Paper
of Daalat Ali for JKIPA Conference on terrorism
I was asked by Dr Shabir
Choudhry to write a paper on terrorism for this conference. I did not know
where to start as I see terrorists and terror victims everywhere. He asked me
to concentrate on South Asia, especially around Kashmir. I tried but as I am
not as skilful or articulated writer as some of my colleagues. I felt that
sitting in Manchester I can’t just ignore the bigger picture. Also In writing
this paper I wanted myself to be clear of the definition of terrorism. There
seem to be rafts and rafts of information on the subject but I came to a
conclusion that;
A)
There is someone who terrorises be it an
individual for example (Domestic violence),or Neighbourhood, a group of people,
Population at large or massive demographic and geographic areas as seems to be
the case at the moment.
B)
The people at receiving end, who at times
might have no choice but react to this terror threat individually or in numbers
for example in absence of plebiscite Kashmiris and Irish for that matter as
well as Palestinians and many more have been pushed in to the later situation.
One thing is certain a
terrorist (Powerful force) always blames the victim(s) and says: “Look what you
made me do” and justifies his action by blaming the people on the receiving
end.
Historical
context
Powerful groups like
Alexander the Great, Ganges Khan, Romans, Ottomans, and other European empires
like the British, French; and even Communist Revolution of 1917 (which became
an empire in itself) not only terrorised the world’s weak but have cleansed
some races from face of the earth.
It can be argued that, all
above terrorist activities had economic motives; however, some were purely
cruel wars which were motivated through Monolithic religious ideologies, for
example, Communists propagated that their ideology had all the solutions, so
did the Ottomans and the Christian West. It became the case of us and them.
Ottomans had religious belief that they were doing Allah’s deed and civilising
the world. Europeans also motivated their populations on the same principle.
Anyone who was not Christian or did not eat, drink, wear the same clothes or
did not share same values were deemed ‘uncivilised’, therefore, in the name of
Jesus Christ it was besotted on them by God to ‘civilise’ these beasts or
eliminate them.
My question in this scenario
would be “Who is the terrorist?” Why
are these empires and conquerors glorified in all discourses?
Nation
state
The notion of Nation states
and nationalism is 17th 18th century phenomena. The idea
of nationhood had some set rules that the nation should be based on religion,
culture, ethnicity and language etc with defined geographic areas However,
small groups were integrated and dominating ones took over. Many nations were
designed by its occupiers and others had to struggle for independence and nation
building. The leaders of the struggles were termed as guerrillas or freedom
fighters. Whereas some nations fought with weapons to liberate themselves but
people like Ghandi and Jinnah led a peaceful struggle for independence which
nevertheless ended up killing millions and terrorising even more at the time of
the partition.
One may ask, those countries
which used weapons to achieve their independence, were the leaders leading
those struggles against occupation of their country terrorists or freedom
fighters? When a struggle for
independence is deemed as a freedom struggle, and when is it terrorism? Above
all, who decides who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter?
Post
Second World War
The Issue of Northern
Ireland is another example where leaders of IRA for some people were freedom
fighters; and for others they were terrorists; and the IRA a terrorist organisation.
Same is the case with the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, a Princely State which enjoyed
a semi autonomous status under the British Raj; but gained its sovereignty
after the end of the British on 15 August 1947. It is sad that powerful
neighbours of Jammu and Kashmir used force to occupy Jammu and Kashmir; the
struggle resulted in forced division of the State.
Imperial powers towards the
end of their empires used their Position and influence to arbitrarily create
new nations. In almost all of these artificial states or nations there are
ongoing conflicts, extremism and violence.
Powerful Nations again used
their muscle to create un-natural countries which never became nation states
such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Israel and India the list goes on
and so do struggles too but these struggles are termed as terrorist activities rather
than freedom struggles. Be it former Yugoslavia, Israel, Pakistan, Pakistan
Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and many other countries they came to existence
because it was desire and need of the Imperial powers.
Cold war between ideologies
witnessed direct and indirect interventions by the Superpowers where allies of
one power were deemed as terrorists by one and freedom fighters by the other.
Vietnam is a prime example where people were terrorised by Capitalist
ideologists and defended and supported by adherents of the communist ideology.
Nevertheless hundreds of thousands of people were killed and terrorised for
what? Cuba, Palestine, Kashmir, South Africa all of them suffered and some
continue to suffer terrorism by so called democratic free world.
Many human rights
conventions were signed by member states of the United Nations, but the most
powerful forces dehumanised (and continue to do so) people through powerful
media before terrorising them, hence, they find justifications for their
occupations and brutalities often in the name of democracy.
Neo-Colonialism
In the post-world wars,
while the Communists colonialized physically, the capitalists colonialized
economically. Both ideologies came face to face in Afghanistan, However, The
Capitalists played clever and played religious card, perhaps it was for this
day India was divided on religious bases, and without any logic or
justification Pakistan was carved out on the bases of religious Two Nation
disregarding all those who were not Hindus or Muslims. and are facing every day
Hindu democratic terrorism (New BJP Hindvatta movement) in India and Taliban’s
sharia movement In Pakistan.
Afghanistan was beginning of
the new economic game for the west and Saudi Arabia (a western capitalist
creation in the first place) had been working on its monolithic ideology of
Islam (Wahhabism) often referred to as Sunnis by the west.
In the Afghan war democracy
in Pakistan was sacrificed, its Prime Minister hanged, contrary to its
constitution. Jihadi groups were created and financed heavily by Saudis and
trained by Allied forces including Pakistani ISI. Dollars flowed like Indus
water. Russians were not only forced out of Afghanistan but Central Asia too. A
big triumph for the west.
Once Russian threat was
eliminated West moved out physically and without addressing the monster of
Mujahedeen that they had created. However, Pakistani Army arguably supported by
Americans and Saudis moved towards Kashmir. It can be argued that all three
partners had their own interests in Kashmir. Pakistanis saw this opportunity to
conquer Kashmir, Saudis to consolidate their ideology and Americans wanted
India to open up its market. Also give
them bases against China which had been denied by India previously.
After the Soviet withdrawal,
civil war started in Afghanistan. Mullahs and terrorist infrastructure which
was financed by Saudis (to advance their ideology) trained by Pakistanis, did
not stop there. They started interfering in affairs of Afghanistan, India,
Jammu and Kashmir, Iran, Central Asian states; and Islamatists from those
states were given training and safe heavens in Tribal Areas.
Pakistan probably started
dreaming about becoming a very powerful player in that region which included
developing Gawadar in partnership with Chinese over taking Dubai.
India as a country is as
unnatural as Pakistan for example there were certain areas directly under
British rule, there were many princely states like Kashmir, Hyderabad and many
more Himalayan principalities. On paper all these had options of joining one
dominion or the other but in reality they were never consulted, given the
opportunity and Pakistanis and Indians muscled in against the wishes of people.
Therefore, Like Pakistan India has its own problems of class segregation
(Untouchables), Tribal, Tamils, Punjab movement, Mizos, Nagas, Nexalites and
many more indigenes movements since its inception.
Ever since its creation it
has been trying to build a nation and for that it has been at war with its own
people through stick and carrot. Carrot for leaders and stick as terrorising
its certain sections of its population.
Evidence suggests that some
governments adopt policy of catch and kill, as it is alleged to have happened
in the Indian Punjab; and allegedly still taking place in Pakistani Balochistan
and in Jammu and Kashmir. This is blatant violation of Geneva Convention and
fundamental human rights.
Tamils in Sri Lanka were
crushed by the government where tens of thousands of people lost their lives. In
Jammu and Kashmir and Balochistan tens of thousands of people have lost their
lives; and thousands are still unaccounted for.
One can see that India and
Pakistan can claim that they are dealing with insurgency or terrorism; but is
it not governments first priority to save life and property of people? What
these governments are doing could be called disproportionate use of force; and
even state terrorism against people who are asking for fundamental human
rights.
In some discourses it is
argued that India is world’s largest democracy and it should be saved from
terrorism and that Pakistan is fighting a proxy war. There is some truth in it,
however, one has to go back to 1987 elections in Indian administered Kashmir.
Muslim United front (MUF) took part in democratic process under Indian
constitution and Indians not only rigged elections blatantly but terrorised MUF
leadership and supporters. This was followed by mass protests. This than gave
Pakistanis an oppertunity to exploit the situation. Therefore it can be argued
that: It was Indian anti-democratic action which sparked violence in the first
place. Pakistanis who were waiting in the wings sent Afghan redundant
Mujahedeen (Now terrorists) across the border. Both Mujahedeens and Indian
security forces un leashed terror on innocent Kashmiris resulting in 100,000
dead, 10 thousand missing, Mass graves and rape used as a weapon of terror
(Konan Poshpura and Shopian are such examples).
Pakistan does not treat
Kashmiris under its occupation any different. Some people argue that Pakistanis
has not killed like India has but People on this side have not taken up arms
and yet recently military courts have been established, what does that tell
you? Won’t this subjugate people and deny them of their fundamental rights?
Also what people forget is what Pakistanis did in early 50s in the area of
poonch and General Zia’s time, Talibans attacked Gilgit Baltistan Shia minority
aided by Pakistani authorities just like modi (Now priminister) aided Muslim
killings in Gujrat.
Contemporary
Position
- The
contemporary position seems to be that Saudis and Israel with American
help have eliminated any threat to them and both continue to terrorise
masses in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Palestine respectively. They
successfully have dehumanised people through monolithic ideology and media
propaganda.
- If
one takes Iraq in to consideration, 1970 Iraqi health and education was in
par with any Western country, and Saddam was darling of the West. At that
time Iraqi female PhD ratio was the highest in the world; and now ISIS is
openly selling Iraqi young girls for 10 dollars each. Yet People like Tony
Blair continue to justify invading Iraq in the name of democracy and
Saudis continue to pay for his lectures.
- The
Americans have got unlimited access to Indian market, they have bases in
Ladakh and at the same time have successfully blocked foreseeable future
flow of any energy sources from Central Asia/Iran in to India and they
have eliminated any economic threat emerging from South Asia because South
Asia is home to almost third of world population with expertise, know how
but unless energy freely flows and trade flourishes there is no way India
can realise its full economic potential as well as upwards social mobility
for its majority population e.g. Dalits.
- India
can only realise its dream if there is stability in the region and at the
moment not even one of its neighbour is happy with her.
South
Asian Solution
Pakistan, for various
reasons, set up the terrorist infrastructure; and exported terrorism to advance
its foreign policy. The question is, does Pakistan have the ability to put
genie of terrorism back in the bottle? Moreover, does Pakistan want to do this?
It seems Pakistani army is split in to ideological sects i.e. Sunni Sufi and
Saudi Wahabi- Salafi-monolithic ideologies.
Or indeed, is it possible to
contain this monster of terrorism in isolation? Pakistan created this with help
of Saudi Arabia and America. It is only logical that these countries should
also help to eradicate extremism and terrorism.
The classic example would be,
as mentioned above, Northern Ireland. No solution was found until American
government came on board and British government owned up to its mistakes. An
inclusive approach was adopted. The
question is, are India and Pakistan big enough to admit their mistakes?
Moreover, what about international interests? After all, the State of Jammu
Kashmir has been part of the great game and the stakes have heightened with
American, Chinese and other major powers economic and strategic interests in
the region.
India can play a leading
role in solving this problem because it has influence in Afghanistan,
internationally and in South Asia. The starting point would be freedom of
movement for Kashmiris living in all parts of the state followed by a permanent
solution to Kashmir like Northern Ireland.
The question is, would this
be acceptable to global economic beneficiaries of terrorism?
No comments:
Post a Comment