2008 Mumbai attacks
Saifuddin Soz is no ordinary Congress leader. Since 1980s, he’s often been in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha either on National Conference or Congress representation. A multiple-time Union minister, the last time under Manmohan Singh’s UPA between 2006-2009, he was one of the front-runners for the post of Vice-President in 2007 and 2012.
Soz draws his heft because of his influence in the Kashmir Valley. He surely has had access to separatist leaders of the state: A US diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks claimed he was a go-between contact between the Indian government and secessionist forces. Indeed, the leaked cable of US Ambassador to India David Mulford to US State Department described Soz as a long-standing “contact” of the US Embassy’s political section.
Soz is now in news because of his new book. By claiming that the first choice of Kashmiris is independence, a stance similar to terrorists and secessionists for three decades now, he has put the glare on his party. Congress is also under the lens because the dreaded terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) run by Hafiz Saeed from Pakistan soil, has come out in praise of Congress.
In case the readers need a reminder, LeT has been banned as a terrorist organization by US, UK, European Union, Russia, Australia and of course India. Its stated objective is secession of Kashmir. A traumatized India has accused LeT for its involvement in the 2001 Indian Parliament and 2008 Mumbai attacks. Hafiz Saeed, as its founder in 1987, had received funding from Osama bin Laden.
Congress has further earned the ire of millions of Indians because one of its senior leaders, Ghulab Nabi Azad, once the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, has accused Indian army of planning a “massacre” in the Valley. Congress’ dug the knife deeper with its insensitive attempt to defend Azad, As millions see it, Congress is rubbing shoulders with the secessionists and are deep in trenches with them against the Indian army.
Congress may yet take action against Soz or slap the wrist of Azad. But discerners see no sign from them on standing next to the brave and beleaguered Indian army. Their human rights begins and ends on Kathua; there is never a word of praise when our jawans gun down a terrorist; never a drop of tear for their martyrdom or wailing widows.
On June 22, our security forces killed 4 terrorists identified with Islamic State (IS) in Anantnag district. In view of the oncoming Amarnath Yatra, starting this week (June 28), it was a laudatory achievement. The whole nation stood up as one to applaud the action. But how did Congress react???
I looked for reactions on Congress’ official stand on the matter and how its’ leaders have reacted. The Congress’ twitter handle has nothing on Soz or Azad or terrorists tackled: all it has is a retweet of PC Chidambaram and his concern “Will-there-be-a-war-with-Pakistan?” This time-tested tactics is to weaken the resolve of Indian state, peddle appeasement which in turn is an invitation to secessionist forces for the next strike.
Rahul Gandhi’s tweets? No mention. In any case the Congress supreme tweets once in two days. And when he does it is to run down Modi and his government. Shashi Tharoor? Blank.
And what about the partners Congress’ could be in bed with for upcoming elections? That mahagathbandan to “save democracy” in the country? Mamta Bannerjee? Blank. Akhilesh Yadav? Blank. Sitaram Yechury? Blank. Arvind Kejriwal? Blank. None of them have anytime for our forces; the sacrifices they make; the goals they achieve; the threats and cost they pay to themselves and their families. It is no different to the length these forces went to deny the “surgical strike.”
The message that goes across is alarming: that secessionists are acceptable but not our soldiers; that a terrorists’ life is valuable while the ones of soldiers is not; that India-breakers have unconditional support while those for India-Unity can go and jump from the Himalayas.
You may have a like or dislike for Narendra Modi; you may feel elated or cheated on account of his term so far; but you can’t be standing in support of secessionist forces. Those who want to rule India can’t be seen in sync with India-breakers.
(Post-script: While the readers ponder over the piece; it’s worth dropping a line on Tariq Hammed Karra who is a “Pakistan proxy” and “recently joined the Congress in the presence of Smt. Sonia and Rahul Gandhi,” as Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad lashed out in his press conference on Friday.
While you rush to google the man called Karra, keep this in the back of your mind that Lutyens Media more or less blanked out Prasad-on-Karra comments. But more on this, some other day, some other time).
The Russia-India-China (RIC) meet of its foreign ministers in Moscow is unlikely to have thawed the freezing relations between two Asian giants, China and India.
The same is true of the simultaneous visit of India’s defence minister Manohar Parrikar to China where he met his Chinese counterpart Gen. Chang Wanguan and stated India attaches highest priority to its relationship with China.
Both China and India suffer from a trust deficit though the niggling issue is simple enough: Both China and India need to look at each other’s territorial claims on Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin plateau in a spirit of cooperation and resolve the long-standing dispute.
As a nation which stands to gain the most through India-China alliance, Russia could offer its own example: the Russian-Chinese borders were formalized in 2004 after 40 years of bad blood between the two nations.
The last fortnight has been particularly frosty: China blocked India’s move in United Nations to have Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief and allegedly Pathankot terror attack mastermind, Masood Azhar be designated as terrorist,
India, on their part, went ahead a signed an agreement with the United States on sharing military logistics in Indian Ocean, the area which is strategically and economically lifeline to Beijing.
But the RIC meet is unlikely to have much influence. Despite it being a foreign ministers’ conclave, it largely deals with the economic, and not security, issues.
The economic prospects of trade between India and China are mammoth. It’s already worth $100 billion and given their market and areas of strength, it holds immense possibility.
India could offer its Information Services strength and avail China’s expertise to build high-speed rail network in India. China’s excess production could also be easily absorbed within India.
India is extremely touch on matters of terrorism and finds itself regularly frustrated by China on international forums. Last year, China had blocked India’s bid to question Pakistan over the release of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, a commander in Lashkar-e-Taiba, which had carried out the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks that claimed 160 lives.
A leaked cable of US State Department in 2010 had revealed that China had in the past blocked UN sanctions against Lashkar-e-Taiba and the al-Akhtar Trust (a charity front for Jaish-e-Mohammad). It had also blocked India’s request to list Syed Salahuddin, a terrorist wanted in relation to numerous Hizbul Mujahideen attacks.
Though China’s moves were procedural within the UN sanctions committee, it was in opposition to the stands of US, UK, France and Russia all of whom were willing to back India on the issue.
China has a history of shielding Pakistan-based terror groups from sanctions under resolution 1267 even though it hardly ever uses a veto—exercising it only 10 times in its 70-year history of UNSC. It parrots the same line in defence that Pakistan does: “Pakistan is a terrible victim of terrorism itself.”
Such acts hardly endear China to India. It also reveals the closeness between Pakistan and China in modern context. India feels hemmed in between its two nuclear-armed northern neighbours. All it is doing is to drive India into US’ arms which dread the prospects of close India-China relations.
It still is encouraging that RIC has shown its concern on terrorism and a willingness to use international forums, such as BRICS, SCO, East Asian summits and Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) to get the three nations closer.
Russia is keen to play a mediator’s role between China and India. It won’t be Asia’s century unless India and China draw closer to each other. Joint enterprises, preferential trade system and a common trade currency offer a huge opportunity.
China’s Great Silk Road project involves a huge territory—from Southeast Asia to the Caucasus. Russia, like India, isn’t yet a part of it even though a cooperation between the Silk Road and Russia-inspired Eurasian Eonomic Union exists.
There is a need to cool down the tempers from both sides. Says NewsBred columnist Shen Dingli: “China actually has many ways to hurt India. China could send an aircraft carrier to the Gwadar port in Pakistan. China had turned down the Pakistan offer to have military stationed in the country. If India forces China to do that,” there could be a threatening navy at India’s doorstep.