|
|
|
|
Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
Reflections: September 11, 2001 and After
Jaswant Singh, Minister for External Affairs of India
I am honoured to be here and particularly grateful to the ICWA, the USI and the IDSA with which I am associated. I am honoured that a series of lectures are being jointly organised. On the First Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Lecture, I am here to share my views.
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru played a pivotal role in the development of modern India’s constitutional and political life. Born in Aligarh, he practised law in Moradabad before moving to Allahabad, then synonymous with intellectual rigour and scholarship. A staunch Congressman, he attended the 1892 session of the Indian National Congress, was a member of the All India Congress Committee, the General Secretary of the Congress Party and also the President of the UP Congress Committee. He was also a member of the UP Legislative Council, and thereafter of the Imperial Legislative Council. The principal milestones of India’s constitutional development and freedom struggle have the stamp of Sir Tej’s distinctive contributions, his brilliant legal acumen and great constitutional ability. Thus, whether it was on the Round Table Conferences or in Cripps Mission or for various attempts at constitutional reforms, concepts of our federal structure, and so many others, Sir Tej was always there as a guiding spirit. In 1918, he parted company with INC on grounds of principles. He became one of the founding members of a party that eventually came to be called The National Liberal Federation of India.
From the perspective of the Ministry of External Affairs, his role in the establishment of the Indian Council of World Affairs, in 1943, and thereafter as its first President till his death in 1949 is of great significance; for it is to this that we owe the name of this building, this is also what lies at the initiation of the Annual Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Lecture.
Permit me to share that soon after Sir Tej’s death, it was Late Pandit Nehru who, above all also, felt that a lasting memorial in his name was necessary. He donated a personal cheque of Rs. 500. That became the seed of a subsequent corpus of funds from which this building, the auditorium, indeed this Sapru House came into existence. There is a moral here, of great relevance to our times. Political differences did not then stand in the way of either personal or mutual esteem or relations.
Sir Tej Bahadur was a staunch, life long advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity and of a united India. He was unable to serve in the Constituent Assembly on grounds of health. In June 1947, with great prescience he wrote in reply to a letter: “I am afraid the division of India is not going to be the end of our trouble. I fear, that may be the beginning of new trouble which may last for a quarter of a century”. These words of great wisdom, then conceived that a quarter century was perhaps far enough. Alas! this ‘trouble’ of which he spoke so presciently has lasted for over half a century now. And that brings me to the heart of my talk today.
Why does September 11 still so dominate our thinking? Why is it the media preoccupation? The horror of visual depiction, the awesome impact of real violence (not feigned or cinematic) in front of our very eyes and all across the globe, most tellingly brought home a sense of vulnerability, personal and collective to most humankind. If it is the US today, then who or what is next to come? For the US, it is a major trauma-in terms of social, political and economic. Land and sea frontiers are secure-so it is also a challenge. This event is a dramatic demonstration of the destructive power of terrorist acts. Terrorism-as an aspect of our current history, also effectively now as an ideology, and also as a tool of the conduct of international affairs, has redefined dimensions of inter-state dynamics in terms that go beyond existing paradigms of geo-politics, of the post-Cold-War determinations, indeed of international affairs, in almost their entirety. There are issues we have not sufficiently addressed.
It dramatically redefines ‘conflict’ through a rejection of all restraints on means. No Geneva Conventions, no Red Cross or Crescent, no restraint about targeting the innocent. On the contrary, terrorism spreads terror by attacking. We have known war, peace and truce. India has lived with clandestine war, proxy war, state-sponsored terrorism, cross-border terrorism-what else not. We have long known how terrorism redefines ‘war’ itself, its concept of ‘truce’ is non-existent, and it has altogether a different concept of what constitutes peace. Earlier causes of mankind’s conflicts: Territorial (boundary) disputes; ideological-the Cold War; conquest, or colonialism which often employed retribution as a justifiable means for initiating violent conflict.
But terrorism accepts none of this; it redefines political geography, for it accepts no boundary; it is an ideology in itself; it conquers and colonises the mind through terror, it has thus redrawn the contours of geo-politics.
I must share the three lists. The first list contains civil society; its certainties (the terror of the random and consequent social uncertainty); it replaces a sense of order with permanent disorder as its principal psychological tool. The peace is the primary casualty of terrorism, and democracy is the next casualty, the individual liberty and free thought follow straight thereafter. Why? Principally, because terrorism converts the strengths of freedom and democracy into its principal weaknesses. An act of terror is not unique to the globalised world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Assassination is as old as recorded history. What is qualitatively different is this new environment in which terrorism is advocated as an acceptable ideology. There are some other significant aspects: First, terrorism is also predicated on exploitation of technology, then of communications, and again of employing the resultant exposure, or the “oxygen of publicity”, as Margaret Thatcher had once so pithily put it. Axiomatically, therefore, terrorism is most effective, as a weapon of aggression and of intimidation, when employed against open societies, with a free and open media, an ingrained and non-negotiable right to freedom of expression. Secondly, terrorism exploits the confidentiality of our modern financial and banking systems. Thirdly, spread of terrorism is facilitated by today’s free movement within and between countries.
These aspects are critical to any terrorist assault. Yet, these are the very elements that are the basic building blocks of democratic societies. How ironic that what a democracy considers to be its most valued and cherished strengths, principles, and pillars, are seen as its weakest tactical links, on and through which a terrorist assault can be mounted most effectively.
Now, I share the second list. It talks about the concept and application of ‘power’-both hard, i.e., compelling power, and, soft that is persuasive powers. Our past perceptions no longer hold good because terrorism questions both the instruments and the established hierarchies of power. Terrorism is redefining ‘power’. It rejects all traditional norms of international order like, ‘balance of power’, ‘spheres of influence’, even of ‘coalition of forces’. It works for establishing the hegemony of terror. Terrorism rejects all established boundaries, treaties, limitations, norms-whether geographic or moral. Despite these anarchic attributes, terrorism is employed as an instrument of state policy. The ultimate peril of adopting this path is, in the early stages, discounted by them on the anvil of convenience, because the tool of terrorism is a low cost option-in the short term, but always desirable in the immediate term.
I have often, by now, repeated the thought that while an individual can declare war on a nation, a nation can simply not declare war on an individual. When I say this I am not making a normative or a moral judgment. This is the objective reality, for terrorist organisations are like cellular structures. They are not like beehives, dependent only on a ‘Queen Bee’. Terrorism is not unlike a tissue, a ‘system’, a ‘Qaida’, each cell of which, in a sense, is self-contained and can reproduce itself in identical forms. As it feeds on anarchy, it could, theoretically, exist at least for sometime without a leader too, and to the extent that we look only for figure-heads, we limit our understanding, our approach and therefore, our capability of confronting a much larger challenge. The central challenge and the task is to deny terrorism a soil in which it can find root, then the nutrients and the protective mechanisms that enable it to thrive.
We are not here dealing with a rational balance of power situation in which the risk of instability comes from that balance being upset, leading to war. An act of terror is not a negotiating instrument. It is a statement, a declaration through an assault, existing in a kind of non-territorial space. If this sounds incredible, let us recall that September 11 was not preceded by any demands which could conceivably be negotiated. This would raise the question of our own experiences. For example, the hijackers of 1C-814 did present demands. Such examples, apparently establishing the contrary, can be multiplied, but as a general proposition my point is that such assaults are not any continuation of “politics by other means” as, for example, a threat of war by one state against another. Terrorist impulse does not interpret politics in terms that democracies do; it aspires to dominate the existing political spectrum by coercion, by any means possible and then re-define politics itself.
Let me revert to what I touched upon briefly earlier. Terrorism derives its power and effectiveness from characteristics that have spread in the last decades of the 20th century. That characteristics is our ‘Four Democratisations’: Of easy access to rapid communications, to technology, to easy travel, and a democratisation of access to weapons of destruction. Without any doubt, addiction to and trade in narcotics has fuelled all these monetarily, through the lubricant of electronic and instantaneous transfer of money. Add to this such demonic innovations as the latest- hijack a civilian aircraft and convert it into an instrument of death by using it as a missile. That is why small groups of individuals, commanding a power of assault far in excess of any political power they can ever aspire to have, first try to destroy order and replace that with terror.
To these elements, a further consideration has to be added: Small unrepresentative groups acquire disproportionate power. Yet, precisely because they remain identifiably small, their disproportionate power of destruction is far less responsive to traditional responses. That is also why, perversely, acts of terror acquire the illusion of being weapons of the ‘have nots’. It is this, coupled with the ‘oxygen of publicity’, that gives terrorism a degree of survivability. And that is why, unless the very roots, the system-the very Qaida-is uprooted from that soil itself in which it was first permitted to function, we only ‘tickle the snake’ not destroy it.
It is here that I must share some thoughts about the Taliban. Taliban was born during the titanic struggle between the US and the former Soviet Union in which the US used the soil of Pakistan. There was a mixture of fundamentalism and extremism. Law and order were seen through altogether different lenses, thus becoming a malevolent, medieval energy which destroyed Bamian Buddhas and was radiating outwards and then taken over by Osama bin Laden. That is why a moderate Taliban is an oxymoron.
What is challenged thereafter, is my third list-I think the concept of terrorism and central relevance of weapon of mass destruction (WMD)-these reflect reality. The concept of deterrence presupposes some rationality if there is none here; on the contrary, terrorism and irrationality are actually synonymous. We have to examine the fundamentals from the Cold War today to the primacy of deterrence of weapons of mass destruction. They have to preserve the international order. Terrorism has also challenged dramatically, after September 11-challenged progress, economic growth and globalisation. We are witnessing not globalisation of economics; indeed witnessing globalisation of terrorism. Also, global order-political, economic and social-is being challenged by concepts of anarchy and that’s why I’ve said, flowering of the individual confronts the ‘colonialism of terror’. Terrorism has no acceptable reaction to injustice, real or imaginary, for terrorism aims, through coercive tools, through injustice to itself, to establish the “tyranny of terror”. An argument is often advanced about freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom can simply not be confused with violence. It is synonymous with stability, with peace and democracy. Even a rudimentary knowledge of modern Indian history would reveal the lofty ideals that guided our freedom struggle.
In such assertions about freedom fighters and terrorists, I see a profound confusion between democratic process or what freedom is, indeed the spirit of democracy and the means of violent terrorist action.
Before I go to the international aspect, let me elaborate it further. Terrorism has no faith. I am sharing views and I quote: “Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilisation in which others, besides Muslims, lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world.” And that’s why I personally view terrorism as anti-religion. It subscribes to no other. In any event, I hold that Islam itself is against terrorism. Terrorism is anti-Islamic. Practised in its name it distorts the very face of Islam. Islam is the voice of God, of Allah the all Compassionate, the all Merciful. This fight against terrorism is the fight of the whole civilised world against an evil, against an abomination. How can terrorism be pursued in the name of Islam, or in the sight of Allah.
The US, a superpower, after September 11, is torn between hegemonism and isolationism and this plank of isolationalism has been snatched away violently perhaps irretrievably. The very nature of the challenge of terrorism mandates a re-examination of the unilateral, as any answer to the challenge between states, is vital for effectively meeting the anarchic cry of global terror. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC)’s view is that the international community has to seriously address both the problem of terrorism and the consequential issue of cooperation against terrorism. India has welcomed this as also the Chinese invitation that both countries need to engage more purposefully and jointly on terrorism. The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) at its extraordinary session in Doha issued a communiqué containing a strong condemnation of the attacks in the US and calling for exemplary punishment on the perpetrators. To my mind global change is as profound and significant as pulling down the Berlin Wall.
Now, some observations on India’s foreign policy. Indian foreign policy has been about national interest and its ability to cope with rapid global transformation. The entire epicentre is getting focussed now on Pakistan and Afghanistan.
India’s foreign policy is global not just a western neighbour policy. Foreign policy is not nostalgia, it is about current realities. That is why it is and can only be a realistic and a balanced policy, based on national interests, with the ability to address challenges thrown up by rapid global transformations. In this particular context, we are witnessing a series of epicentres. The entire attention is getting focused in Afghanistan. J&K is not a cause, it is a consequence, of an attitude of perpetual and compulsive hostility, of proxy war, of terrorism being employed as a tool of state policy. Often, many questions have been asked such as:-
(i) Why did India react so early? I am astonished, how could India react slowly.
(ii) Why support this effort? This is a peculiar situation. On the one hand there is the global terrorism. We have to address it in totality. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the international community and the US. Of course, the US is acting in its own national interest.
(iii) Non-Alignment and Terrorism: Many non-aligned countries are victims of terrorism and of course, we are in touch with South Africa which is currently the Chairman of the NAM.
(iv) US interests are clear on Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden only. India’s fight against terrorism didn’t start in September. We subscribe to a secular, social order of the integrated, aggregated Constitution.
(v) US-Pak equation versus India: If the US, today, for tactical reasons, chooses to have an arrangement with Pakistan in which Pakistan sheds the powers of terrorism and gives it a certain degree of economic and other assistance-good luck to Pakistan. I hope that the people of Pakistan and rulers of Pakistan would not pursue the mistakes of the past.
(vi) India’s US policy undermined? As a member of the Government, I don’t see it as undermined. Do not underestimate the great strengths of India.
There is another reason, we must reflect on-the developments in our region. Energy security is a part of India’s foreign policy. Between the Gulf and the Central Asian Republics, the Gulf accounts for 40 to 45 per cent oil reserves and Central Asia 20 per cent. Here we are talking of conflict development in which more than 50 per cent of the global energy is going to be very much affected.
What about post-conflict Afghanistan? Any country may be subjected to merits-governance, representatives of all sections of the society. It is an error to sectionalise Afghanistan. We must help to restore order, reconstruct physical and social infrastructure of Afghanistan. We will continue to do so for lasting peace. The men, women and children of Afghanistan must be able to lead normal lives and must have facilities of today’s world-education, medicine, transport, reasonable conditions of living.
So, let me conclude. The soundest strategy that we can pursue today consists of perseverance, of patience, of resolve and will, of reinvigorating the moral culture of the free world and be clear about the true nature of the challenge of terrorism that the civilised world faces.