Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > Fighting Terror and Eliminating Corruption

Mainstream, VOL XLIX No 32, July 30, 2011

Fighting Terror and Eliminating Corruption

Editorial

Monday 1 August 2011, by SC

#socialtags

As Norway and the entire Europe come to terms with 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik’s senseless act of killing as many as 76 persons (not 93 as originally estimated)—68 gunned down by himself on Utoeya island and nine from the bombing in Oslo—on July 22, in his first comment on the brutal massacre Breivik is learnt to have asserted, through his lawyer, that his attacks were “atrocious but necessary” to defeat the liberal immigration policies of his country and spread of Islam. In the meantime his manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, has come to light. This only shows that he was not just psycopath but had a political ideology, agenda and plan that he was pursuing tenaciously since long. This has valuable lessons for India, given Breivik’s laudatory references to the Hindutva outfits seeking to rebuff Islamist terror with counter-terror, something that has deeply embarassed the Hindu Right (even as one of its representatives has gone on record decrying the Norwegian’s methods while backing his ideals).

While on the issue of terrorism, it must be pointed out that the subject of terror strikes has been highlighted time and again by India in international fora and especially in its dealings with Pakistan which has for quite sometime resorted to cross-border terrorism but has no hesitation to downplay the problem of terror in public. This time, however, there was a pleasant surprise in store for South Block: the first substantive India-Pakistan talks at the Foreign Ministers’ level since 2008 in New Delhi on July 27 witnessed the Pakistan side fully agreeing with the Indian contention that terrorism posed a continuing threat to regional peace and security; both External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and the new Pakistan Foreign Minister, the young and articulate Hina Rabbani Khar, reaffirmed the “firm and undiluted commitment of the two countries to fight and eliminate this scourge in all its forms and manifestations”. It was also important to find both sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation in counter-terrorism, including among relevant departments as well as agencies, to bring those responsible for terror acts to justice.

The Joint Statement issued after the meeting (at which Krishna had once again stressed the need to bring the 26/11 guilty to book) stated that the Ministers “reviewed the status of bilateral relations and expressed satisfaction on the holding of meetings on the issue of counter-terrorism (including progress on the 26/11 Mumbai trial) and narcotics control”. However, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao subsequently clarified that the Ministers were satisfied with the holding of meetings on the subject but that did not imply India’s satisfaction over the progress in the trial.

It is further significant that Krishna strongly took up the question of LeT founder Hafiz Saeed’s public attacks on India as well as the Pakistan Foreign Minister’s meeting with the Hurriyat leaders even before the formal start of official talks in the Indian capital. Interestingly, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, who had taken an exceptionally rigid stand on terrorism, 26/11 and Kashmir in his previous discussions with the Indian side as also during media interactions outside the talks, took a far more persuasive stance this time. First, Bashir tried to explain that an individual’s views could not be equated with those of the state and insisted that Islamabad did not encourage anti-India propaganda. On Khar’s meeting with the Hurriyat leaders, he just said it did not overshadow the talks. On the lack of progress in the Mumbai investigation his emphasis was on things moving forward unobtrusively—“a lot has happened that is not on the surface or is not being seen”. He further added: “This (counter-terrorism) is a matter of interest not only to India but also to Pakistan. It is certainly Pakistan’s intention to cooperate with India on all such issues.”

What is more noteworthy, though Kashmir figured in the Joint Statement, the word was not spelt out explicitly in both Khar and Bashir’s public pronouncements.

The talks have led to substantive results as well. Concrete measures have been taken to enhance cross-LoC trade and travel. But as has been pointed out in some sections of the media, Khar’s specific mention of a mindset change for the better in Pakistan on Indo-Pak relations and the necessity to evolve a win-win scenario has been the most striking outcome of these talks. This can be interpreted in various ways as a response to the deteriorating ties of Islamabad with Washington in the wake of the US strike at Abbottabad and ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai’s detention in the US regardless of the nature and extent of this development. But such analyses apart, the very fact of the shift in Islamabad’s attitude is of considerable value (even if New Delhi should not be fully taken in by such rhetoric given past experience, especially the Kargil intrusion having been exposed soon after the huge success of A.B. Vajpayee’s Lahore yatra in 1999).

Meanwhile, the most dramatic event of the last few days has been the BJP’s national leadership eventually forcing a highly reluctant B.S. Yeddyurappa to step down from the post of the Karnataka CM (according to latest reports, he has conveyed this to the party President but will formally tender his resignation from office on July 31; however as of now it is unclear how far the party’s national leadership has agreed to accept the conditions set by the CM for quitting) following his direct indictment by the State Lokayukta for the way he and his family allegedly enormously benefited in monetary terms from illegal mining in Karnataka at the cost of the State exchequer. This is indeed a victory for all those fighting corruption in high places.

At the same time the decision of the Union Cabinet to give its seal of approval to the draft Lokpal Bill prepared by the government representatives in the joint drafting panel making short shrift of the civil society members’ eminently valuable proposals is a genuine setback for the campaign to give shape to an effective anti-corruption law and will come as a huge disappointment for the public at large leaving them with no other option but to wage yet another concerted struggle against the feet-dragging tactics of the government betraying its lack of seriousness in the whole exercise.

July 28 S.C.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.