India's moment of shame

India's moment of shame
Kuldip Nayar

I can live with the release of three hardcore militants for so-me 160 innocent men, women and children. But I cannot st-omach the visit of Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh to Kandahar, carrying the militants in his own plane. The whole operation had a touch of Bollywood: the foreign minister's aircraft landing at the Kandahar airport and the passengers coming out of the hijacked Airbus.

Granted, the government had little choice. It had to weigh the lives of passengers and crew against the release of the militants. Should Jaswant Singh have gone himself for the exchange? It is obvious that some political mileage was sought to be gained: the minister himself bringing passengers and the crew back to India from the jaws of death.

The release of militants in exchange of Mufti Mohammed Syed's daughter, Rubia, in 1990 fuelled the militancy in Kashmir. By letting off three militants and six hijackers, New Delhi has confirmed the impression that India is a soft state. The problem with the state is not that it hasfewer laws but that its machinery is loose, if not rusted.

There is no doubt that Pakistan has had the last laugh. Its ISI men, who planned, guided and executed the entire operation, have seen to it that the Taliban get the maximum advantage from the hijacking. They have suddenly acquired `respect' and `maturity'. A state which is the centre of international terrorism has impressed New Delhi so much that Jaswant Singh has praised it again and again.

New Delhi did not show the ag-ility or alacrity the hijacking dema-nded. For the first three days, the cabinet and top bureaucrats seem to have done nothing. The UN Security Council should have been requested to meet within hours of the hijacking. Russia would have been willing to initiate the move if the West was found dragging its feet.

Our National Security Commission mouths cliches on nuclear we-apons but has neither the vision nor the intelligence to deal with real problems. The three Service Chiefs were quite justified in complaining that they had notbeen taken into confidence.

That the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Civil Aviation Minister did not have the full picture for the first hour of the hijacking was not surprising because the right hand of the government does not know what the left is doing. Deputy Minister Chamanlal Gupta was speaking all the time, without any information. He was a disaster. One hopes some heads will roll.

The hijacking and other instances of militancy should, however, make the Muslim leaders in the world sit up. The hijackers and the released militants are from some Islamic militant group. They are giving a bad name to Islam. Even the hijackers reportedly observed that they were not bothered about Kashmir but they were concerned about the Umha (Muslim brothers).

Muslim nations are members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). India, with 120 million Muslims, is OIC's whipping boy. Even though most Muslim nations swear friendship to India when they talk to New Delhi individually, they criticiseIndia when they meet at the OIC. Strange, they have never discussed how terrorism is tarnishing their image and that of their religion.

The OIC should convene urgently to discuss the hijacking. Pakistan sh-ould explain its conduct because the plane was taken to Lahore from Amritsar. Islamabad's hostility towards New Delhi is nothing new. But the issue was that of human rights. Inste-ad of appreciating that point, Pakist-an Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar began abusing India when the plane was still on the tarmac of Lahore airport. How could anyone, much less the foreign minister, say that Indians had themselves planned the hijacking to malign Pakistan?

The hijacking, like Kargil earlier, has str-ained our secular polity. Whenever there is an anti-Pakistan feeling in India, there is always the danger of it taking an anti-Muslim sh-ape. Any Hindu fundamentalist group can ignite anti-Muslim sentiments. Pe-ople have seen through the game and the BJP-led government has maintained inter-community peace. Still,there are people who equate Muslims with Pakistan.

One wonders whether Pakistan is determined to disturb the Hindu-Mu-slim harmony in India. No doubt, Pakistan would like India to be a Hindu republic as Pakistan is an Islamic re- public. It would like to show the world that there was no alternative to the two-nation theory. So far India has proved Pakistan wrong and established that religion is not the basis for nationality. But it is time Pakistan en-ded its nefarious activities. The Muslims in India have paid a high enough price for the partition.

There is no love lost between New Delhi and the All-Party Hurriyat Co-nference. It is engaged in a struggle for Kashmir's independence. Still, when some of us approached its officiating chairman Moulvi Umar Farooq, the organisation issued a strong statement and called the hijacking an inhuman act, ``detrimental to the cause of the freedom movement of Kashmir.'' In fact, the Hurriyat Conference held a special meeting to discuss the hijacking and itsramifications on their movement and cond- emned it outright once again.

The reaction of the West was really slow and disappointing. At the request of Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, some powers spoke, more to go on record than to condemn the hijacking. None of the leaders, neither President Clinton nor British Prime Minister Tony Blair, spoke or rang up the Indian Prime Minister. They were celebrating the last Christmas of the millennium. In fact, such an attitude should make it clear to Pakistan, if it needs to be told, that the third world problem would have to be sorted out by third world countries themselves.

Human rights organisations were also conspicuous by their silence. The biggest let-down was by the Pakistan human rights activists who, no doubt, overawed by the military regime, could not condemn the hijacking and express sympathy with the passengers and the crew, who were treated most inhumanly.

Indian human rights organisations, as many as 13 of them, issued a joint statement within 24hours of the hijacking. But no mainstream newspaper printed it. This shows the mindset of the media. One representative of a Hindi daily rang me up to complain why human rights activists were quiet. When told about the statement, he said he had not seen it.

Sir: Why is it that in almost every conflict in the world dating back to the Crusades (with the exception of the Basque, Tamil and Irish problems), one of the aggrieved parties is Muslim? Why do Muslims refuse to follow the mainstream of human culture and insist on sticking with their medieval mind-set?

Why is it that when Muslims are in a majority in any country, the rights of the minority are either non-existent or are just given lip service, and when Muslims are in a minority they refuse to adhere to a common civil code and cry foul?

Why is it that in any political or ideological difference of opinion, Muslims are the first to resort to terrorism and then claim vociferously that Islam is a peace-loving and tolerant religion? And, finally, why dowe pander to these people to the extent of hosting iftar parties at the PM's house when they turn around the next day and bring explosives to blow one up or hijack our aircraft?

-- Dr J. V. S. GOPINATH gopinath@sahara.com.sa