| War on Terror | |||||||||||||
| 22 Jan 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com | |||||||||||||
| Was Miliband really speaking for Britain? Why is UK a sanctuary for jihadis? | |||||||||||||
For two reasons it is necessary to return to the subject of Kashmir and the penchant of the United States and Britain to meddle in it, though the days of their mediation ended long ago. The first is the appalling behaviour of the British foreign secretary David Miliband who was visiting India from January 13-15, linked the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Tayyaba's horrific attack on Mumbai with the Kashmir issue. He pontificated that India needed to "incentivise Pakistan" by showing "some movement on Kashmir". And, for good measure, he absolved the Pakistani establishment of any blame for the Mumbai outrage, thus contradicting on Indian soil a statement Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made a few days earlier. -- Inder Malhotra Right honourable intentions By Prem Shankar Jha UK a sanctuary for jihadis By B Raman -------------------------
Was Miliband really speaking for Britain? By Inder Malhotra
For two reasons it is necessary to return to the subject of Kashmir and the penchant of the United States and Britain to meddle in it, though the days of their mediation ended long ago. The first is the appalling behaviour of the British foreign secretary David Miliband who was visiting India from January 13-15, linked the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Tayyaba's horrific attack on Mumbai with the Kashmir issue. He pontificated that India needed to "incentivise Pakistan" by showing "some movement on Kashmir". And, for good measure, he absolved the Pakistani establishment of any blame for the Mumbai outrage, thus contradicting on Indian soil a statement Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made a few days earlier.
The second reason is an article by Ramachandra Guha in which he has ably explained why azadi for Jammu and Kashmir — also called the "third option" — is totally untenable. But, surprisingly, the well-known scholar has got some of his historical facts wrong. On both issues the record needs to be set straight lest these inaccuracies become raw material for future historians.
Of the two, Mr Miliband's shabby and unacceptable performance is more important. Though South Block tersely announced "unsolicited" advice was unwelcome, it apparently believes his puerile conduct to be an outcome of his immaturity, inexperience, stridency and arrogance. This impression is strengthened by the fact that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who visited India and Pakistan a month earlier, said nothing about Kashmir and had been forthright about Pakistan-based terrorism. However, the matter cannot be allowed to rest at that. Some agonising questions must be answered.
For example, why was it necessary for Mr Miliband to arrive within four weeks of Mr Brown's visit? Was he foolish to air his personal views, or had he brought a message from the government he represents, even if he delivered it rudely and crudely? At one stage in his hectoring talks with Dr Singh and foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, Mr Miliband spoke of his discussions with US President Barack Obama's team. Was he using this to reinforce his own remarks? All in all, the situation calls for a keen vigil and brisk activity on the part of Indian diplomacy. It is no secret that during the last eight years India has dealt with the Republican administration in the US. When the controversial Indo-US nuclear deal was the main item on the agenda and former President George W. Bush was exceptionally supportive of India, this country had put virtually all its eggs in the Republican basket. Whether sufficient effort has been made to contact, inform and befriend the new rulers in Washington is not known.
There is another aspect of the matter that most official sources are trying to avoid, but it cannot be waved aside with snide remarks about the British foreign secretary. So objectionable were Mr Miliband's misdemeanors that he should have been asked to cut short his visit and return home. In similar circumstances even world statesmen of Charles de Gaulle's stature have been so treated, as happened when, during a visit to Canada, the towering French leader had spoken of independence for the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec. Here, Mr Miliband was invited to accompany Rahul Gandhi to the latter's parliamentary constituency, Amethi.
As for Mr Guha's article, he is in error in asserting that the Indian Independence Act gave the rulers of undivided India's 562 princely states the option to accede either to India or Pakistan and that there was no third option. The fact is that the British Parliament simply abolished the paramountcy that the Raj, had exercised over the princes who were then free to do what they liked. Not only was there no legal or technical bar on the independence of princely states, the fact is that some of them lost no time in declaring that they wanted to exercise this right.
The first to do so was the Maharaja of Travancore or rather his dewan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer. The British hand behind this sinister move was obvious. Sir Iyer had signed away Travancore's thorium resources to Britain "in perpetuity". Jawaharlal Nehru, as head of the interim government, got the deal rescinded. The Nizam of Hyderabad's desire to be independent was stronger and his efforts towards that objective even more determined. These lasted nearly 13 months, until September 1948, when its patient negotiations with the Nizam failed, and the Union government took the necessary police action. The disastrous delay in the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir's decision on which dominion to join was also caused by dreams of independence. Most princes slowly bowed to the compulsions of circumstances and acceded to one dominion or the other, depending on contiguity and composition of population, as Lord Mountbatten had advised them to do. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel played a stellar role in this.
India's considered decision to offer a plebiscite under the UN's auspices in Kashmir, while taking its complaint to the UN Security Council, also needs to be put in perspective.
If the need to replicate the Junagarh precedent in J&K played any part, it must have been marginal. India was basically responding to complex challenges. On the one hand, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, obviously with Hyderabad in mind, insisted that the ruler had the right to decide on accession and that the people had no say in it, Nehru said that the people's will was supreme and the ruler had to act accordingly. Moreover, as the Kashmir crisis had mounted, Britain kept insisting that the matter should be resolved by a reference to the UN. Its original suggestion that India and Pakistan should jointly go to the world body was not acceptable to India. Britain then hinted that it might take the initiative to go to the UN over Kashmir.
S. Gopal, Nehru's official biographer and eminent historian, who had access to the Kashmir file, he told me that in December 1947 Nehru had taken the file to Mahatma Gandhi who endorsed both, the decision to go to the UN and commit the country to a plebiscite. How and why the plebiscite was never held is a long story. --- Right honourable intentions Prem Shankar Jha January 20, 2009
On the eve of his visit to Mumbai last week, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband wrote in the Guardian that the appeal of terrorism to Pakistanis might be reduced if Pakistan and India settled their dispute over Kashmir. This was universally interpreted in the Indian media and the Ministry of External Affairs as a reflection of his conceit, if not of his ignorance. Few have bothered to entertain the possibility that he might have been briefed poorly by the British Foreign Office, or may have been quoted out of context in the Indian media. A close look shows that both have happened.
What Miliband actually wrote in the Guardian was: "…on my visit to South Asia [my emphasis] this week, I am arguing that the best antidote to the terrorist threat in the long term is cooperation. Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders".
Miliband meant these comments for 'South Asia', i.e. India and Pakistan, and not only for India. His reference to current difficulties was a reminder that these are of recent origin. In other words, he was asking for a revival of the Pervez Musharraf-Manmohan Singh Kashmir peace process. Nowhere in the paragraph is there even a hint of a quid pro quo — India give a little more on Kashmir to allow Pakistan to give a little (to Nato) in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan (Fata). If this was really what the British had in mind, it would have been the last thing that even a callow foreign minister would have published in the Guardian.
Where Miliband went wrong was in his failure to anticipate how differently his remark would be interpreted in the two countries. Thus the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba has already announced that it will cease its jihad if India grants "freedom to Kashmir". Needless to say, Lashkar will be the decider of when this freedom is given. Miliband could easily have avoided this by being a little more explicit. And by endorsing the composite dialogue — or even better, the Manmohan-Musharraf framework declaration of April 2005 — he would have given the peace process in Kashmir a strong push forward. But that was an opportunity missed.
Once Miliband had used the 'K' word, in India, he could do no right. So unnamed sources and a section of the media have also pilloried him for saying that the terrorists arrested by Pakistan can be tried in Pakistan. But his actual views expressed in a TV interview to Karan Thapar are ones that few Indians will be able to quarrel with. "What is important," he said, "is that those accused of heinous crimes feel the full force of the law, whether in India or in Pakistan... the Pakistani authorities have detained these people. They have said that if there is evidence they should be prosecuted. I say there is evidence [my emphasis]. Let them be prosecuted and, if they are found guilty, let them be punished." He couldn't have been more explicit.
Miliband has also angered many Indians by showing a marked reluctance to brandish a big stick at Pakistan. But once again, few can fault his reasons. "There is a debate going on," he said, "between those who recognise that there is a serious need for reform in Pakistan and those who are... in denial. It is very important that the reformers win." Brandishing threats, he implied, would make sure that the reformers lose.
Finally, Miliband's reference to Kashmir was not intended to internationalise Kashmir. At the end of his interview with Thapar he says without qualifications: "Our position has been that the bilateral track has been a good track and should be used."
Miliband's remarks reflect his and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visceral belief that terrorism cannot be wiped out by wiping out terrorists. It is born of a mixture of ideology and specific grievances. So, while it is important not to let terrorists go unpunished, terrorism has to be tackled at its roots. What is more, they reflect a determination to move from confrontation to dialogue, and from military to political engagement in other fields as well.
His words will come as manna to the ears of a world that has lived in dread of escalating conflict for the last eight years. New Delhi's hawks will do well to ask themselves whether they want India to remain the odd man out. (Prem Shankar Jha is a Delhi-based commentator) --- UK a sanctuary for jihadis B Raman Wednesday, January 21, 2009
It is not surprising that British Foreign Secretary David Miliband should have so crassly sought to provide legitimacy to the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Pakistani terrorists by linking the Mumbai terror attack to the 'Kashmir issue'. Britain plays host to Islamist terrorists and Labour uses their votes to win elections
There has been considerable anger and indignation in India over the attempt of Mr David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, who visited India last week, to rationalise the terrorist attack on Mumbai by the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba of Pakistan by linking the attack to the 'Kashmir issue'. None of the indigenous Kashmiri organisations has linked the Mumbai attack to Jammu & Kashmir. Yet Mr Miliband sought to provide legitimacy to the LeT's terrorist attack by linking it to the 'Kashmir issue', disregarding the fact that the attack, as seen from the brutal murder of nine Jewish and 12 nationals of Western countries, which have contributed forces to the Nato contingent in Afghanistan, was part of the global jihadi agenda unrelated to either Jammu & Kashmir or the grievances of the Indian Muslims.
The shocking attempt by Mr Miliband to play down the murder of 138 Indians and 25 foreign nationals committed by the Pakistani terrorists should not have come as a surprise to those aware of the historic links of the British intelligence with the Mirpuri migrants from Pakistani-occupied Kashmir in the UK and their important role during elections in certain constituencies which traditionally return Labour candidates to the House of Commons with the support of the Mirpuri vote-bank.
After Pakistan and Afghanistan, the UK has been traditionally the largest sanctuary to foreign terrorists and extremists. Everybody, who is somebody in the world of terrorism, has found a rear base in the UK — the Khalistanis in the past, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Mirpuris from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Chechens, the Al Muhajiroun, the Hizbut Tehrir etc. Having allowed such a medley of terrorists and extremists to operate unchecked from their territory for so long, the British intelligence just does not have a correct estimate of how many sleeper cells are operating from their country and of which organisations.
Since persons of Pakistani origin have been playing an increasingly active role in promoting the activities of Al Qaeda, it is necessary to analyse the nature of migration from Pakistan to the UK and the US. Muslims from Pakistan constitute the single largest Muslim migrant group from the sub-continent in both the UK and the US — followed by Indian and Bangladeshi Muslims. There are estimated to be about 7,00,000 Muslims of Pakistani origin in the UK. No estimate is available in respect of the US.
The largest migrant group from Pakistan in the UK are Punjabi-speaking Muslims — from Pakistani Punjab as well as from the POK. The migrants from the PoK are called Mirpuris. They are not ethnic Kashmiris, but Punjabi-speaking migrants from the Pakistani Punjab, whose families had settled down in the Mirpur area of the PoK for generations. They were essentially small farmers and landless labourers, who lost their livelihood as a result of the construction of the Mangla dam. They, therefore, migrated to West Europe — the largest number to the UK and a smaller number to France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Many of them preferred to go to the UK because it already had a large Punjabi-speaking community from Pakistani Punjab. The initial Mirpuri migrants, who hardly spoke English, felt themselves comfortable in a Punjabi-speaking environment.
As the number of Muslims of Pakistani origin in the UK increased, mosques came up to cater to their religious needs. Till 1977, these mosques were headed by clerics from the more tolerant Barelvi Sunni sect. When Gen Zia-ul-Haq, a devout Deobandi, captured power in Pakistan in 1977, he embarked on a policy of marginalising the influence of Barelvi clerics not only in Pakistan, but also in Europe and increasing the influence of the rabid Deobandis. He inducted Deobandis into the Education Department as Arab teachers and into the armed forces to cater to the religious needs of the military personnel. He encouraged and helped the Deobandis to take over the mosques in Pakistan and in the UK by replacing the Barelvis. With the induction of an increasing number of Deobandis started the process of the Arabisation/Wahabisation of the Muslims in Pakistan and of the Pakistani diaspora in the UK.
The intelligence agencies of the US and the UK went along with Zia's policy of Arabising/Wahabising the Muslims of Pakistan because this contributed to an increase in the flow of jihadi terrorists to fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Till 1983, the members of the Pakistani diaspora in the UK were considered a largely law-abiding people. The first signs of the radicalisation of the diaspora appeared in 1983 when a group of jihadi terrorists kidnapped Ravi Mhatre, an Indian diplomat posted in the Indian Assistant High Commission in Birmingham, and demanded the release of Maqbool Butt, the leader of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, who was then awaiting execution in the Tihar Jail in Delhi following his conviction on charges of murder. When the Government of India rejected their demand, the terrorists killed Mhatre and threw his dead body into one of the streets. This kidnapping and murder was allegedly orchestrated by Amanullah Khan, a Gilgiti from Pakistan. He was assisted by some Mirpuris of the Pakistani diaspora. The British were uncooperative with India in the investigation of this case and declined to hand over those involved in the kidnapping and murder to India for investigation and prosecution. By closing their eyes to the terrorist activities of the Mirpuris from their territory, they encouraged the further radicalisation of the diaspora.
Just as the radicalisation of the Muslims of Pakistan suited the US-UK agenda in Afghanistan, the radicalisation of the diaspora in the UK, particularly the Mirpuris, suited their agenda for balkanising Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Many Pakistanis from the UK went to the training camps of the Harkat-ul-Ansar (now called the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) and the LeT in Pakistan and got themselves trained with the knowledge and complicity of the British. They then went to Bosnia and Kosovo to wage a jihad against the Serbs with arms and ammunition and explosives allegedly supplied by the Iranian intelligence with the tacit consent of the Clinton Administration and paid for by Saudi intelligence. http://dailypioneer.com/151294/UK-a-sanctuary-for-jihadis.html (The writer is director of the Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.) URL for this page: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1141
|
7:41 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment