ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Omagh and Osama: faces of terror

Among the recent incidents of terrorism and counter-terrorism, I am most struck by the contrast between the stories of Omagh, Northern Ireland and of Osama bin Laden. Despite the rather fearful symmetry of the names, I am fascinated by the fact that the Omagh story sank without a trace: it is a sign of the marginalisation of the British. Osama, of course, retains centrestage. No wonder -- he dared to oppose American interests.

A hitherto unknown outfit known as the "Real IRA" claimed responsibility for the massacre of 28 Irish people in British-occupied (Northern) Ireland. Incidentally, Indian maps should show this area explicitly as a disputed territory (which it is) and not part of the United Kingdom, to return the favour of the BBC as regards Jammu and Kashmir. By the way, did you know that the "Indian subcontinent" has become the "Asian subcontinent" per the BBC?

The Irish "problem" has been dogging the Brits for years, and I doubt if it is going to go away soon -- Irish nationalism, aroused by centuries of British cruelty, is a formidable force; they still remember the potato famine and other humiliations. I think India should offer its good offices as a mediator in this struggle.

India should thank Britain for its previous offers to mediate between India and Pakistan; and put in a serious proposal to mediate between the separatist Irish Catholics and the British authorities. India, of course, has rather a lot of experience dealing with separatists.

Such a proposal will have two interesting consequences -- it will certainly irritate the Brits, which is entertaining in and of itself: take that, Robin Cook, for meddling in Jammu and Kashmir! More importantly, it will emphasise that the British have come down in the world. They are more or less Third Worlders -- despite their delusions of grandeur, they no longer count. (I cannot help indulging in a little schadenfreude, unholy glee at others' misfortune.)

And that is precisely what the sinking-without-a-trace of the Omagh story shows. Despite the BBC's best efforts to keep it alive, Omagh rapidly receded to page 14. It is evident that nobody really cares about deaths in British-occupied Ireland. This reminds me of nothing more than the way atrocities in Jammu and Kashmir get absolutely no coverage. After all, hundreds of dead Hindus don't matter. Similarly, 28 dead Irish/British don't matter, it appears.

In contrast, 14 dead Americans do matter. That, if I am not mistaken, is the toll taken by the explosions near the American embassies in Africa. Of course, several hundred Africans died too, but that goes unremarked. The Indian media should learn this sort of myopia from Yanks -- they should only pay attention to the deaths of Indians; others are of no consequence.

The imperial omphalos -- navel-gazing -- of the US media would be entertaining if it weren't so pathetic, and indeed, dangerous. I remember an old headline in a local American paper: "Local man found drunk in ditch", while "Soviets invade Afghanistan" was a small item way down on the page.

Osama bin Laden gains star quality as he has suddenly become Public Enemy Number One to the Americans. As we have seen before, America manufactures "enemies" at the drop of a hat: Panama's Manuel Noriega; Iraq's Saddam Hussein, et al, who, the gullible public is made to believe, is all of a sudden the worst criminal in history after having been the US' best pal for years.

The enemy du jour is, of course, Osama bin Laden. Naturally, nobody remembers the awkward fact that he was encouraged by the Yanks during the 1980s. Wahabi fundamentalists like him have been supported by Saudi Arabia, the US, the ISI of Pakistan and the Taliban. The latter consists largely of Pakistani armymen -- no "Islamic student" is likely to be proficient at driving tanks and flying F-16s.

Journalists have analysed to death the motives and the aspirations of bin Laden and his band of terrorist Sudanese, Egyptians, Afghans, Saudis, and Pakistanis. It is pretty simple, in my opinion -- bin Laden is an uncompromising Islamist, and he is fighting the Crusades all over again, with the Americans leading the Christian charge and he himself in the role of Suleiman the Magnificent or Saladin or some other Islamic hero of yore.

In particular, bin Laden views the three primary holy sites of Islam -- the mosques at Mecca and Medina and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem -- as being "polluted" by the presence of Americans (in Saudi Arabia) and their proxy, the Israelis, in Jerusalem. He may be able to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia -- he's clearly counting on the body bag syndrome; but it is rather unlikely that the Israelis will vacate Jerusalem any time soon.

Someone writing in the Financial Times suggested that bin Laden and friends are descendants of the medieval Assassins (from hash-hash-in, Arabic, literally hashish addicts, Muslims who killed Christian Crusaders). Perhaps they are also like the Thugs of India two centuries ago -- who misused religion to further their mercenary aims.

America can perhaps anticipate a season of terror from bin Laden and company. All things considered, America is a very open society, and so it will not be difficult for a committed terrorist to strike at sensitive civilian targets in the US. This could be the beginning of the infamous clash of civilisations between Christians and Muslims.

I feel bad that Americans will have to deal with constraints on their freedoms; but on the other hand, I just read about Thomas Pickering's statement -- he's a senior US state department official -- proclaiming that while Americans reserved the right to strike terrorists wherever and whenever, India should not follow a policy of hot pursuit into Pakistani-occupied Kashmir! The chutzpah of it!

India, as I keep repeating ad infinitum, should take American hypocrisy lightly. If the Yanks can be made use of, then they should be; otherwise, India should ignore their pronouncements. India should do whatever is necessary to protect her own interests; expediency is better than misplaced morals.

Thus, India is right in keeping quiet about the violation of the sovereignty of Afghanistan or Sudan through US missile attacks -- let the Taliban worry about it; India is, thankfully, no longer the shrill, hectoring voice of the Third World.

It so happens that at the moment, American interest in counter-terrorism coincides with India's. Therefore, a rather diffident two cheers for America's war du jour on terrorism! With the full knowledge that Yank policy has in the past nurtured those very terrorists, and will quite likely do so in the future too: after all, they have their eye on Central Asia's oil and gas, hence their support of both Pakistan's ISI and the Taliban.

I was very amused by one little incident, though. When India tested its nukes in May, Yanks pouted that India didn't give them advance notice. The US did give Pakistan notice of the impending attack on bin Laden. Whereupon the Pakistanis told bin Laden, and so he vanished! I guess that's why covert operations are kept secret. That's why India didn't tell the US about the nukes.

How Readers responded to Rajeev Srinivasan's recent columns

Rajeev Srinivasan