international campaign against terrorism into a battle of Islam against the rest. That would serve his fundamental objectives very well… to fashion, as it were, a coalition against the forces of modernisation and globalisation. Washington frequently reminds the world, it will be a long campaign against terrorism. There should be no illusion either about the determination of those who would drag their societies and countries backwards into the past.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 16, 2001

IS this to be the scent of terror? This sickly sweet waft of baby powder that spills out of innocuous looking envelopes? … Till just recently… it was widely held that biological and chemical terrorism was still the stuff of sci-fi books… And in a world where scares spread faster than the most deadly disease, it must be a rare city indeed that is not witnessing a run on antibiotics.

Whether or not the senders of anthrax-laced letters are in any way linked to the [attackers on the US] … September 11 … transported the world into... an era of permanent alert. Terrorists appear to have turned a rapidly globalising world’s means of connectivity into sources of fear… Ethnic and spending profiles of passengers are being carefully scanned by airlines and co-passengers alike — throwing up cases of pathetic discrimination and xenophobia to gladden the hearts of mischief-makers. Letters from near and afar are being scrutinised… And television… is now being tracked for the next bombshell from Osama bin Laden and his spokesmen. To the extent that an administration purportedly fighting a war to preserve the ‘‘freedoms’’ America cherishes is seeking censorship of the video missives from its adversary!

If this first war of the 21st century is a battle for the mind, the terrorists appear to have the advantage. They appear to have implanted in individual minds that most menacing of thoughts: ‘‘What next?’’ A suicide ‘‘bomber’’ bearing small pox? A chemical attack? Something we cannot even yet imagine? Is India up to it? … this is a battle that cannot be fought from the brink… It needs to be restated that a biological terror attack on a large scale requires immense resources and expertise… That the Aum Shinrikyo chemical strike at a Tokyo subway in 1995 cost the cult $30 million but left a death toll of 12. To be alert is a virtue, but to be hysterical would amount to capitulation.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 16, 2001

It is difficult for the people of a nation like the United States to accept that their country has erred in the past. Whether it is overt support to Israel or the propensity to side with non-democratic regimes across the world, the US has paid scant attention to the growing resentment among peoples who have been at the receiving end of one-sided American policies.

When this resentment snowballs into sheer hatred and is criminally used as a ‘cause’ by terrorists, the sangfroid that has so often taken the form of arrogance needs to be re-examined. The danger is that Americans may think that by reappraising its attitude towards the world, they will be giving in to terrorist blackmail. But what the US has to appreciate is that a change in policy and terrorist demands can be seen as having no link whatsoever.

… rejection of the $ 10 million donation by Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal is understandable. [With that was] attached [a] news release which advised the US government to "re-examine its policies in West Asia and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause"… Talal … may have talked sense, but the timing and context of his ‘advice’ was improper … while providing solace to a battered nation, he was perceived as hinting that the US had reaped what it had sowed... Americans must, for tactical and moral reasons, learn to accept that one can critically view American foreign policy and at the same time find no justification for terrorism.

One of the pitfalls of being a superpower is that its status breeds hauteur … Arrogance of a more serious nature (trashing treaties, hijacking international fora and bullying other nations into economic and political submission) led to the false notion among Americans that their country could do no wrong. The US must confront its errors rationally and convince the world that acts of terror have not goaded it to change its global outlook, but a consideration for the sentiments of other nations.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 15, 2001

A week after the start of the bombing of Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets, the coalition behind the US campaign against terrorism is already fraying at the edges. As … civilian casualties are reported, there are bound to be qualms everywhere …The weak links in the coalition just now are in the Arab and Muslim world. Just how weak will be seen over the next few days. Anti-American sentiment, as witnessed in several countries after last Friday’s prayers, still brings a small, though fierce and often violent, minority into the streets to burn effigies of George W Bush and to hail Osama bin Laden as a hero. But that could change.

The potential for a wider conflagration, for the coalescing of other discontents in societies run by dictatorial governments with the bombing in Aghanistan, is ever present. Whether that can be averted will depend primarily on the efforts of Arab and Muslim leaders and also on the kind of war the US wages. A short, sharp military response risks less of a fallout than protracted, high-tech, televised bombardment from the air … over time the predominant picture of this war will be the mightiest country on earth pulverising the most impoverished. So, the Pentagon, really has a limited time frame in which to finish its job.

… Extending action to other countries, possibly Iraq, could create more kinds of fissures in the coalition. Meanwhile, the leaders of Muslim countries must somehow be persuaded that appeasing the clerics and fundamentalists in their own countries is not good statesmanship. It was encouraging that the … [OIC] … last week clearly condemned the terrorist attacks on the US and backed the campaign against the Taliban and bin Laden. American diplomacy and more especially their own vulnerability to radical Islamist movements may account for this reasonableness. Nevertheless there is a dichotomy in how many Arab and Muslim governments present themselves to the world and to their own people. All the regimes in West Asia surely recognise that curtailing Al Qaeda capabilities is in their own interest. Even so equivocating noises come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia and others. An awakening to reality, such as Pakistan’s is still to take place.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 15, 2001

Truth is the first casualty in a war while propaganda becomes the primary weapon. American criticism of the way in which the Qatari satellite television channel Al-Jazeera has been airing images of the war in Afghanistan may be seen as a blatant call for censorship.

The US state department has launched a two-pronged attack on the television station: one, that it is guilty of showcasing inflammatory rhetoric; two, of carrying untrue stories …

If there has been another ‘asymmetric war’ that is being conducted, it is on the media front… western channels have … all taken recourse to the images provided by Al-Jazeera. As a result, for the first time, American viewers are witnessing an American war courtesy a non-American television channel. The inability to confirm the reliability of these reports has made Washington paranoid enough to make many think that the Bin Laden footage sent out coded signals for another terrorist attack — apart from being inflammatory.

The state department has advised western television stations to use edited footage in its broadcasts … television and newspapers in America have blacked out any images of civilian destruction in Afghanistan that could upset viewers. More distressingly, newspapers like the New York Post have been resorting to some jingoism ("Kabulseye!" goes one headline) of their own. That truth has to be filtered in a time of war is acceptable. What is not is the knee-jerk reaction of the West that anything reported by a non-American company has to be suspect.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 13, 2001

It’s a good sign that several influential Muslims have criticised the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid in Delhi for his "irresponsible and anti-Islamic" statements. Syed Ahmed Bukhari had earlier called for jehad in support of the Taliban.

… only an utterly insensitive person can support the September 11 terrorist attacks which have been enacted by the same holy warriors whom Mr Bukhari now wants to support. Will he then also support the likes of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba? What is the Shahi Imam’s considered opinion on the suicide bomb attack in Srinagar in which most victims were innocent Kashmiri Muslims? Besides, on what basis can the Imam club the Taliban’s brand of oppressive Islam with the entire Islamic realm of belief as it exists in its multiplicity in a secular and democratic nation like India?

Besides, it is foolish to walk into the trap of Hindu fundamentalists and Muslim-baiters who will now elatedly declare: Look, this is the true face of Islam. Shabana Azmi and other distinguished Muslims are right in pointing out, therefore, that the Imam, by his irresponsible stance, is pushing the Indian Muslim community to the wall.

By giving his blanket support to the Taliban, Mr Bukhari is reinforcing the dangerous message that there is no difference between Islam and jehadi terrorism… Mr Bukhari should realise that he does not represent the viewpoint of the Muslim community in India… the least that is expected from him is a bit of discretion and maturity. If he so strongly identifies with the mullahs of Kandahar and Quetta, then he will surely end up isolating himself not only from the Muslim community in India, but also from the national mainstream. Indian Muslims don’t need the likes of the Shahi Imam to prove their intrinsic faith in Islam or their secular national identity.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 13, 2001

India has good reason to be concerned about what shape a new post-Taliban regime will take… political developments in Afghanistan have an impact on the regional security environment and are, therefore, of legitimate interest here. [If the Taliban is removed] … how will Afghanistan be governed? No one wants chaos in the interim and beyond… there is no constitutional and widely acceptable successor to the Taliban. A power vacuum, civil war and anarchy would pose a threat to the stability of the whole Central Asian-South Asian region, provide hospitable soil for more bin Ladens and Al-Qaedas, give free rein to narcotics traders and gun-runners and set back plans for intra-regional economic cooperation. Particularly worrying would be the politically destabilising effect on Pakistan of protracted turmoil in Afghanistan. Extremists would exploit such a situation and more Afghan refugees would add to the numbers Pakistan is already struggling to cope with.

… Indeed as the only country in the region with a well-established democratic, pluralistic system India is uniquely placed to recognise the complexities of nation-building in multi-ethnic Afghanistan. However, in order to play any kind of useful part, the Vajpayee government ought to be more circumspect than it has been so far. Merely to insist on a role … is to arouse suspicion not only in ultra-sensitive Pakistan but further afield as well. This would defeat Indian objectives which, it should be clearly asserted, are to support the emergence of a democratic, stable and independent Afghanistan in the interests of its own people and the region … The game should not be narrowly conceived as checkmating Pakistan. Islamabad will doubtless manoeuvre to put in power a regime it can influence … Iran, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and China —may have similar ideas. But if Afghanistan is going to be fought over by outside powers who encourage this or that local faction, there is no hope of that sad country gaining freedom from its bloody warlords.

From Afghanistan’s perspective long term UN involvement is absolutely essential and India should advocate this strenuously. There are multiple roles for the UN in peacekeeping and in political and economic reconstruction. Even with Zahir Shah as titular head of an interim government, a UN representative will be needed to hold the balance between domestic groups and to forestall outside interference. There is no alternative to law enforcement by UN forces for months, perhaps years. Afghans need time to put thoughts of revenge behind them and work out a power-sharing mechanism which gives the different ethnic groups — Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks — a strong stake in peace and stability.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 13, 2001

Ever since … the September 11 carnage, India has been investing considerable energy in getting the Governments worldwide, especially those in the West, to appreciate better its own concerns in Jammu and Kashmir as the victim of `transborder terrorism' … and enlist their support. It sought to impress on Washington and other partners in the coalition the apparent incongruity in Pakistan being coopted as the `key' player in the anti- terror campaign because of Islamabad's perceived role as the `generator' and `promoter' of militancy in the troubled Valley... [for] neutralising … Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, Pakistan's active participation is indeed a geopolitical and strategic necessity, but Washington has been reiterating its commitment to root out the scourge of terrorism universally, even while acknowledging India's concerns in J&K. If the daring fidayeen attack on the high-security legislature complex in Srinagar … by the infamous Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad was a big challenge to ... India and its authority, it became an acute embarrassment for the Bush administration … Washington obviously did not want to be seen as being utterly insensitive to India's concerns … It has placed the JeM in the `watch' list, … It needs to be noted that the outfit is still to be banned by … India.

The terrorism-related concerns voiced by New Delhi are unquestionably genuine. …. India should have, in the post-September 11 context, unhesitatingly and without any reservation joined the international campaign against terrorism and, in the process, sought to benefit … A remarkable upshot is of course the U.N.'s most recent resolution that binds member-states to taking stringent and specific legislative anti-terrorism measures. But official India would be deluding itself if it thought the U.S. or any other country … is willing to or is in a position to fight its battle against militancy in J&K. [India’s response] … in the past four weeks suggests a lack of a coherent perspective, as was discernible for instance in the tone and tenor of the Prime Minister's letter to the American President, Mr. George W. Bush, after the October 1…. attack in Srinagar. Secondly… terrorism especially of the type encountered in J&K is rooted in a bewilderingly complex array of socio-political and historical factors and no surgical intervention…. or hot pursuit strategies can provide a permanent cure; and this is to assume that such procedures are carried out successfully and without any negative spinoffs.

… New Delhi's combative effort as part of the current global anti-terrorism campaign will gain enormous moral weight if only [it]… is seen as taking some quick and credible initiatives by way of addressing the basic issues that have led to the alienation of the people of J&K… Needless to say, the Farooq Abdullah Government also has a crucial role and a substantial share of responsibility in this respect. As has been repeatedly pointed out in these columns, the foremost among the necessary initiatives is that of devolving more powers to the State in keeping with the special status guaranteed to it under the Constitution for historical reasons.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 12, 2001

It is a matter of no little concern that at a time when the Muslim world is facing a grave crisis, there is no organisation representing their interests which can articulate their viewpoints with some degree of credibility.

… the Organisation of Islamic Conference… has made the customary noises condemning the terrorist attacks on the US but also urging Washington not to extend the scope of its retaliation beyond the perpetrators of the September 11 outrage… to dissuade the US from targeting Iraq and Syria, both of which suspect that they may be singled out ... However, the point [is the OIC] … reflects the views of only the ruling oligarchies and is not representative of public opinion.

…. whatever the OIC may say or do really does not matter on the ground in the Muslim countries. At the moment, the OIC may be closer to the views of ordinary people in its condemnation of terrorism. But no one can be sure because none of these countries is a democracy in the modern sense. The rest of the world, therefore, will continue to live in ignorance of what really is the response of the Muslim world to Osama bin Laden’s espousal of insensate violence. … religious outfits in support of [bin Laden] … too, are not representative of public opinion and echo the views of only a small bigoted segment of the population.

Although there is not much possibility of these agitations getting so far out of hand as to threaten any of the governments, whether in Pakistan or elsewhere, the impression of the entire Muslim world experiencing a period of severe strain will continue to persist. And, yet, because all these are closed societies, there can be no reliable assessment of how severe the strain really is. The uncertainty is all the greater because of the involvement of religion in this confrontation, making it far more volatile than a conventional skirmish over territories or spheres of influence. Given these difficulties in understanding the Muslim world, policy makers have to be extra careful in formulating their war strategies. In this context, the OIC’s caution against widening the conflict needs to be kept in mind even if it has been issued at the behest of what the Americans regard as rogue States.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 12, 2001

… Kofi Annan, has aptly assessed the worldwide mood of dismay over the killings of four U.N.-contracted civilian workers during the ongoing American aerial and missile attacks on Afghanistan. Describing the deaths as a ``hard blow'' for the U.N., Mr. Annan is hoping that ``precaution will minimise (further) civilian involvement'' of such a tragic dimension. The U.S. too has regretted the deaths... An alternative suggestion by Washington is that the ``ordnance'' from the Taliban's anti-aircraft batteries could have just as probably killed the workers ... At best, the American statement will qualify as a cosmetic argumentation, if not also a callous one at that, about the reality of human casualties. The truth simply is that the U.S. has not been able to stick to its virtual advertisement that the ongoing raids over Afghanistan reflect a technologically precise exercise which should not affect the non-combatants. On the wider international stage, a more disturbing reality is the chain-reaction of political anxieties that Washington's Afghan operations have triggered …

… These international worries relate to the letter that the U.S. communicated … Now, the global community has by and large acquiesced in America's contention that its initial targets are the terrorist camps of Osama bin Laden and the military infrastructure of his collaborator, the Taliban regime. Except for some sizable pockets of fundamentalism, most Islamic states too have tacitly or openly acknowledged America's rights… Now, the U.S., in its letter, drew the Security Council's attention to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that permits individual or collective self-defence by the member-states that feel threatened by external forces. Yet, what seems to have caused concern [is] … Washington's parallel assertion that it might in course of time target unspecified organisations and states other than the Afghan-Taliban regime and Osama's Al-Qaeda. In a delicate interpretation at this moment, Mr. Annan tends to think that the U.S. has neither predicted the inevitability of such a follow-up action nor expressed a pointed intention to go after other states and groups. However, the legitimate concerns of the international community on this score must be fully addressed by the U.S. as it seeks to sustain a `campaign' against terrorism with a global canvas.

Some Islamic nations, in particular, appear eager to evaluate the possible outlines of an incremental U.S.' agenda. … some other U.N. agencies, which are traditionally mandated to address humanitarian issues, have begun to point out how the current American air offensive is hampering relief supplies to the drought-stricken Afghan people … Overall, the U.S. should therefore recognise the need to tread or fly cautiously in the face of an increasingly volatile international situation.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chenai, October 11, 2001

It is gratifying that the United States has begun looking at terrorism from a new angle. Its decision to put the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed on the watch list for possible listing as a "terrorist organisation" should be seen in this light… The sooner the US Administration takes the next logical step of declaring it a terrorist organisation, the better it will be for the international fight against global terrorism. There is a surfeit of evidence to show that Jaish-e-Mohammed is one of the most dreaded terrorist organisations in the world. Its latest handiwork — the attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly … proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it has links with such terrorist bodies as Osama bin Laden’s Al-Queda. What’s more, it has enjoyed Pakistan’s direct patronage… it had claimed credit for the Assembly attack within hours of perpetrating it, only to withdraw the claim later, perhaps at the prompting of Pakistan. Yet, it is strange the US did not find it necessary to include it promptly among the terrorist organisations whose funds stand frozen.

Lapses of this nature encourage organisations like Jaish-e-Mohammed to get away with anything. … One of the terrorists whose release was obtained through the hijacking — Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh — is alleged to have transferred $100,000 to one of the kingpins of the September 11 attack… In retrospect, if the hijack was not seen as India’s own problem and there was coordination among countries… it could, perhaps, have even averted Black Tuesday. If anything, this shows how important intelligence-sharing is in fighting global terrorism. Incidentally, it was the clinching evidence of the Pakistani ISI chief’s links with some unholy groups that India provided to the US that forced it to prevail upon President Musharraf to oust him from office.

The US… finds it difficult to antagonise Pakistan. That is why US officials have been saying that organisations like Jaish-e-Mohammed will receive their attention once bin Laden and his terrorist outfit have been tackled. In fact, if the US is serious about fighting terrorism, it has no option but to fight terrorism on all fronts and in all countries from where it gets sustenance. Declaring Jaish-e-Mohammed a terrorist organisation is a step in that direction from which the US should not shy away.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 11, 2001

… persistent fears that the era of biological warfare may have begun with two cases of Anthrax having been reported in Miami and news that bombs are being rained day in and day out on…. Afghan cities and towns, do not exactly make for a calming environment… But behaving as if one’s tail is on fire is really no way to respond to such a situation and will someone please tell our Keystone Cops this?

From Jaisalmer comes the wondrous tale of … Osama bin Laden lookalike… the Sumo was promptly intercepted … and its bin Laden-looking occupant marched off for some rigorous questioning… Hilarious as [it] … may seem, such zeal on the part of the police, unmarred as it was by any substantive evidence, could have extremely disturbing, even tragic, consequences for the people so detained. In Delhi, six young members… were found distributing pamphlets protesting against America’s air strikes [and] were promptly rounded up … and jailed for activity described as ‘‘inflammatory’’, ‘‘anti-national’’ and ‘‘seditious’’… a non-bailable offence, [was] clamped on them.

If distributing pamphlets [is] … ‘‘anti-national’’, if criticising the US for interfering in the internal affairs of various countries can be seen as ‘‘seditious’’ activity, would it be too outrageous to presume that the Delhi police have now begun to take their orders directly from Washington? Or is this merely a case of our havaldars having watched too many episodes of NYPD Blue? Ironically, as a news report highlighting the case of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh … pointed out, the same police have been singularly ineffectual in bringing those who were involved in genuine anti-national and seditious activity to book. What is needed here is a sense of proportion — and a sense of justice and fair play too. Maybe somebody should remind our excitable policemen that India is, despite their best efforts, very much a democracy. And an independent one at that.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 11, 2001

Since it is now clear that India has to fight its own battle against terrorism, it will be worthwhile for it to ponder over the possible implications of the war in Afghanistan.

First, the positive features. There must be some satisfaction in New Delhi that the emergence of, if not an overtly friendly, but at least not a hostile regime in Kabul in the not too distant future will mean a big setback to the jehadi enterprise run so far by Islamabad and the Taliban. In addition, Pakistan, too, will not be able to give as much free play to the terrorist outfits for some time. The arrest of several clerics and the removal of hardliners from senior positions in the army and the intelligence services suggest that Pakistan will try to project itself as a moderate Islamic State to remain in the good books of the US.

The irony, of course, is that this posture of restraint is being adopted by none other than General Pervez Musharraf, the hero — or anti-hero, in Indian eyes — of the Kargil misadventur … how much can he be trusted… If he is now holding out the olive branch to India, it is evidently because of American pressure. In addition, he may have seriously expected India to take advantage of his current discomfiture to launch an attack. As a master dissembler himself, it is not surprising that he expected a stab in the back…

India had done well, therefore, … by assuring Pakistan that it did not want to exploit its difficulties…

… New Delhi can never be sure how serious Islamabad will be in the quest for peace… It is difficult to believe that Pakistan will forsake its policy of terrorism in Kashmir …

Much will depend on the tussle between moderates and hardliners… But it is a safe presumption that, where India is concerned, they are all hardliners. India, therefore, will have to formulate its policies with great care, reaching out to the more responsible sections in Pakistan with the kind of various confidence-building measures which the Vajpayee government had taken on the eve of the Agra summit. At the same time, New Delhi has to remember that it is still the villain of Kargil who is in charge in Islamabad.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 11, 2001

For a war that was billed as a struggle between the 21st and earlier centuries, the images being piped into the homes of millions have been of ‘unsatisfactory’ late 20th century vintage.

… With the Gulf war providing the model of all future ‘prime time wars’, Operation Enduring Freedom was expected to notch up better standards in terms of sophistication and imaging technology.

The reason for ‘audience disapproval’ this time round is that it already knew what bombings and missile attacks look like. It expected some new-fangled… But Operation Enduring Freedom is unlikely to provide such sumptuous fare. For a start, it is slated to be a different kind of war where the conflict is bound to shift to a more ‘invisible’ domain that lies beyond the reach of cameras … Perhaps Afghanistan, too, will yield such disturbing ‘non-live’ images [as during the Vietnam war] as the conflict grows.

Another major change from the ‘CNN war’ of the Eighties is that the interest has shifted from the battleground to a more shadowy region … the ‘enemy’ is a diffused entity called Osama bin Laden. Unlike Saddam Hussein… during the Gulf war, we now have the ‘rare’ Al-Jazeera footage of a terrorist overlord warning his enemies of forever living in fear. What is most unsettling for the television viewer in New York or Boston … is that he now sees a man who appears to threaten his lifestyle and very existence over the screen. Television, for him, now seems to provide an uncomfortable link between a war zone and his living room.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 11, 2001

The anthrax scare in Florida seems to have spilled over into a tense world that is already on edge wondering when, and where, terror will strike next …

This is just as well since bio-terrorism was never a serious issue for [India’s] the country’s defence planners… the September 11 terrorist strikes… apparently jolted the government out of its complacency. It is a chilling thought that scientists in biotech facilities around the world are even now routinely souping up the next generation of terror weapons: bacteria, viruses and pathogens that could be brewed and served in aerosols to kill or disable at will.

… the lethality of bioweapons is usually overestimated. People mistakenly believe that they work by triggering off epidemics, when most actually kill by direct exposure… bioweaponry has been confined to agents like anthrax spores that enter the lungs and hatch bacteria… without infecting anyone els. …. such luck may not hold indefinitely as any genetic engineer could devise contagious weapons at some point.

Of course, it’s very difficult to develop, say, an anthrax strain since the spores must be just the right size… Nevertheless, it is a disturbing thought that it is quite possible to design a virus that would afflict only a particular ethnic group, thereby giving a wide safety margin for the attackers…. genetic engineering could just as easily fashion a vaccine to match such a killer virus so that the aggressor could be immunised.

-- Editorial, Hindustan times, October 11, 2001

The Appalling September 11 terrorist strikes … have raised questions about managing internal security in countries around the world. Therefore, it is perhaps inevitable that India also embarks on a process which increases its degree of preparedness against acts of terrorism and which results in the acquisition of greater expertise in disaster management. It is true that this country has been a victim of the export of terror for many years. …The Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani's warning that the threats from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can no longer be dismissed … draw[s] attention to the need of learning the right lessons from the terrorist strikes on the United States …

… the suggestion that a new Central agency be set up to tackle crimes related to terrorism, hijacking and attacks on sensitive installations is generally not a bad one… it is absolutely imperative that any such mechanism contains the necessary safeguards to ensure that the responsibility of the State Governments is not infringed. If the idea of setting up such an agency finds wide acceptance, it will only be on the condition that the delicate institutional balance between Centre and States on questions relating to law and order is not skewed inequitably. … for the proposal to set up a National Disaster Management Agency… there can be few objections. The minimum action programme outlined … which includes the setting up of State-level disaster management agencies with sub-units in all district headquarters - is also well worth acting upon. Recent experience suggests that systems and procedures alone can never prevent terrorist strikes… but it is the duty of the Government to do whatever it can to insulate the people from such attacks as well as manage their horrendous aftermath.

Drawing up a list of vulnerable targets, equipping the police for search and rescue work, establishing mechanisms of civil defence, upgrading dog squads - the sooner such proposals are implemented, the better. But such measures have to be clearly distinguished from attempts to formulate new terrorist legislation… The bureaucracy and the political executive of varying hues all suffer from the unfortunate misconception that the lack of sharp legal teeth is an important reason for the country's failure to make a quick meal of terrorism. This is plainly false. The country's security forces are already armed with wideranging powers under the existing laws to deal with terrorists. Moreover, TADA-like laws can be put to horrible misuse and our experience has clearly demonstrated that terrorism feeds off the human rights abuses perpetrated under the legal cover such legislation provides. However real or serious the threat of terrorism, nothing justifies the introduction of draconian legislation which inevitably results in gross human rights violations and which, at the end of the day, is likely be counter-productive.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 10, 2001

India’s unfriendly neighbourhood dictator’s coup has turned sour. General Pervez Musharraf is currently in the position of a man who is having to pick up the broken pieces of his shattered dream…

Nothing denotes his predicament more graphically than the decision to remove the ISI chief and supersede some of the army officers who had helped him to usurp power in 1999. The ISI chief’s ouster is a highly significant development because this shadowy organisation has been the Taliban’s friend, philosopher and guide for many years and played a crucial role in fomenting terrorism in this part of the world.

Of course, General Musharraf himself was very much a part of this unholy conglomerate till September 11… It is worth recalling that one of his first acts after grabbing power was to shoot down a plan to capture Osama bin Laden prepared by the Nawaz Sharif regime along with the Americans.

… like all opportunists who have to disown their former friends, he must be aware of the dangers involved in such backtracking. This is all the more so because his painful retreat harks back to the halcyon days of Kargil …

In the process, General Musharraf had roused a lot of hopes among the religious extremists. Now they are up in arms against him, for they suspect that his betrayal is not only of the Taliban but also of the holy cause of jehad, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere. At the moment, his position at the helm may have enabled him to put the Jamaat-e-Islami chief under house arrest and bring the ISI under control. But, as a Pakistani commentator has said, he is walking a tightrope, but the rope is rather slack.

His unenviable position is highlighted by his latest habit of blowing hot and cold against India …

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 10, 2001

The opposition to terrorism — and support to the current international mobilisation against it — springs from the belief that people must be free to choose their way of life and be unafraid to express themselves.

The crucial caveat here is that they must permit everyone else to do the same. Terrorists, by definition, deny this privilege to others, and threaten by their insane actions the very civil liberties which guarantee the freedom of thought, expression and action. The police authorities in Delhi too have once again shown how little regard they have for the right of people to express themselves …

…. the police have arrested a group of young people who were distributing pamphlets protesting against the bombing of Afghanistan…. the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid was spitting venom against the same bombing raids … But, they didn’t nab Ahmed Bukhari as he is deemed to be a privileged person. Nor should they, for that too would be wrong …

But if all those opposed to the ongoing war were to be locked up, there could well be turmoil in the country. The Left parties are campaigning against the war, although they are as opposed to terrorism or the activities of the Taliban. It’s just that they don’t like the idea of wars. That is as honourable a position as any, and is deserving of respect. It is a dangerous mindset that will take the view that ‘those who are not with us are against us’, so reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the US when civil liberties became the first casualty. It may be useful to remember that anti-war demonstrations are being held in the US, the country which suffered so tragically at the hands of terrorists recently.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 10, 2001

…General Pervez Musharraf... the specially convened press conference on Monday … Here is a man who, even in these unstable times, can smell opportunity in the acrid air. Having sold the Taliban for a fistful of dollars and American backing — in Pakistan’s supreme interest, as he put it — he continues to speak of himself as the most dependable protector of Pashtoon interests. Having given his express agreement to the strikes, he swears that they will be ‘‘short, sharp and targeted’’.

The phone call he made to … Vajpayee, … must be seen in this context. India would find it difficult to perceive his condemnation of the attack on the Srinagar Assembly as an honest response. Consequently, if his offer to inquire into the incident only causes cynicism in New Delhi, this is because too much blood has flowed in the Valley and the General’s infamous remark that those who cause terror and disaffection in Kashmir are ‘‘freedom fighters’’ is difficult to forget… there is little doubt that the stability of the region hinges crucially upon the General’s ability to survive the sharp escalation of internal dissent and the unstated ambitions of his colleagues in the army. It is for this reason and this reason alone that India has to respond to the General’s appeal that we cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Opening more fronts at a stage when South Asia seems to be sitting on a powder keg is not just inadvisable, it would be plainly dangerous … the US [not using Pakistani soil for the attacks] … seems to be conscious of the need to spare Pakistan the odium entailed in such operations.

… So resistant has the North West Frontier Province been to the idea of a Punjab-centric Pakistan that even a relatively simple operation like a national census has not been possible for years. The Afghan air strikes have only added to the seething tensions… The resistance raised by the pro-Taliban clergy… has actually served notice on the Musharraf government for its support of the US — is so potent because it combines religious conviction with ethnic frenzy. Clearly, there is more than the future of General Musharraf at stake here.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 10, 2001

THERE is irony, yes, in those canary yellow packets that have also been rained from Afghanistan’s night skies. But those stop-gap, symbolic rations of beans, biscuit and jam can also be seen to be carriers of a crucial political message: That this is not a war against the Afghan people and, more importantly, that it must not be seen as one. … As the US and Britain-led forces deploy high military strategy against terrorist camps and hideouts in Afghanistan in days to come, another war must be fully, deftly joined by other means — the battle for the mind.

As if to counter the scores of bombers and Cruise missiles striking targets across Afghanistan, the videotaped image of Osama bin Laden… has been endlessly replayed on television channels across the world…. This is a fight between Islamic and non-Islamic forces, he says, and every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. As if on cue have followed images of anti-US violence in parts of Pakistan and West Asia and, closer home, in Srinagar. Smoke-filled gun battles in the western Pakistani city of Quetta, noisy chaotic protests on the streets of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, as well as Lahore, Peshawar and Karachi, and student unrest in universities across Egypt — all protesting against the ‘‘war against Islam’’. These images are real but the real danger lies in overestimating their reach and ceding to them an authenticity and representativeness they do not have. Osama bin Laden’s unholy jehad may have struck a raw nerve in what is known as the Muslim and Arab world, it may have stirred up long standing grievances on issues such as American military presence in the Arabian peninsula and the Palestinian struggle against Israel. But it is equally true that this vicious alchemy is not as successful as many are now assuming it to be. Also, it can be countered, and is already being countered, even from within that supposedly monolithic Islamic world. These voices of reason need to be given a more encouraging public space.

The Palestinian Authority has reportedly banned demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden, reiterating that they misrepresented the true feelings of the Palestinian people. It has also rejected bin Laden’s support to their cause. There will be many more such interventions in days to come. Failure to heed and highlight these will only surrender more space to bin Laden’s vile propaganda.

-- Editorial, Indian Express, New Delhi, October 10, 2001

The military offensive … launched against Afghanistan is presumably the first overt aspect of a smart war against the terrorists with a global reach and also their hosts. … a sensible course at this early stage of this conflict in Afghanistan is to impress upon the American-British coalition and its military allies in the wings to recognise and avert the geopolitical risks as also the human costs of a wider conflagration. This will be a difficult but humane choice. … the U.S.-U.K. brains-trust … should take the initiative to scale down the losses of human lives and of civilian assets to truly negligible proportions. The latest war … had become inevitable in the context of a chain reaction of events … since September 11. After a band of barbaric conspirators struck horrendously … taking a heavy human and material toll, Washington began sensitising the international community to a discourse about an entirely new kind of war against terrorism… The array of means outlined is impressive - patient diplomacy and the intelligence war of secrecy, besides a new practice of forays across the cyberspace to squeeze the finances of the terror- mongers and, if necessary, open military conflicts with them.

However, as the U.S. and the U.K. started pounding targets in Afghanistan on Sunday night, the stark horrors of a prospective war triggered some equally predictable international concerns about the likely humanitarian fallout. … the first waves of the Anglo-American military intrusions … over Afghanistan have already forced its hapless inhabitants out of their miserable homes. So, the global community cannot simply ignore the conspicuous signs of a humanitarian catastrophe. A fresh exodus of Afghan refugees, perhaps numbering over a million, may have already been caused …

Among the states that have variously facilitated the latest war on some suspected sources of terrorism…. Pakistan may be the first to feel the shockwaves of a new humanitarian crisis. … Pakistan is obviously wary of a new influx into its territory. On a different plane, the U.S. also seems aware of the bad name that a humanitarian disaster could bring to the global anti-terror `campaign' itself. The U.S. is, therefore, air- dropping food and medical supplies…. Yet… the battle for the hearts of the traumatised Afghan people is becoming equally complicated. While the politics of a possible post-Taliban dispensation cannot be the prime concern of the Afghan people at this particular moment, the international community must brace itself for the humanitarian tragedy in Afghanistan and act quickly.

-- Editorial, The Hindu, Chennai, October 9, 2001

… Did Sunday’s air strikes signal the beginning of yet another global conflict against yet another deadly doctrine? The worldwide nature of the present conflagration is obvious … terrorism today has affected countries and regions extending from the US … to Europe, North Africa, West Asia, Russia and India… The Americans can derive some satisfaction from the fact that the coalition they have sponsored has the backing of so many countries… it is no less important to remember that a number of countries are also against the current military offensive against the Taliban.

… the negative reaction from Malaysia and the demonstrations in Pakistan are bound to cause concern. Even if these reflect the views of extremists… the protests nevertheless show … that even the despicable record of the Taliban and of Osama bin Laden’s gang of terrorists can still elicit some support. Evidently, the savage repression which the Taliban inflicts on the hapless people of Afghanistan, and especially its women, has not given it much of a bad name in some parts of the world. Nor has Osama’s mindless mustering of fanatics in his mountain caves.

… the best course would be for the Americans to use their overwhelming firepower to bring down the Taliban quickly or at least cause enough dissension in its ranks so that the moderates … part company ….Then, the Northern Alliance can move in along … The emphasis, therefore, should be on a short and swift action because a prolonged offensive will not only help the Taliban but also cause minor upheavals in the Muslim world. The contours for a post-Taliban dispensation… should also be outlined even as the war is on. As in the last century, there is no doubt that the forces of democracy and open society will win this war. But the great suffering which the earlier wars inflicted on the ordinary people has to be avoided.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi October 9, 2001

Nothing shatters consumer confidence like the dark clouds of war. …Now that a war has started in our neighbourhood, the Indian economy is going to face a difficult external environment …

More crucial will be the impact on the rupee, which has lost 57 paise since Black Tuesday due to the frantic demand for dollars from importers. If the supply of dollars is not adequate, it will lead to a weaker rupee. This will make imports costlier and input costs will see a steep rise. There could also be a major hike in the government’s oil import bill. Besides, the services sector… will be badly hit. The hotel and tourism industry is reeling under cancelled bookings and a much reduced tourist inflow. In the software sector also, due to the decline in orders from the US, even strong firms like the Infosys may not be able to meet their export targets. The computer hardware industry too will be affected by the higher cost of imported components.

In this depressing scenario, it will be hard for the stock market to recover from an erosion of investor wealth. Much will depend on how the stock markets around the world react to the war. If it is brief, the American economy might bounce back. Americans can start spending on imports again in response to the full range of incentives announced by the Bush administration to bolster incomes. But a long-drawn war will mean global recession and hard times for India.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi October 9, 2001

Imagine soldiers of enemy kingdoms refusing to fight, chasing Bengali sweets air-dropped from the sky… Huntington’s mad mullah is an innocent half-adult, steering a static car.

The irony is stark: there are no sweets falling from paradise. Instead, it’s a barrage of bombs, Tomahawk missiles, and the fire and brimstone of hell. And a throne which Omar just can’t abdicate … Mysterious doctors have said that Omar is a paranoid schizo. He suffers from brain seizures and hysterical fits. He is scared of travelling. And he locks himself up for days in a bomb-proof house built for him by his millionaire son-in-law Osama.

But Omar is no Greta Garbo. His fits of juvenile delinquency, if it is true, could well be the syndrome which has stalked many dictators … Only a mad man could have destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. But dictators are made of such insane stuff. General Saw Maung of Myanmar, who had much blood on his hands, became raving mad. Idi Amin, with a bit of ‘Hannibal the Cannibal’ ritual thrown in, was never considered really sane. Stalin was so mentally insecure that he got rid of almost all his top guns in the Red Army and politburo. Hitler in his last days hid in a basement. Yes, it’s the shrapnel of history. Mullah Omar needs a doc. As things turn more crazy, the TV-savvy Generalissimo in our neighbourhood might soon need one too. And a get-away car with a real engine.

-- Editorial, Hindustan Times, New Delhi October 9, 2001

Hopes that a war would be averted have been belied with US and British forces mounting an attack on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The Taliban has only itself to blame for what happened on Sunday night when Cruise missiles fired from ships, submarines and munitions from sea-based and land-based aircraft rained on Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif, among other targets. The exact toll in these attacks, which have caused immense damage to vital installations like airports, radars and communication facilities, is not known. The Taliban cannot claim to have been taken unawares by the attack as the US has been warning it to hand over Osama bin Laden, who is alleged to have masterminded the attacks of September 11. That it has not been truthful about the whereabouts of the Al-Queda chief is obvious, going by its shifting stand. Sometimes it had claimed that it had no clue about his whereabouts, at other times, it had hinted that he had already left Afghanistan. In any case, it was apparent that the Taliban had no intention of betraying its ‘guest’, one who believes the Taliban government is the ideal