October 2001
(Last Updated, Nov 2002)
The following article first appeared on our website soon after the US began it's military campaign against the Taliban. At that time, (Oct, 2001) we had argued against any Indian support for the US war against Afghanistan. However, our article did not delve into US motivations for the war, neither did we provide enough background on the extensive links the US government has had with Islamic fundamentalist groups.
(See US/Western links to Islamic Fundamentalism)
Several Peace Groups have speculated (with good reason) that the US was driven by oil interests in the Caspian Basin. However, other analysts believe that the primary motive was geo-strategic - i.e. to establish military bases in Central Asia so that Russia's influence in the region could be countered:
See: The Empire isn't in Afghanistan for the Oil (by Jared Israel)
Jared Israel also cites reports on how the US not only did not destroy the Taliban during it's bombing of Afghanistan, it actively recruited several Taliban fighters into Afghanistan's new army (from a Jan 18, 2002, Chandigarh Tribune story). He also cites a New York Times story that suggests that the Afghan Taliban Camps Were Built by NATO; and an article by Shamsul Islam: The creation called Osama (first published in the Hindu).
For India, the implications ought to be self-evident. Washington has used Islamic fundamentalists in it's battle for world dominance before, and may continue to do so in the future. Not only has Pakistan been a keen and close ally in this power-play in the past, recent arms sales to Pakistan by the US suggest that its importance and utility for Washington has not diminished.
Indians who expected "assistance" from the US in combating Pakistan's machinations against India were clearly wrong in their assumptions, and as per Jared Israel's analysis, it should come as no surprise that after the supposed "defeat" of the Taliban in Afghanistan, cross-border terrorism against India has increased, not reduced.
In developing his report, Jared Israel cites several stories showing the close relationship between the US and Pakistan's ISI. One of the stories he refers to is the following:
Washington's
Pakistani Allies: Killers and Drug Dealers
By Rahul Bedi in New Delhi
Taken altogether, these reports show that notwithstanding the public rhetoric, the US ought not to be trusted by any Indian government. It's agenda of world domination bodes ill for India, and it is more than likely that Pakistan's sponsorship of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and cross-border firings against India have tacit US approval, and perhaps, even active encouragement.
The Crisis in Afghanistan
A decade of horror, a new war, and the Indian response
(Oct 2001)
As the US has begun the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, calmer voices might wish to step back from the initial war-hysteria and consider the events of the last decade that have led to the virtual destruction of this impoverished nation.
Perhaps no nation has suffered more anguish and horror in this last decade than has this nation of less than 25 million people, where literacy remains below 30%, and where hunger and homelessness stalk a majority of the population displaced by an unending civil war. By some estimates, as much as one quarter of the Afghan population may be living in refugee camps outside it's borders. A victim of vicious anti-communist baiting through the 1980s, Afghanistan became a cynical tool of US foreign policy. As a frontline state in the US war against the former Soviet Union, it attracted a variety of mercenaries bought and paid for by the CIA and it's many allies amongst the puppet states of the Arabian peninsula. A combination of virulent anti-communism, and Islamic opportunism brought together royalists and "Jehadi" fighters from throughout the Arab and Islamic world under the leadership of CIA operatives and the Pakistani secret services (ISI) and military.
After the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the disintegration of the Soviet Union that soon followed, Afghanistan was plunged into an internecine civil war in which different Islamic factions promoted by the US Pentagon and the CIA competed for supremacy, completely destroying what little industrial, educational and urban infrastructure that had been built during the years of Soviet collaboration. Factions that had once followed US cues turned against the US after the launching of the Gulf War against Iraq. Anti-communism and Islamic "Jehad" that had been the glue that held together a variety of Mujahaddeen factions collapsed under the weight of ideological contradictions, Shia/Sunni/Wahabi rivalries, and linguistic and ethnic differences.
In the midst of this turmoil rose the Taalibaan, aided and abetted by the Pakistani military , the Pakistan ISI, and sections of the Islamic clerical elite - (both in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East) who wished to see a faction emerge that would be friendly to Pakistani interests, as well as to Saudi and Gulf Arab interests. All of this occurred with US support and encouragement. Consistent with the Taliban's vision of society, Afghanistan was run on the basis of Wahabi-like Islamic "purity" under which women and children were enslaved under a patriarchal whip that would brook no dissent nor democratic disagreement on any basis - social, religious or political. Women were to be denied virtually all means to survive independently of men - schools were shut down, women were fired from their jobs, prevented from leaving their homes without male family members as escorts, and forced to cover themselves from head-to-toe. For many women who were widowed, or were single and had lost all their male family members in the civil wars, prostitution became the only survival option, something the regime quietly ignored even as it ranted on about Islamic morality and ethics.
With it's open calls for spreading Islamic Jehad into the neighboring secular Republics of formerly Soviet Central Asia, Russia and India, the Taliban came to be seen as a political threat in the region, and was viewed with deep fear and suspicion by most of it's neighbors including Iran who was upset by the mistreatment of Afghanistan's Shia population. As Afghans in the North resisted the ascendance of the Taliban, the civil war continued. For the people of Afghanistan, there was simply no escape from the terror of war and Islamic fundamentalism as Pakistan prevented more refugees from taking shelter on it's soil. At the same time, Afghanistan developed as a refuge for Islamic radicals who were becoming increasingly alienated from the practices of US imperialism in the Middle East, particularly drawing disaffected Saudi citizens such as Osama Bin Laden who were outraged by the permanent presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Thus even as the Taalibaan government's internal policies became increasingly more undemocratic and intolerant, Afghanistan came to be viewed as something of a Mecca for radical Muslims elsewhere in the world. This is the background to the present crisis in which the specter of more violence and destruction looms large.
Unsurprisingly, the US has been less than circumspect in evaluating it's own role and responsibility in the present crisis. As the US engages in an all-out war against the Taalibaan with the involvement of the Pakistani military and the ISI, one might wonder if that will truly facilitate in realizing the stated goal of destroying "terrorism". The majority of Osama Bin Laden's followers are not Afghans but Muslims scattered throughout the world. According to the US's own intelligence, the money trail for the groups supposedly operating in Afghanistan actually leads to Pakistan. Given Afghanistan's thoroughly impoverished situation where most cities lack even reliable phone connections, it would have been almost impossible for any group in Afghanistan to organize and operate without tacit logistical and other support from elements in the Pakistani military or the ISI. The alacrity with which the US chose to coordinate it's future actions with the Pakistani military and secret services must raise suspicions about the actual agenda of the US, and whether the US government is sharing the whole truth with the rest of the world about it's stated intentions.
(For instance, Mumtaz Khan (who heads the United Kashmir Peoples' Party in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, issued a statement which was reported in the Deccan Herald, Sep 28): “The Taliban are a creation of madrasas of Pakistan and it is the ISI which enthroned them in Kabul.” adding that "fundamentalist groups of Pakistan were running training camps, promoting religious hatred and delivering threats to kill non-Muslims.”
“If Washington is serious to address the issue, it should ask the military regime to dismantle the fundamentalist network first in Pakistan because terrorism is nourished and promoted in these religious madrasas in the guise of Islam,” )
Even assuming a degree of transparency concerning the stated US agenda, it is hardly clear if it will be easily achieved. Even if some particular cells were destroyed in Afghanistan, it is unlikely to affect the world-wide movement which would survive by shifting elsewhere, even if Afghanistan were occupied by US troops.
As ought to be evident to any neutral follower of US policy throughout the world, terrorist acts against the US are often triggered by deep disaffection with US military presence or US military actions in nations throughout the world.
Stephen Moss, writing for the Guardian (October 10) interviewed Mohamed Heikal, former foreign minister of Egypt, who explained that the reasons for popular loathing of the US are easy to pinpoint - the Americans' "blind" support for Israel and their backing for illegitimate, discredited regimes across the Middle East. He castigates every government in the region, including his own, and blames the US for propping them up. "The people did not choose these governments and in any free election none of them would succeed. They are not legitimate governments; they do not represent anything other than power."
"The US supports the status quo whatever it is. They talk about democracy and then ignore it; they talk about the UN and ignore it; in every way you can accuse them of double standards. It is revolting to see them talking about democracy and then supporting undemocratic regimes. They talk about international legitimacy and then support what the Israelis are doing."
His solution is a Palestinian state and "an Israel for all its citizens", where the million Arabs are not second-class citizens. "The most important thing is to get religion out," he says. "You are talking to me about a Muslim state, yet you are not discussing a Jewish state - a state built on religion. That cannot be. Religion can be no basis for a state."
More bombing will hardly reduce such alienation and hatred. It may instead trigger a new wave of reprisals however much the US establishment thinks it may control such acts by putting pressure on different governments or employing superior technology and more advanced weapons of war.
Besides, "terrorism" is a very subjective word. For a decade and more, India has been subject to terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistan's military dictators. In fact, the very creation of Pakistan (under the auspices of the outgoing British colonial administration) took place under a campaign of unimaginable terror that virtually emptied Pakistan of it's entire Hindu and Sikh populations. Regardless of how media spin-doctors in Pakistan and the West describe things, the Pakistan military, with tacit support from the political and clerical establishment, has been the chief instigator of repeated terrorist attacks in India. While occasionally paying lip sympathy to India's concerns about this, the US has either turned a blind eye, or covertly encouraged Pakistan's military leaders to continue with their policies of destabilizing India.
In Yugoslavia, the Western world provided ideological cover and military protection to Islamic terrorists hostile to the democratically elected secular government of the small European nation. There thus remains a strong strain of duplicity in all Western discussions about "terrorism". There is also little acknowledgement of the death and destruction that has resulted from West's own interventions in these past decades. For the victims of US and NATO bombing of Iraq, or Yugoslavia, or any number of other nations, it is the US and the other former colonial powers who might appear as the bigger terrorists. For the US and it's allies to demand sympathy and tangible support for the "fight against terrorism" without reciprocating in kind - without taking concrete steps that might stop and prevent terrorist actions against other nations that have long suffered from terrorist acts of violence suggests that such calls are more about narrow self-interest than about broadly applicable principles.
For that reason, it was a major miscalculation, and gross blunder on the part of the BJP leadership in rushing to endorse any US military venture, and unconditionally offer India's help in such a US effort. For several years, influential sections of the BJP and the RSS have harbored illusions that the US and India are "natural" allies. Although there has been a decided shift in the tone and tenor of US rhetoric vis-a-vis India - the US alliance with Pakistan remains essentially intact, and India has received virtually nothing concrete in return for the many concessions the BJP leadership has made to the US government.
It may be useful to recall how the young Gandhi assiduously campaigned for British war efforts prior to World War I. Gandhi harbored illusions that collaborating with British War efforts would yield dividends for the Indian national movement. Needless to say, nothing of the sort happened. The British made no concessions to India after the war was concluded, and instead responded with new and more oppressive measures to squelch and divide the national movement. The Indian freedom movement was unnecessarily set back by over a decade on account of Gandhi's quisling behavior.
The BJP-led government's attempts to woo the US with unnecessary concessions are similarly doomed to failure. Contrary to the hopes of many in the BJP, the VHP or the RSS - the US is extremely unlikely to come to India's assistance on Kashmir, or make any serious attempts at reining in Pakistani belligerence towards India. Commentaries in the Stratfor Intelligence Reports instead have indicated that US-Pakistani relations are likely to be strengthened in the coming months. A report in the Deccan Herald spoke of US support for Pakistan's Kashmir agenda as quid-pro-quo for it's aid in fighting the Taalibaan.
It is thus increasingly apparent that the BJP leadership (for all it's vows to inculcate national pride and promote India's interests in the world) is simply incapable of distinguishing between India's national interests and US interests. Egged on by pro-American NRIs, the pro-Western English language press and media, and spokespersons for the leading Chambers of Commerce, the BJP leadereship speaks more for the Indian diaspora and an isolated elite who wish to turn India into a lackey for imperial interests than for the genuine aspirations of the Indian masses.
The Indian opposition has rightly criticized the BJP on this aspect, and for the time being, restrained the BJP's reckless disregard for long-term Indian national interests. Leaders of the Left parties and the Samajwadi party called on the NDA government to desist from allowing the use of Indian airspace or ground support in the event of the US launching military strikes on Afghanistan. Concerns were expressed about how extending logistic support to the US would amount to compromising India's national sovereignty. Even Senior Congress leaders voiced caution. Speakers at a recent debate in New Delhi on 'Terrorist Attacks on New York: An International Challenge', organized by the Capital Foundation Society, echoed similar concerns, and emphasized that Indian interests did not coincide with those of the US. (Times of India, Sep 17. 2001)
When the BJP leadership endorsed the US position, there had been no shift on the part of the Pakistani military establishment with regard to it's unmitigated hostility towards India. It's secret service agencies (who were amongst the primary backers of the Taalibaan) continued to plot new and ever-more daring terrorist attacks within India. The Pakistani media which has been singularly weak in espousing the rights of the oppressed within Pakistan remains a shrill supporter of an Islamic Jehad in Kashmir, and continues to engage in vicious anti-India baiting. Although now there may be indications that the US has prevailed on some of these elements to change their attitude or behavior towards India, this is in all likelihood nothing more than a temporary retreat.
For the situation to improve in the long run, there will have to be a serious questioning of the two-nation theory that created Pakistan in the first place, both within Pakistan, and in the West. In private, many Western analysts admit that Pakistan is essentially a "failed" state, that can only be held together by a very virulent brand of Islam that has so far directed it's fire on India. But a few are beginning to realize that it is not always possible to control the direction of such an "Islamic" Jehad. Just as it changed course in Afghanistan, it can also just as easily change course in Pakistan.
For five decades, the Western world has relied on unpopular and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and in Pakistan to further their foreign policy objectives. Support for all manner of undemocratic Islamic factions has often been part and parcel of this policy. But now, it appears that this deadly cocktail could be spilling out of control. Contrary to US claims, the recent US bombings are unlikely to usher an era of any lasting peace or "stability" in Afghanistan. US insistence on unrestrained military actions may instead, result in new and more dangerous conflagrations in the future.
For India, it is exceedingly important to remain extremely cautious and vigilant in such a situation. While Indian frustrations with Pakistani promoted terrorism are genuine and understandable, the answer is not to get sucked into a vortex of blind passion, and label all Islamic groupings and factions as enemies of India. That would only needlessly compound India's problems. India needs to instead engage more directly with friendly Islamic nations, better educate them on the Kashmir issue, seek their assistance in controlling Pakistan's acts of terror against India, and offer India's support in resolving issues of importance to them . The Indian government must draw very sharp distinctions between Islamists who have genuine grievances against US foreign policy and the terrorists sponsored by the Pakistani elite.
Rather than grovel before the US for help it is unlikely to give, Indians must realize that US actions are rarely driven by loyalty to principle or any genuine commitment to friendship with any nation. Even if pressing circumstances compel the US to pressure the Pakistani military leadership in exercising a modicum of restraint at the present time, there are no guarantees of future changes in US policy. Rather than subjugate India to the changing whims of US foreign policy, the Indian government must demonstrate much greater independence and resolve in dealing with cross-border terrorism. It should also attempt to speak more directly to the Pakistani people who are clearly as much victims of their governing elites as are the victims of Pakistan-sponsored terror in India.
While the Indian government needs to exercise the greatest wisdom and restraint in endorsing any US war maneuvers that will cause further hardships for the Afghan people, it would also behoove Muslims all over the world to be less sectarian and less hostile towards secular India, and to be more understanding of the necessity for multi-ethnic and multi-religious Kashmir to remain united with India in a democratic framework and in a spirit of secular tolerance.
For all it's flaws, India continues to promise greater democratic freedom and options for participation in democratic struggles as compared to nations where religion has become fused with an authoritarian state. It is in the interests of all nations in the Middle East and the South Asian region to put aside religious allegiances and instead envision and promote an era of mutual assistance and cooperation in an atmosphere that is free from war, religious baiting and neo-colonial manipulation and domination.
Excerpts from a commentary in the Free Press Journal by Sumer Kaul:
"In fact, our government has chosen to be more loyal than the king. Look at its instant and enormous reaction to the terrorist strike in America: crime against humanity, against democracy, against civilization - this and much else that has never come forth throughout the two decades of such crimes against our own country. No Indian prime minister has ever gone on the air when massacres took place in Punjab and Kashmir. But the bombings in America prompted Vajpayee to do so, and ask the nation to observe two minutes silence in the memory of the estimated, 5,000 victims. Tens of thousands of Indians -53,000 according to the prime minister -have died at the hands of terrorists in India, and the number is rising by the day. Has there ever been an officially-sponsored two minutes silence for them?...."
"This is one side of the government's pro-West sycophancy. The other is even worse: total and unconditional support to whatever the Americans do or don't do in retaliation."
Speaking of US moves to seek Pakistani help and cooperation, Sumer Kaul goes on to say: "And look whose "cooperation" they want - a country which is the principal hub of transnational terrorism. Instead of seeing Pakistan as part of the problem, indeed as the heart of the problem, they have asked for its support, and apparently got it- but not readily and not unconditionally."
"In all our recent foreign policy blunders, particularly in regard to Pakistan and Kashmir, the guiding force has been the decision at the highest levels to knowtow to the US with eyes wide shut, with disastrous results that are too obvious to need any laboring. But we persist in this one-sided love affair."
"India to help if US strikes" screamed a banner headline in a premier Indian daily, obviously conveying New Delhi's resolve. The absurdity of this unilateral and so far unsolicited declaration becomes even more obvious if one realizes that throughout the 20 years of Pakistan's terrorist depredations in India, never have we seen in any American paper an officially-sponsored headline saying that "the US will help if India strikes"- or an American president proclaiming that the people of USA are with the people of India.."
From a commentary by Michael Beeman (specialist on Middle East culture at Brown University) expressing reservations and concern over US policy, (published in the Baltimore Sun, Sep 16, 2001):
"Above all, Americans need to remember that the rest of the world has an absolute right to self-determination that is as defensible as our own."
"If we perpetuate a cycle of hate and revenge, this conflict will escalate into a war that our great-grandchildren will be fighting."
Related Articles:
Cheap Labor, Oil and War in the Middle East
Jammu & Kashmir: Self-Determination and Secession
"Calling for Western intervention to combat these terrorists is like saying you should fight fire with petrol. It was Western meddling that created a world in which such terrorism can flourish. Those who want to see an end to terror, and some peace in the third world, would do well to start by opposing Western intervention - in all its guises." - Brendan O-Neill in Spiked Magazine
Back to South Asian Voice (Front Page)
For selections on the history of the Indian sub-continent visit South Asian History
See for instance: The Colonial Legacy
Key Landmarks in the Indian Freedom Struggle
The 2-Nation Theory and Partition
If you liked our site, please click here: - perhaps you can help us expand our reach.