No subject

agree that this has to be a priority to be addressed at any future
peace table.
But back to the point between the descriptions on Radio Pakistan and
All India Radio (AIR):  What New Delhi calls Terrorism, Islamabad
calls freedom fighting.  The violent actors within Kashmir are
probably more independent agents than dependent upon Rawalpindi.  In
opposing them they must be respected for that, as Pakistan must be
respected as autonomous and powerful people, also.  At the height of
this spring's crisis Western intelligence reports that leaked out
suggested that Al'Quaida operatives operating in India were trying to
destabilize Kashmir as much as possible in hopes that they could win
against the American-led Coalition in Afghanistan.  In other words
they were promoting the chances for nuclear war for their own
perverted interests against the security of both India and Pakistan
by stepping up attacks against Indian targets in J & K.
India had become trapped in a rhetoric regarding Terrorism from which
she found she could not easily extradite herself.  If we are to
believe The Times of India, the Indian high command estimated, by
assuming the nuclear option in 1998, New Delhi did not have the 2:1
advantage over the Pakistani forces as assumed during the recent
crises, but rather a 1:1.2 -- a factor that better training, morale
or even plain luck could offset.  This was reported to a
Parliamentary Committee, too, according to the Times report.  The
fact is that South Asia was lucky this time. The next time it may not
be.  So, it is time that the two nations with the Kashmiri people as
equals talk in earnest to create a formula to resolve their
contentious claims.  A formulistic settlement at the international
level could thwart the swampy grounds for terrorism to breed.
Finally, to the issue of the existence of Terrorism, the terrorists
are men who have very fixed goals and tactics.  They are subnational
in structure.  And to say they are only Islamic is to miss the point.
(The Basque nationalistic rebels are another group who are described
as Terrorists.)   If the Islamicists were hegemonic, they would have
similar groups applying the same tactics against them.  "Terrorist"
is a moral pejorative used against a weaker insurgent by a militarily
dominant group. Those insurgents are better described as guerrilla
irregulars who employ suicidal tactics.  As the stronger party, it is
too easy to absolve oneself of any moral complicity in the historical
predicament by calling the weaker side Terroristic.  In that sense
Terrorism does not exist, but violence does.  But, most importantly,
applying violence alone or blaming another strong state will not make
the problem disappear.  We have to look into our own policies and
actions as well as defending ourselves from harm.  And this includes
Indians, Kashmiris, Pakistanis, Americans and all others who face
this challenge.
Finally, this exercise has shown how greatly symbolism and rhetoric
have played into our concept of "Terrorism."  For a successful
counter-insurgency along with an extra-insurgent solution, these two
obfuscations have to be sliced away from our vocabulary.  It is too
easy to call this type of violence "Terrorism," and refuse to
understand the underlying causes.  The word "Terrorism" can be a way
of avoiding a solution to a larger, under lying quandary.


*Geoffrey Cook
P.O. Box 4233
Berkeley, California 94704-0233
011- (510) 654-9251 (voice)
011- (510) 217-2365 (fax)
GCooketal at aol.com