US-India relations: operation ‘infinite justice’
in the common vision against ‘terrorism’
by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Outraged America has declared war on Osama bin Laden and his
followers. The fallout of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington can be worse in nature, if the perpetrators of
terror in future are not deterred with punitive actions. In
the past, the modus operandi of the preemptive attacks on
terrorist groups or entities have been viewed differently by the affected
states internationally. The watershed in defining an act as
"terrorist" has now been earnestly drawn when the US national
peace and security face a direct and imminent threat of this menace.
The term "terrorism" looks still contested or underdeveloped as
of its meaning and concept by the policymakers and scholars.
However, the unity of thought lies primarily with the anti-human and anti-civilisational
results that it precipitates.
The intelligence evidence is claimed to converge on bin Laden as the
prime suspect in the latest carnage. The American action to follow
has brought the South Asian region under sharp US strategic focus.
Pakistan with its long term collaboration with the so called Jehadis is
at the frontal diplomatic link with the men who harbour and support this
prime suspect. The geo-political proximity of Pakistan with
Afghanistan has, at present, provided Pakistan a chance to prove its
"credibility" of the "long enduring" US-Pakistan
relation at the time of the crisis.
It is generally believed in India that the possible US moves involving
Pakistan could lead to backlash for the Americans in future if this moment
of crisis is dealt singularly on its "national interest"
perspective. Al Qaida has widespread and worldwide connection with
numerous fundamentalist groups in a loosely knit network. To wipe
out Al Qaida alone can not therefore be the "only
solution". The present US commitment to smoke out the people
and entities involved with Bin Laden will leave "others"
unaffected to fight back the situational lull.
Indian Prime Minister has been noted saying that "America alone
can determine whether it will address the symptom of terrorism or the
system of terrorism". Commenting over Musharraf’s recent
remarks against Indian perception towards Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister
has also indicated its probable bearing on future India-Pakistan
confidence building dialogues with Pervez Musharraf.
Pervez Musharraf, on the other hand, has to perform on a tight rope
with so much domestic and Afghani opposition for support to America.
He may require considerable compensatory provisions from the US to justify
before his constituencies within and outside the country. Kashmir
might be essentially high in Islamabad’s agenda of future foreign policy
review. The relentless support for Jehadis in Kashmir by
Pakistan has been an imminent source of threat to India.
Dynamics of such threat perceptions will become more complex if
Pakistan comes out successfully with this crisis in hunting down the enemy
of America. This will not only restrengthen the long standing
US-Pakistan ties that had its foundation in the cold-war period, US may
provide several cold-war like concessions to Pakistan in future too. This,
in turn, will affect peace and security in South Asia.
Possibilities Unknown:
American campaign and the international concern against terrorism has
gained an unprecedented shape in the post cold war world order.
While the US is determined to hunt down and punish the perpetrators of
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in America, it has yet not explained
the nature of future course of action or the qualitative support that it
requires from other concerned states round the globe. Having said
this, the fateful moment as "first war of the century against
US", President Bush wants to draw clear distinction between those on
the one hand, who are involved, harbour, support or encourage the
terrorist subversions, and on the other, who can rally round the US
government to fight against its enemy terrorist group(s) or country(ies).
The interest of the US is supreme, in any case, to lead the world by
example.
As far as Indian national interest is concerned, it is now up to US to
realise that how New Delhi has been struggling against and affected by the
perpetrators of terrorism on the Indian soil since more than two
decades. Insecurities to India due to terrorism or proxy war are
closely related to China-Pakistan nexus too. Strategic and defence
analysts are of the opinion that to bridge the asymmetry in conventional
force with India Pakistan seeks nuclear and missile support from
China. Having confidence in its acquired "nuclear
deterrence", Pakistan sustains a proxy war against India.
To bring different facets of Pakistani involvement with the Jehadis
has become a pertinent task for India, especially, when the concerted
determination of the governments are uniting to fight against terrorism
worldwide. The world community has been facing a "wait and
watch" situation.
In the global task to fight against the evils of terrorism, India wants
to join the leadership of America, in accordance with the international
consensus. Some view the Indian eagerness to help Americans as ‘jumping
before the gun’ or ‘warm hands on cold shoulders’. Such
inferences are too early to be drawn. However, India claims its
commitment to join each country or international covenant that deals with
the issues of terrorism.
Media reports suggest that Bush administration is all set now to go
ahead with reprisal attacks very soon, probably in the next few days if
not in weeks or months. With the present given level of information
and international communications, India can think on the following
possible variables with underlying cautions in the order of preference,
step by step:
* India may explore a reorientation in future India-US relations,
especially, in the post cold-war world security-insecurity matrix.
The concept of security of the state should include terrorism as one of
its essential defining elements. Both the US and India may jointly
react the common threat due to cross-border support to and supply of
terrorism.
* The present US crisis should be seen not with much rhetoric,
provided reciprocity of transparency in state behaviour is
maintained. In other words, India requires to neither criticise
nor appreciate Pakistani involvement in US scheme of things
disproportionately. The veil of secrecy maintained by the US
intelligence and so the administration do not leave enough scope to
criticise enraged America, but delimiting the nature of reaction may
remain always debatable.
* India may show strong willingness to wipe out the evils of
terrorism in general and concentrate on to put forthright propositions
for engagements leading to track down and eliminate the extremists who
directly affect the Indian peace and tranquility.
* Selectively decided opinions should be weighed on cost-benefit
analysis. India must maintain its credential of being a non-aligned
state against ignorable odds. Despite having close relations with
the former Soviet Union, India had opposed its numerous international
moves during the cold war and had sided with the US. Similarly at
various occasions, New Delhi had shown same level of opposition or
resistance to US too.
* Overwhelmed situational response without waiting for international
consensus on any given issue or situation may prove premature for India.
* Future response to American unilateral decisions can be judged
rationally with past experience. India could always try to become
a partner in facing the international challenges than to just plunge
into the American perspectives that lacks Indian sensitivity.
* There should not be short-term objective fulfillment for the sake
of long term vital national interest.
* The principles of collective defence as " one for all or all
for one" should be strengthened.
* India should firmly stand for its faith in International
institutions and norms.
(For comments e-mail: rajeshkrmishra@hotmail.com
)
