Leading from the front

SUDHANSHU RANADE comments on the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

MUSLIMS and Hindus of all hues will be able to understand what Mr. Vajpayee said in an interview to the Muslim editor of an Islamic newsmagazine during his recent holiday in the lagoons of Kerala. Secularists, he said, were left in confusion and disarray after India was partitioned on communal lines; "however, secularism remained".

These words were spoken by a supposedly moderate Prime Minister, soon after the turbulence in Parliament about his reference to the "national aspirations" of the Indian people. Many people might therefore think that the Prime Minister was saying in effect that, now, with the secularists at bay, it is time to dump secularism as well; it is time to resume our efforts to forcefully rectify the wrongs or aberrations of history.

People are often unable to see themselves as others see them. Thus Mr. Vajpayee who, only the other day, had been unable to see why Mr. Jyoti Basu called the Bharatiya Janata Party "barbaric and uncivilised" for vandalising the Babri Masjid, was able to straightaway recognise and condemn the "barbaric and uncivilised" Taliban regime for the destruction of Buddhist relics in Afghanistan. By the same logic, the Muslim world, and for that matter the Christian world as well, might not be able to view our "national aspirations" in quite the same way that we do.

This could pose serious problems for India in the years to come. To begin with, the "cultural vandalism" of the Taliban, coming as it does at this juncture, may acquire ominous overtones. The sanctions against Afghanistan are intended to suffocate the "barbaric and uncivilised" Taliban, and wring Osama Bin Laden out of them. Before that, there was a squeeze on Pakistan to close its training camps for Taliban forces in Afghanistan, and its camps for training Kashmiri jehadis in Pakistan; thereby depriving Pakistan of its "strategic depth". Before that came the understanding reached between the United States and India against Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Kashmir.

Terrorism must stop before talks begin; we have been saying. But, the terrorists have been saying, once terrorism is gone, the Kashmir issue too would recede in India's consciousness. Again and again, Gen. Musharraf has been pleading with India to recognise the predicament he is in, sandwiched between Taliban- esque forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan on the one hand and the Americans on the other. Yet knowing full well how precariously he is perched, we keep telling him "what is the point of talking to you if the terrorists are not under your control". Meanwhile, the farce of Indian ceasefires in Kashmir continues. India knows full well, but pretends not to see, that to be able to put an end to terrorism in Kashmir, Gen. Musharraf, to use his own words, should at least be given "some small thing that he can show to his people".

Till just the other day, before the Taliban began making mincemeat of the Buddha, Musharraf had been anxiously indicating, over and over again, his readiness to come to India for talks; if invited. Our response : "then why has he not asked us for an invitation". Reminds me of pleas to Zia ul Haq to spare the life of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; "but he himself has not asked for mercy", the General said, before hanging him.

The repurcussion could be that we might soon find ourselves in the midst of a debate on how the "cultural vandalism" of the Hindus is different from that of the Muslims; apart from the fact that it costs thousands of innocent people their lives. This could inflame the sentiments of Muslims abroad, and will certainly inflame the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, who anyway are saying: if the Taliban continues to destroy Buddhist statues, and the mausoleum of Prithvi Raj Chavan in Afghanistan, "muslims in India will have to face dire consequences". Civil war, no less. What better result could the "Inter Service Intelligence" possibly hope for ?

Let us now move one more step backward; beyond the Buddha statues, sanctions on Afghanistan, the pressure on Musharraf, and his rebuff; let us go back to the grand alliance between India and the U.S. The logic is best spelled out in Jaswant Singh's book, written on the eve of the Pokhran blasts and published soon after. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. is now the sole superpower. Better to be on the winning side.

This will help bring peace to Kashmir, tame Pakistan, and greatly extend Indian influence in South-east Asia. As for China, "in the absence of any social, cultural, political and economic commonality, a policy of 'improving relations' with China could yet again mortgage our future for illusions of the present". Happily, for this, too, India could ride piggyback on the Americans.

It is in order to cement this alliance, and thereby, he hopes, further our purpose, that Jaswant Singh has committed India to fighting Islamic terrorism (not only in Kashmir, but wherever it exists), to combating drug trafficking in South and South-east Asia (which not only finances terrorism but also subverts administration and therefore brings about the anarchy in which terrorism thrives). And, of course, the responsibility of containing China, by spreading Indian influence into the countries of South east Asia, and Indian naval presence off their shores.

West Asia and Central Asia, both Islamic, India would like to build ties with; for her energy needs, and for secure lines of supply. This might pose a bit of a problem - because of the smoldering anti-U.S. embers in Palestine and Iraq, but also because, so long as the VHP is around, it will not be as easy for India as it is for the U.S. to convince people that our fight is against Islamic terrorism, not against Muslims and Islam.

It is disturbing that India should have taken the responsibility of "leading from the front" the forceful campaigns of the U.S. in the cause of "Freedom"; it will not feel nice to find ourselves directly in the line of fire. And it is alarming that it has not yet struck us that though the U.S. might be our nearest neighbour, the U.S. itself has lots of nearer neigbhours.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : On the rocks
Next     : Open letter to Mr. Vajpayee