The Myth Of Islamic Fundamentalist Alliance

The Islamic fundamentalist alliance around the world is a figment of the imagination, writes Rajat Kanta Ray

In autumn last year, a tantalising international realignment seemed to be in the offing. The cold war had come to an end at the beginning of the 1990's. Now, at the end of the decade, it appeared that there might be an Islamic fundamentalist alliance opposed by a grand alliance between America, Russia and India. This was a dream scenario for South Block, which had been deprived of the policy plank of non-alignment by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The scenario was built around the elusive figure of Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban faced UN sanctions for harbouring the man responsible for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa. The Muslim warlords of Chechnya, fighting a war of secession from Russia, offered Osama asylum in grateful remembrance of the $30 million they had received from him, and which they had used in bombing apartments in Moscow.

 

Osama, who was somewhat out of touch with reality in his hide-out, declared Jehad against America and India, and offered his help, such as it was, to both Chechen and Kashmir terrorists. At this stage a US envoy visited both Moscow and New Delhi to discuss counter-terrorist measures.

This was an inviting scenario for South Block: the imagined array of world forces included Pakistan, Afghanistan and various Muslim fundamentalist outfits in Kashmir and around the world, on the one hand, and India, America, Russia and other anti-terrorist powers on the other.

Needless to say, the scenario disintegrated in no time. Each power returned to tackling terrorism on its own. Vladimir Putin of Russia made his mark by putting down insurgency in Chechnya in the teeth of US allegations of atrocities against the Chechens, and in due course he replaced Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia. The government of India, which allowed terrorists to take away an Indian plane to Kandahar and then surrendered several leaders of insurgency in Kashmir to get the plane back, won no kudos. However, it performed somewhat better than the government of Sri Lanka has done in tackling Tamil insurgency in Jaffna.

Russia's success in putting down insurgency in Dagestan and then Chechnya was based on the support Moscow obtained in Dagestan, and the intelligent deployment of force in Chechnya. India, too, claims that the population of Kashmir supports the elected government there. Foreign mercenaries armed and dispatched by Pakistan are alone blamed for the insurgency. The claim is based upon the equation: terrorists = mercenaries = foreigners.

The figures released by the army last year gives the lie to this equation. Of the terrorists killed (the term 'martyrs' is used in Kashmir to describe them) between January 1997 and 1999, 260 roughly speaking three quarters were local Kashmiris and the rest foreigners.

The conclusion arising out of this is that there is substantial participation by Kashmiri youths in the insurgency. Two further conclusions have also been hinted at in reports out of Kashmir last year. First, the low proportion of foreigners killed in encounters may be due to the fact that the trained and dreaded foreign mujahideen usually get away with their raids. The armed forces are not able to track them down effectively and to kill them. A second conclusion suggested that year by Aunohita Majumdar (The Statesman, September 23, 1999) is that 'locals, not necessarily militants, are being targeted during counter-insurgency operations.' This conclusion would seem to indicate the ineffectiveness of the operations, the frustration of the security forces, and a massive attempt to cover up the failure.

The home ministry has stoked these doubts afresh in the murky Anantnag affair. At the time of assuming charge, L K Advani had made it clear to all and sundry, including the Prime Minister, that Kashmir was his to deal with, and murmurs had gone round that he would deal with it in the effective and even-handed manner of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Anantnag has put paid to all that.

In a stunning move, a militant outfit massacred a whole village of Sikhs. So long only the Hindus -- Kashmiri Pandits -- had been the target of the terrorists. The massacre of the Sikhs in Kashmir sent shock-waves through the Punjab and the nation and put the alliance between the Akalis and the BJP under pressure. As was his wont, Mr Advani announced in ringing tones that the perpetrators of the outrage would be brought to book. No sooner said than done. The security forces killed four 'foreign militants' in an encounter and were congratulated by Mr Advani for the prompt action. The proud home minister declared to the relieved nation that the murderers had paid the just price of their dastardly act.

It turned out that the persons killed were innocent local civilians. Their kinsmen and neighbours came out in protest, the police fired upon the violent crowd, and a veritable civil uprising in Anantnag forced the incompetent administration to give in to their demands for inquiry and redress. Judicial displeasure at the murder of civilians left the government with no choice but to transfer both the DM and the SP. At one blow, the prestige of the home ministry of the government of India collapsed.

Anantnag and Jaffna have shown once again that each insurgency has its own design. The Islamic fundamentalist alliance around the world is a figment of the imagination. And the grand alliance against terrorism is a chimera. Every power must deal with the challenge on its own.