NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Principal principles

I committed a major boo-boo last week which was promptly pointed out by readers: "Since 1989, when militancy took a giant leap forward after I K Gujral's government yielded to the kidnappers of Rubaiya Sayeed (and which is bound to take another quantum leap after Masood's release by the equally spineless Vajpayee government)..." Yes, of course, not I K Gujral's government but V P Singh's. Not that there was much difference between the two, but a blooper's a blooper. However, Raj had something to add that made me feel less of a dork: "V, you know it was V P Singh's government, but did you know that the troika that took the decision was Arun Nehru, I K Gujral and Arif Mohammad Khan?" Such a nice guy...

Another correction, this time from the Indian army: In The wages they pay I had quoted Rahul Bedi, who, in his article in The Asian Age, had given the ratio of security personnel killed to the number of militants killed in counter-insurgency operations as: 1:6 in 1997; 1:4 in 1998; and 1:2 in 1999. The accurate figures are: 1:5.81 in 1997; 1:6.19 in 1998; and 1:4.67 in 1999. The good news is, this month, for every soldier killed, 8.2 militants were erased...

Next, reader Gautam had objections to my slamming the Vajpayee government: "I fail to understand why the Indian media is criticizing the government's handling of the hijacking. What could the government do? It had to release them. We made the biggest blunder of allowing the aircraft to leave Amritsar, but once it took off there was really nothing we could do. We cannot put the lives of so many Indians in jeopardy just because of our security lapses. I'm really interested in knowing why you think the way you do about this topic." These thoughts were echoed in the mail from many die-hard BJP supporters, who, of course, could be neither as polite nor reasonable.

Hmmm... I haven't yet elucidated why I've gone ballistic over the release of the terrorists, have I? Ok, here goes, and thanks for helping me keep the issue alive. Thing is, I instinctively recoil from succumbing to pressure, to the point that I happily cut off my nose to spite my face. And blackmail -- just forget it. However, the hijacking episode and the subsequent release of Masood Azhar is not about me and my characteristics. It is about the country. I agree that a government cannot afford to be inflexible or rash; that politics demands compromise; that governments sometimes operate under unimaginable constraints. However, my point is, a government must necessarily have a broad overview of the welfare of the country. And a group of 160 people does not constitute the whole country. A government has no right to jeopardise the lives of thousands of innocent Indians throughout J&K, Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat, UP, Assam, etc, for the sake of 160 equally innocent people. The Vajpayee government was inflexible -- it followed the fixed policy of previous governments of yielding to terrorism. The Vajpayee government was rash -- it has endangered the lives of many more than it saved.

We made the blunder of allowing the aircraft to depart from Amritsar, but once it took off, there were things we could do and we *were* doing them -- till New Delhi suddenly took the decision to release the terrorists despite our negotiating team's resolve to call the hijackers' bluff. What was the urgency on day 7? Why couldn't we wait another week? Why was it imperative to liberate the hostages on New Year's eve...? Do you seriously believe that the decision wasn't influenced by the desire to be perceived as Mr Nice Guy? Was not the settlement shorn of patience, prudence and regard for general security? Because we committed gross security lapses, we should compound them by releasing terrorists...? Two wrongs make a right?? I must point you to defence analyst Sreedhar's possible case scenarios laid out in India caved in too easily; he illustrates what could have been done if the political leadership had had the will to hold out and didn't worry too much about being everybody's buddy.

One BJP groupie wrote: "You seem to suggest that it was alright for the government to even lose the lives of all 155 passengers, because they don't fall under your category of 'brave Hindus' or they are not poor people, or because the dreaded militants that were let go could be very dangerous. Unfortunately, your arguments border on irresponsible mud-slinging over a government which cannot afford to be as reckless as a reporter in your position can be." Another twit wrote on Usenet that had the passengers included ministers and yours sincerely, the government wouldn't have waited out even the week -- the Us and Them syndrome, if you please... Two cases of everything that's warped about Indians. Where do Hindus, brave or otherwise, enter the picture...? What does rich or poor have to do with the policy of rejecting terrorists' demands? That policy is more likely to harm me as I'm more likely to be hijacked than you dipweeds lounging in the US! I'm irresponsible?! Hey, I don't have the protection of Z-security á la your heroes, the deliverers of Masood.

I don't understand with which part of their bodies these guys -- including Sai -- contemplate complex issues! Read my lips: Once you talk about the sanctity of the lives of the hostages, you cross over into ethics, which is a whole different ballgame. And there, I heed Jeremy Bentham and his greatest happiness principle: "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." The Utilitarian theory of ethics is opposed to doctrines in which conscience is made the absolute arbiter of right and wrong. What is useful is good; the value of any conduct is determined by the productiveness of its results. As you know, the achievement of the maximum welfare for the greatest number is considered the aim of all legislation and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions -- including governments.

The satisfaction of public needs is the sole justification of government. But, even if 160 people are part of the public, they are a very minuscule part of it -- and therefore expendable... Horrendous, isn't it? Well, this attitude is the difference between Israel and India -- not just between their respective governments, but the people, too. I guarantee, never in Tel Aviv will you see anything like the tamasha that the relatives of the hostages put up in front of the Mahatma's residence. Which is why that tiny country exists against all odds, surrounded as it by hostile Islamic nations. And why wouldn't it when its men and women are inducted into the army at age 18 to serve for a period of three years? Every Israeli knows what "defence" and "security" mean; they don't sit across the oceans telling me I shouldn't worry about a bomb under my bed. Zionism today is based on the unambiguous support of two basic principles, one of which is the autonomy and safety of Israel: Country before self. Country before individual. No breast-beating over the *possible* death of 0.0001% of the population. I tell you, desis make me sick.

National security has its own imperatives, one of which is the morale of its security forces. They have a responsibility we can't fathom, and hence, the government has an obligation to uphold their morale by not letting their sacrifices go in vain. Had the hostages died, it would have been immensely tragic, but, the retaining of Masood would have saved many more lives by destroying the confidence of the terrorists waiting in the wings, raising that of our soldiers, and giving Pakistan pause for thought. Of course, this will seem grotesque to this nation of Gandhiwadis, but the simple fact is, no country can progress if it shirks the principles of Utilitarianism.

Lemme go a step further: The Darwinian thesis of the survival of the fittest as a basic law of nature was elaborated upon and advanced by Friedrich Nietzsche as his theory of Übermensch ("superman"). Nietzsche held that so-called moral conduct is necessary only for the weak; that every action should be directed toward the development of the superior individual. That theory is applicable to nations, too... Do the developed countries manifest moral conduct when it comes to their security concerns...? Why is America an Übernation? Today, India is weaker because the Vajpayee government suffered an attack of misplaced moral conduct. And I'm especially incensed because the BJP got my vote on the ticket of hard-line nationalism. But, when the going got tough, the weak got going! And they still don't realise the magnitude of the mistake they've made...

By 1994, Masood Azhar, Sajjad Afghani and Langaryal, the three forces guiding Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, were in our hands. Stunned by the loss, the org lost its momentum and its fighting potential was soon thereafter destroyed by our forces. After several attempts to free Masood, the ISI succeeded with the hijacking. Masood boasted in Kote Baliwal that he would be released, and he was: He was escorted with honour to Afghanistan by Jaswant Singh, from where he went to Karachi and gave a brilliant speech against India -- the tapes of which have flooded Assam's Nagaon and Goalpara districts -- aimed at fanning communal passion and influencing youth into militancy. Then Masood got married and left for Afghanistan to meet his pal Mullah Mohammad Omar, the supreme leader of the Taliban. He was welcomed back to Lahore by a rifle-toting army of bearded men in fatigues and thousands of people chanting Allah-o-Akbar. The administration made no attempt to stop the procession. Orating at the Lal Masjid, Masood asked all jihadis to join his new anti-India Lashkar-e-Muhammadi to "settle scores with the RSS." The jihad is to be launched under the banner of Marka-i-Badar with an army of 600,000 mujahideen. Meanwhile, Ahmed Omar Sheikh is untraceable. And Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, chief of Al Umar Mujahideen, returned to Kupwara, J&K, for further sport...

In the meantime, Pakistan infiltrated scores of fidayeen groups into different parts of India, with the task of targeting security camps, VIPs and Hindus, since Islam is in danger here and jihad and martyrdom are the need of the hour. Two Paki Harkat terrorists were nabbed from a hotel in Jammu. Fifteen people died in a market bomb blast in Srinagar. One Harkat squad attacked an army camp at Tatto, killing two soldiers. In Gandharbal, an army convoy was disrupted in a mine blast. Etc, etc, etc... In short, we are back to the situation of 1989. All the gains made have been washed away...

A reader asked what I'd have done in charge. Well, you won't like my MO: One, I'd have immediately mobilised for hot pursuit across the LC to strike on terrorist training camps. Two, I'd have announced that with every terrorist, his entire family would be shot dead, and had the order executed. Three, I'd have a patka-ed soldier hold a gun to Masood's head and telecast that footage with the message that for every hostage harmed, 100 jailed terrorists would die, starting with that bearded bastard. Do you think that at the umpteenth attempt to rescue him, the hijackers would have dared...? Anti-terrorism measures are weighed by the improvement in the safety of citizens, not the wailing of bleeding hearts. WHAM is fine in peace time, but that does not exist in Kashmir -- we're fighting a proxy war that's draining India. The principal principle for defeating terrorism is: Never grovel, never submit. I thought these "nationalists" knew that.

Varsha Bhosle