| July 18, 2002 | Thursday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 7, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Terrorism: India’s old refrain
Varsities’ research role
THE prospect of America attacking Iraq is becoming ominously real. Suddenly, the world has started hearing things it had never heard before. A new list of charges against Iraq is being bandied about, and these include harbouring terrorists. There are inspired leaks in the American press suggesting links between Baghdad and Al Qaeda and that the Saddam regime had armed and provided training to Al Qaeda men. In spite of Sept 11, one had never heard such allegations before. These gripes are in addition to the repetitive allegations that Baghdad has been violating the relevant UN resolution and been secretly engaged in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. The intensity of the charge is evident from what Jack Straw said in Beijing on Tuesday. The British foreign secretary called Iraq an international “cheat” which deserved to be punished. Simultaneously, in Washington US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disclosed that he had ordered updating all US war plans, including a possible invasion of Iraq.
When the invasion will take place is hard to predict. Reports in the western media suggest that President Bush could time it with the presidential election to be able to win a second term. However, other reports doubt if the invasion will be delayed that long and that one can expect a military strike much earlier. In any case, timing apart, an invasion of Iraq is full of horrible consequences for the region and could well open a Pandora’s box. To begin with, none of America’s Arab allies approves of a US invasion to oust President Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia is warming up to Iraq, while both Kuwait and Jordan have made it clear that they will not allow the US to use their countries as staging posts for such an attack. Turkey is in a crisis, and it is doubtful if the weakened Ecevit government would risk siding with the Americans on an adventure against Iraq.
Besides, what America and Britain must worry about is the post-Saddam scenario. Saddam may be toppled, but it is what happens then that is mind-boggling. A collapse of the Saddam regime will turn the Kurd-majority north into an independent state. Such a state will be a source of trouble for Turkey and Iran where Kurdish minorities would want to join with the Iraqi Kurdish state. Both Iran and Turkey will obviously resist such a move, and this may prove destabilizing for both. A similar situation could take place in the Shia-majority south, thus fragmenting Iraq with its oil wealth. The prospects of such a fragmentation are too horrifying to contemplate.
That Saddam’s is a repressive regime goes without saying. But ultimately it should be left to the Iraqi people and the dissidents in and outside Iraq to decide the fate of that regime. The US-led UN sanctions have not helped matters; instead, the death of half a million Iraqi children from lack of medicines and nutrition has aroused utter hatred among the Iraqi people against America. This only helps Saddam and in no way serves the cause of the global war against terrorism. Instead, there is all the danger that an American invasion may split the US-led world coalition, alienate America’s Arab and Muslim allies and create a wave of anti-American militancy. This will hardly serve Washington’s long-term geopolitical interests in a sensitive and oil-rich region such as the Middle East.
FOLLOWING New Delhi’s uncharacteristically restrained initial reaction to the massacre of 28 Hindus in Jammu on Saturday, the Indians were back to their old tricks during Tuesday’s parliamentary debate on the issue. Under intense attack from the opposition for failing to control terrorism in Kashmir, government spokesmen fell back on the same old tactic of blaming Pakistan for the Jammu bloodbath. From Defence Minister George Fernandes to Deputy Prime Minister L.K Advani, government spokesmen blamed Pakistan for the attack and accused it of not doing enough to halt ‘cross border terrorism’. The opposition, however, was not impressed with this standard response. One Congress MP expressed his disgust at the old refrain by pointedly asking ministers: “Simply by blaming Pakistan are you going to solve the problem?” The tendency to see a Pakistani hand behind every act of violence in India has been an unfortunate feature of New Delhi’s policy. This has sometimes created serious embarrassment for the authorities as in the case of the mysterious killing of 35 Sikhs in Kashmir during President Clinton’s visit to the region two years ago. New evidence has come to light suggesting that the five men killed by Indian security forces following the massacre and accused of being ‘foreign militants’ were in fact innocent local villagers.
Once again a massacre has taken place on the eve of visits to the region by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In stark contrast to India’s rhetorical overkill, Pakistan has not blamed India for the devastating terrorist attacks on its soil in recent months. It has acted with restraint and maturity and desisted from playing a tit for tat game of political point-scoring. What India needs to understand is that Pakistan too is a target of terrorism and is highly vulnerable, specially given its crucial role in the US-led coalition against terror. Whoever carried out the gruesome killings in Jammu obviously sought to sabotage all efforts for peace between India and Pakistan and push them closer to war. By engaging in anti-Pakistan rhetoric each time a terrorist attack takes place, New Delhi can only strengthen the hands of extremists who wish to see the subcontinent remain mired in tension and turmoil.
GIVING his wish list to the province’s public sector universities’ vice-chancellors, the Sindh governor has said the higher institutions should offer practical solutions to contemporary problems. He said the universities, through their academic excellence, should be able to provide guidance to the government on policy formulation in key areas instead of simply churning out graduates looking for lucrative jobs. Obviously, given the outmoded syllabus our universities prescribe putting a premium on learning by rote instead of encouraging debate and research, this is easier said than done.
There can be no two opinions about the need to reform the country’s education system as a whole. But while that goal may require years and enormous financial resources and efforts to be fully realized, introducing educational reforms at the university level may not be that difficult as there are only a limited number of such institutions in the country. The governor was right in demanding of the VCs that the universities should help the government with the needed input for making public policy. Yet, no VC can turn around any one of the universities on his own in response to the governor’s request. The government itself will have to have a hand in the matter of reform and reorientation. Only then can they become meaningful seats of higher learning and be able to offer practical solutions to contemporary issues.