Skyjack Saga Strains Indo-Pak Relations

With the plane hijack saga, there is likely to be more retaliatory measures from both India and Pakistan resulting in the intensity and frequency of cross border insurgency with its debilitating and destabilising impact on the regional plank, fears Mansoor Mamoon

THE week-long skyjack saga of the Indian airbus, on which the curtain fell at the southern Afghan city of Kandahar on the eve of the millennium, has on the one hand put the fledgling coalition government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to severe public criticism, and on the other, has once again mounted tension between Delhi and Islamabad largely because of latter's invectives against the former for what has been described as its involvement in the incident. The entire high drama spanning five countries - Nepal, India, Pakistan, UAE and finally Afghanistan - reportedly not only caught the Vajpayee government completely unawares, but also largely unprepared and lackadaisical as one critic would like to put while describing the way it dealt with it. A leading Indian English daily headlined the hostages release as in return of a 'heavy price' and is likely to have far-reaching impact on the future security issues. People are found to be openly questioning the wisdom of the BJP-led coalition government in swapping the three hardcore militants for the hostage and the way it caved in after its firm initial stand against cross-country terrorism however high the price may be.

The government in Delhi is being criticised on several counts centring the hijack of its airlines and it is finding it rather difficult to come up with satisfactory replies to allay the public mind other than discovering Pakistan's hand in it. The first criticism is that why India did not take adequate security measures at the Tribhuvan airport Kathmandu from where the gunmen took control of the air bus, as the Sri Lankan authority usually does in respect of operation of its own airlines apprehending possible backlash from the LTTE guerrillas. Observers maintain that Nepal has recently been infested with terrorism and the Indian government should have taken adequate precautionary arrangements in view of insurgencies in the vicinity.

The second criticism is that when the hijacked plane landed at Amritsar, why no attempt was made to stop it there? The critics say once the plane went out of the Indian territory, Delhi immediately lost the least opportunity of direct intervention or possible commando storming. In a foreign territory, particularly in a country like Afghanistan with which India has no formal diplomatic relations (excepting neighbouring Pakistan, no other country has accorded recognition to the Taleban government which controls ninety per cent of the landmass in Afghanistan), the hijackers naturally get the upper hand and are in a comparatively advantageous position.

Thirdly, the people point the accusing finger that why India took such a long time in sending to Kandahar its team for negotiating with the hijackers. Had this been done early, the hostages long ordeal could have been much shortened.

Fourthly, the Indian leadership including Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee initially took a resolute stand that it would not give into the demands of the hijackers. But, subsequently, it had to compromise and barter the release of the hostages in exchange of three hardcore Kashmiri militants held in the Indian jails. Many Indians are viewing this overture as a surrender to the terrorists' demands. They strongly maintain that this would exacerbate what they term as Pakistan's proxy war in Kashmir as it did ten years ago when a number of (Kashmiri) militants had to be freed from Indian jails for the release of the daughter of a minister taken hostage by a group operating in the strife-torn region. Apart from this, many insurgent groups are also very much active in different parts of the country, particularly in its northeastern region. The way the plane hijacking crisis was dealt with is likely to act as a morale booster for them in the sense they too may feel like intensifying their terrorist activities with the hope of getting away with their demand in a like manner while the security forces will naturally stand demoralised and greatly cowed down in the face of such a dilemma in future.

Fifthly, many are of the opinion that the Indian Foreign Minister Jashwant Singh's trip to Kandahar along with the three militants in the same plane did give them a face-lift and credibility, at least outwardly. This, they consider, has badly shattered both the country's and the government's image and showed its helplessness. Prime Minister Vajpayee has, however, dismissed these allegations and said his government's stand against terrorism would remain unchanged. He said there was, for the time being, no option but to accede to the hijackers' demand for saving the lives of one hundred fifty five plus passengers and members of the crew.

Foreign Minister Jashwant Singh tried to took the credit that ultimately the hijackers had to back out from two of their three demands, namely a huge ransom of 200 million US dollars and return of the body of a militant after exhuming it from his grave. The hijackers originally demanded the release of 35 jailed militants. But the hostages could be released in exchange of only three militants. The credit, if any, for this is to be given to the Taleban government and not to the Indian negotiators. For the Taleban could successfully make the hijackers realise that this would tantamount to sheer banditry which would not help their cause in any way. Singh also claimed that under the pressure of India the militants were given ten hours time to leave Afghanistan. Singh noted the cooperation of the Taleban but later said he did not appreciate them and that India's stand towards the Kabul government would remain unchanged. But the world in general acclaimed the Taleban for their sincere effort in securing the release of the hostages.

During the entire period there had been unending accusations by Delhi that Islamabad had direct involvement in the skyjack drama. The Indian Foreign minister claimed that the hijackers were Pakis tani nationals and that at Kandahar they were provided with additional arms and explosives, whose source he hinted was Islamabad. He also claimed that the hijackers were often found interrupting the ongoing negotiation to seek instructions from else where meaning Pakistan. Two days after the conclusion of the highjack episode the Indian Foreign Minister directly accused Pakistan of complicity in the saga and quoting Afghan sources said that during the stipulated time of ten hours the hijackers along with their three released militant leaders had left for the Pakistani city of Quetta in the province of Baluchistan and were reportedly heading for the Pakistan administered Kashmir. Along the rugged terrain of Khyber Pass Pakistan shares a fourteen hundred miles long stretch of common border with Afghanistan and a large chunk of it remains unmanned and unguarded. Hence it will not be difficult for the militants to sneak into Pakistan, maintain independent observers.

Pakistan indignantly refuted the Indian allegations of harbouring the hijackers. Pak Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider strongly denied the Indian claim that the hijackers had entered Pakistan. High alert, he said, is being maintained along Pakistan's entire border and instructions have been issued to arrest them if they try to enter its territory. "Pakistan adheres to international convention and is clearly against cross country terrorism, he said. Barely twenty-four hours after the skyjack drama was over, the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) insurgents in the northeastern state of Assam struck and blasted an oil pipeline. Indian sources immediately discovered Pakistani hands behind ULFA's latest attack and said ISI is patronising the insurgents. The recent developments, the sources said, have been planned in a subtle way by Pakistan to avenge what they call its defeat in Kargil last year.

In the meantime, the Indian Prime Minister called upon the international community to declare Pakistan a terrorist state for its direct involvement in its plane highjack. He also charged that Pakistan is spreading terrorism in the region in a planned way. India, Bajpayee said, will take up the matter with the Clinton administration and hope to convince it to isolate Islamabad from the outside world. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar angrily denounced the charges of Vajpayee describing them as trumped up and said India was engaged in diverting its public opinion from its inept handling of the crisis, insensitivity towards the minorities and problems of its own creation by laying the blame on Pakistan. The flurry of accusations between Islamabad and Delhi shows the deep division and hostilities between the two neighbour whose diplomatic relatiobns has reached an all time low after their bloody Kargil encounter.

The plane hijack saga appears to have further escalated the already strained relations between the two countries. There is likely to be more retaliatory measures from both the sides resulting in the intensity and frequency of cross border insurgency with its debilitating and destabilising impact on the regional plank. Meanwhile both countries' stand on the issue of Kashmir over which they have fought two full-scale wars, has hardened beyond any hope of immediate repair.