Terror tag to Salahuddin not enough
The Trump administration is on a hawkish watch. It has designated Pakistan’s Syed Salahuddin as a global terrorist after extensive interactions with the Narendra Modi establishment. But while Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama had failed to take any action against another anti-India rabble-rouser and dreaded terrorist Hafiz Saeed one can only hope that Trump would do better.
Obama’s regime had announced a bounty of US$10 million in April 2012 on Hafiz Saeed’s head in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks which he was believed to have masterminded, and the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Russia and Australia had all banned the terror outfit Lashkar e-Taiba which Saeed cofounded. However, there was little effort put in to nab Hafiz Saeed from Pakistan where he was comfortably ensconced. Before long, the LeT reemerged in a new avatar as Jamaat ud Dawa.
Will Trump’s move against Salahuddin end in a whimper like Obama’s did in the case of Hafiz Saeed? Will the partisan and strategic interests of retaining some leverage with Pakistan lead to the US swallowing its pride?
Mere designation of a hardcore individual as a global terror threat cannot be enough. There has to be action on the ground which India must relentlessly pursue with the Trump administration.
The Chinese as a prop to the Pakistanis have been frustrating all attempts of the world community in taking punitive action against Hafiz Saeed. While other countries are unaffected by this, India has much to lose.
A joint statement issued after talks in Washington DC between Trump and Modi on Monday said that the two leaders called upon Pakistan to ensure that its territory was not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries—a stern message indeed. Does that mean that Trump means business or was it just one of those clichéd statements to win over a visiting dignitary.
The news trickling in from Islamabad is that Salahuddin’s defences have been strengthened by the ISI and the Nawaz Sharif government has defended him vociferously as not being a terrorist.
If Trump is indeed made of sterner stuff he must make sure that Salahuddin is punished for his misdeeds and prevented from undertaking future terror strikes since Trump’s administration has labelled him a global terrorist.
The same goes for the joint statement’s virtual reprimand of Islamabad and the warning to desist from its territory being used for terror. Has not the Trump administration been acutely aware of how the Pakistan army has been training and arming young men to infiltrate into India to cause subversion and mayhem in Kashmir?
It indeed remains to be seen whether Trump really walks the talk and proves himself different from past presidents or he comes under the influence of his advisers some of whom would predictably advise him not to disturb the applecart considering that the US still has strategic interests in Afghanistan.
Another point of concern for India is the increasing belligerence of China. That the Chinese have disallowed Hindu pilgrims transiting through the Nathu La pass to Kailash Mansarovar is indicative of their domineering attitude.
The Indo-US joint statement did make a reference to the US supporting India’s stand on the inadvisability of constructing the China-Pak Economic Corridor which would not only be passing through Indian territory which is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan but also could lead to Chinese hegemony over international waters through Pakistan’s Gwadar port. But a pro-active approach to thwarting China-Pak designs is missing.
India needs to figure out how it would tackle a China-Pak nexus against India and must know whether it has the US on board if Pakistan and China resort to any adventurism. While this visit of Modi was basically a rapport-building exercise, there needs to be joint strategic thinking in depth on some of these issues at a future date.
One can hardly take away any credit from Modi for having struck what looked like a fine rapport with Trump at their very first meeting. But the hypocrisy of modern-day politics is difficult to understand. How much of Trump’s rhetoric was genuine and sincere and how much was it mere lip service would be known only in due course.
By his forceful espousal of the ‘America First’ concept, Trump has already convinced the world that to him everything else takes a back seat when American interests are involved. One can hardly grudge that but as a sole superpower the US has certain responsibilities which under Trump are tending to be repudiated.
The Chinese are desperate to exercise an overweening influence on the world at large and the more the US abdicates responsibility, the happier would the Chinese be in seeking to take over that vital space.
Trump has had so many brushes with world leaders that Modi can hardly be blamed for treading cautiously. Be it Mexico or Germany or Israel initially or Cuba in recent days, these countries have learnt how Trump can react. But sooner than later the US President would have to come to grips with contentious world issues. His decision to walk out of the climate deal and his brush with NATO has reduced American credibility beyond measure.
The stand that he has taken on immigration has caused great heartburn among professionals in India. That there was apparently no major discussion on it during Prime Minister Modi’s visit was partly due to fear of Trump’s sensibilities and also because his administration is yet to concretise its policy on immigrants.
The fact that the Obama administration was far more receptive to Indian aspirations for a permanent seat on the US Security Council and in its bid for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group cannot but be a cause for concern in New Delhi. But the juggernaut has to roll on and India has to adapt to the new realities and gradually cajole the US into seeing its point of view on most issues.
THE news trickling in from Islamabad is that Salahuddin’s defences have been strengthened by the ISI and the Nawaz Sharif government has defended him vociferously as not being a terrorist.
The author is a political commentator and columnist. He has authored four books