While Mumbai inches painfully back towards normality, the possible involvement of elements across the Wagah border in the 7/11 attack has come into the limelight. Concerns regarding Pakistan's involvement in either facilitating the infrastructure for extremist groups or deliberately omitting its gaze from such groups training within its realm continue to remain unaddressed. Importantly, these are concerns shared not just by India but by the wider international fraternity too.
It is apparent that General Musharraf's strategic imperative against the menace of terrorism has been high on rhetoric and woefully low on action. On the one hand, the General prescribes "enlightened moderation" as a necessary remedial measure for his country. However, on the other hand, seminaries that offer de facto courses of hatred against "infidels" continue to proliferate unchecked. As Irfan Husain observed in the Dawn recently, "Despite seizing power with a host of pledges to modernise - reiterated time and again - the general remains hostage to the medieval agenda of the clergy and their political parties."
Indeed, Musharraf's vision for Pakistan's future is constricted by the necessary subordination of civilian leadership to military interests. More specifically, friendly relations with India run counter to the Pakistani army's interests. The very raison d'etre of the Pakistani army's dominance over civil society is founded on stoking a fear of Indian aggression and maintaining a long-term cycle of conflict with India.
Put simply, the citizens of Pakistan have less reason to be fearful of India and more reason to distrust their own army's endorsement of a "military democracy" as the ideal model of government. History bears this out. Since its inception as a nation, the journey towards democracy in Pakistan has been waylaid by an endless pit-stop of military dictatorships preventing stability and social development.
In Hamlet, perturbed upon spotting just the ghost of the dead king, Marcellus - an officer of the palace guard - exclaims "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark". Sadly, the same can be said of Pakistan today. With the international community's reserve of patience with Musharraf waning, unless the General takes some concrete steps to tackle terrorism soon, he may find himself short of the very allies that have ensured his political survival.
An immediate diplomatic fall-out of the 7/11 attacks has been that talks at the foreign secretary level with Pakistan have been called off. In the short term, the UPA government's hardened stance might assuage some domestic constituents. However, for the longer haul, it is important not to confuse the Pakistani civil society with the Pakistani state. To elaborate further, the democratic aspirations of a vast majority of the Pakistani people are certainly not coextensive with their military elite. Encouraging friendly relationships with citizens across the border serves the Indian government far better than the Pakistani government.
It is also important to dwell on the probable effects of the 7/11 attacks on the Indian Muslim populace. Just as the London bombings created the prospect of a backlash against ethnic minorities in Britain, there was a possibility that the tragedy in Mumbai might spur some miscreants to retaliate against the Indian Muslim fraternity. It is to the credit of the people in Mumbai - and elsewhere in India - that thankfully this hasn't occurred.
At the same time though, India's effort to overcome the murderous slant of terrorism has an internal dimension that is often brushed under the carpet. While blaming an atrocity on "anti-national groups" across the border comes easily, it is perhaps also time to admit the possibility of a strand of "home-grown" extremism. The London bombings brought this uncomfortable truth before the British people. Similarly, it is not entirely preposterous to contemplate the exploitation by extremists of a sense of alienation among some Indian Muslims to suit their purposes. To a lesser extent, the formation of the AUDF in Assam and PDF in Uttar Pradesh with the objective of carving a distinct Muslim vote-bank is also dependant on preying on a sense of disillusionment among a section of Indian Muslims.
While we castigate Pakistan for the spread of unregulated seminaries that preach intolerance, the politically incorrect truth is that such seminaries are also proliferating abominably in India. Under the Indian constitution, minority institutions enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom empowering them to regulate and administer their affairs without governmental interference. Unfortunately, the unregulated nature of some of these ultra-orthodox and regressive seminaries purporting to pass off as "educational institutions" posit a credible threat of misutilising constitutional freedoms by fostering venal propaganda.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify that I am not of the school of thought that expects religious minorities to constantly prove their patriotism. Neither do I endorse knee-jerk illiberal measures such as calling for the re-enactment of POTA, as LK Advani has suggested. To recall what Lord Hoffmann eloquently said in the House of Lords judgment in the Belmarsh prisoner case that held Britain's anti-terrorism legislation - which provided for indefinite detention without charge or trial - incompatible with the Human Rights Act, "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.".
However, the reality of the 7/11 bombing, preceded by tragedies in Varanasi and Delhi in the span of a year is that terrorists are working overtime to impede India's progress and undermine its intrinsic ethnic and religious diversity in order to realise their distorted version of Islam. In the face of a preternatural threat to the lives of its citizens, inertia is not an option the Indian government can afford anymore.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)first published:July 17, 2006, 10:37 ISTlast updated:July 17, 2006, 10:37 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
The appalling carnage in Mumbai is a shocking reminder of the fragility of life in this age of terror. Echoing the bombings in Madrid and London last year, the evil act of targeting innocents on packed commuter trains conveys yet again, that confronting an underground network of global terrorism is an urgent challenge of our times. As Manmohan Singh attends the G-8 summit in St Petersburg, this impetus assumes more significance than ever.
While Mumbai inches painfully back towards normality, the possible involvement of elements across the Wagah border in the 7/11 attack has come into the limelight. Concerns regarding Pakistan's involvement in either facilitating the infrastructure for extremist groups or deliberately omitting its gaze from such groups training within its realm continue to remain unaddressed. Importantly, these are concerns shared not just by India but by the wider international fraternity too.
It is apparent that General Musharraf's strategic imperative against the menace of terrorism has been high on rhetoric and woefully low on action. On the one hand, the General prescribes "enlightened moderation" as a necessary remedial measure for his country. However, on the other hand, seminaries that offer de facto courses of hatred against "infidels" continue to proliferate unchecked. As Irfan Husain observed in the Dawn recently, "Despite seizing power with a host of pledges to modernise - reiterated time and again - the general remains hostage to the medieval agenda of the clergy and their political parties."
Indeed, Musharraf's vision for Pakistan's future is constricted by the necessary subordination of civilian leadership to military interests. More specifically, friendly relations with India run counter to the Pakistani army's interests. The very raison d'etre of the Pakistani army's dominance over civil society is founded on stoking a fear of Indian aggression and maintaining a long-term cycle of conflict with India.
Put simply, the citizens of Pakistan have less reason to be fearful of India and more reason to distrust their own army's endorsement of a "military democracy" as the ideal model of government. History bears this out. Since its inception as a nation, the journey towards democracy in Pakistan has been waylaid by an endless pit-stop of military dictatorships preventing stability and social development.
In Hamlet, perturbed upon spotting just the ghost of the dead king, Marcellus - an officer of the palace guard - exclaims "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark". Sadly, the same can be said of Pakistan today. With the international community's reserve of patience with Musharraf waning, unless the General takes some concrete steps to tackle terrorism soon, he may find himself short of the very allies that have ensured his political survival.
An immediate diplomatic fall-out of the 7/11 attacks has been that talks at the foreign secretary level with Pakistan have been called off. In the short term, the UPA government's hardened stance might assuage some domestic constituents. However, for the longer haul, it is important not to confuse the Pakistani civil society with the Pakistani state. To elaborate further, the democratic aspirations of a vast majority of the Pakistani people are certainly not coextensive with their military elite. Encouraging friendly relationships with citizens across the border serves the Indian government far better than the Pakistani government.
It is also important to dwell on the probable effects of the 7/11 attacks on the Indian Muslim populace. Just as the London bombings created the prospect of a backlash against ethnic minorities in Britain, there was a possibility that the tragedy in Mumbai might spur some miscreants to retaliate against the Indian Muslim fraternity. It is to the credit of the people in Mumbai - and elsewhere in India - that thankfully this hasn't occurred.
At the same time though, India's effort to overcome the murderous slant of terrorism has an internal dimension that is often brushed under the carpet. While blaming an atrocity on "anti-national groups" across the border comes easily, it is perhaps also time to admit the possibility of a strand of "home-grown" extremism. The London bombings brought this uncomfortable truth before the British people. Similarly, it is not entirely preposterous to contemplate the exploitation by extremists of a sense of alienation among some Indian Muslims to suit their purposes. To a lesser extent, the formation of the AUDF in Assam and PDF in Uttar Pradesh with the objective of carving a distinct Muslim vote-bank is also dependant on preying on a sense of disillusionment among a section of Indian Muslims.
While we castigate Pakistan for the spread of unregulated seminaries that preach intolerance, the politically incorrect truth is that such seminaries are also proliferating abominably in India. Under the Indian constitution, minority institutions enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom empowering them to regulate and administer their affairs without governmental interference. Unfortunately, the unregulated nature of some of these ultra-orthodox and regressive seminaries purporting to pass off as "educational institutions" posit a credible threat of misutilising constitutional freedoms by fostering venal propaganda.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify that I am not of the school of thought that expects religious minorities to constantly prove their patriotism. Neither do I endorse knee-jerk illiberal measures such as calling for the re-enactment of POTA, as LK Advani has suggested. To recall what Lord Hoffmann eloquently said in the House of Lords judgment in the Belmarsh prisoner case that held Britain's anti-terrorism legislation - which provided for indefinite detention without charge or trial - incompatible with the Human Rights Act, "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.".
However, the reality of the 7/11 bombing, preceded by tragedies in Varanasi and Delhi in the span of a year is that terrorists are working overtime to impede India's progress and undermine its intrinsic ethnic and religious diversity in order to realise their distorted version of Islam. In the face of a preternatural threat to the lives of its citizens, inertia is not an option the Indian government can afford anymore.
(Rishabh Bhandari is a lawyer at a global law firm in London. These are his personal views.)
Comments
0 comment