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

A Clintonian folly

It is said that Agni was once cursed to eat all manner of things whether pure or impure. When he appealed to Brahma, the Creator told him that the curse couldn't be lifted.

"But whatever you touch," Agni was told, "shall be instantly purified."

President Clinton and his White House aides believe that they have been given the same boon. Three months ago, the Union home minister spoke in general terms of taking pro-active measures to combat terrorism in Kashmir. This was instantly interpreted as sending commandos into Pakistani territory to flush out the militant training schools. The US state department spokesman spoke reprovingly of Indian 'belligerence.'

It was a prime example of Clintonian hypocrisy. Today, ruins in Afghanistan and Sudan bear witness to the same 'pro-active' measures. The sole difference is that the Americans chose to describe them as 'pre-emptive', a fine distinction that escapes me. Yet instead of being shamefaced at this display of 'belligerence', the United States justifies it. It goes further, saying that the missile attacks on Khost and Khartoum were merely the opening shots in the battle against terrorism.

Some say this display of machismo was intended to divert attention from Clinton's escapade with a woman half his age and the lies he told to cover it up. I don't know if this is true and frankly I don't care either. (Though it should be said that the same tactic was tried earlier; as the Lewinsky case surfaced in the beginning of this year, the Clinton administration turned its guns on Iraq.

Their president's adultery and perjury are strictly Americans' domestic affair. What should concern us all, not least in India, is the implicit arrogance on display. "There is one rule for the rest of you," the United States tells the world, "and there is another for us."

When an Indian minister merely talks of 'pro-active measures' it is 'belligerence'. But when an American president actually sends missiles into action, it is waived away as 'self defence'.

I am not arguing in favour of Osama Bin Laden. The United States isn't the only nation that is pursuing him. He was expelled from his native Saudi Arabia, deprived of a Sudanese passport, and now even the fanatic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan are finding him a bit of handful. He is undeniably a terrorist.

But the United States can't just wish away the fact that Osama Bin Laden is at least partly an American creation. The so-called Mujahideen in Afghanistan were provided both material and moral support by successive American administrations. The argument was that they were required to contain Soviet expansionism. Absolutely no thought was given to the ideology that drove on men such as Osama Bin Laden.

The Mujahideen didn't simply vanish after Soviet armies left Afghanistan. They simply became soldiers for hire whom Pakistan unleashed on the helpless people of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian intelligence agencies have known for a very long time that the militants fighting in Kashmir are foreigners, some from as far away as Osama Bin Laden. But American diplomats would pour cold water on the very idea. 'Where is the proof?' they would ask.

It is relevant to note that Clinton asked his treasury department to close off the loopholes for funding terrorism only after the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan. It has been close to a decade since the last Russian soldiers left Afghanistan. In other words, the United States didn't care what those mercenaries did as long as they didn't attack Americans.

The American policy to militancy was a bit like using a credit card. It feels nice to walk out of a shop after doing nothing more than sign a paper. But ultimately the bills come home.

That is precisely what happened. The United States could have restrained Pakistan from training terrorists and providing them with safe havens at any point in the past ten years. It deliberately chose to turn a blind eye much as it did with the Pakistani nuclear programme. And the Clinton administration has been especially bad in this regard. (President Bush took a tougher line altogether.)

If, at long last, Clinton is waking up to his folly that is good news for India. There is no conflict of interest between India and the United States when it comes to tackling the terrorists on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. But the unilateral methods chosen by Clinton are cause for some concern.

T V R Shenoy