Gurdaspur shooting . . . Who is Responsible ?
Dr Iqtidar Karamat Cheema
The Gurdaspur armed attack in Indian Punjab claimed the lives of 3 civilians, 4 policemen and 3 combatants. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cabinet colleagues have not yet made comprehensive statements on the attack. Indian agencies have yet to identify the combatants. But some of the Indian and International media outlets are already tagging this as a ‘terrorist’ attack backed by Pakistan based Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Naresh Gujral the ruling party's spokesperson in Punjab has already said that, ‘we suspect that Pakistani intelligence agency ISI is behind the attack.’ Although Pakistan has condemned the attack but it is assumed that Government of India will most likely allege LeT or ISI for the attack.
It is very important to thoroughly analyse the attack in the context of India’s internal and external politics. This incident reminds me the terrorism typologies of Professor Michael Wolzer who is a prominent American political theorist and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in Princeton, New Jersey. Professor Wolzer opines that ‘sometime authoritarian and totalitarian governments use terrorism against their own citizens to make any sort of political opposition impossible’. India has a history of using unrestricted violence against its own citizen to supress dissent. The Sikh genocide of 1984 and Gujarat mass murder of Muslims are the two keys examples of this state aided violence.
The Gurdaspur attack happened few days after the forceful shifting of Surat Singh Khalsa to Dayanand Hospital where he is being force-fed. As I wrote in my previous report, 82 year old Khalsa has been on hunger strike since January 16 for the release of Sikh political prisoners who have already completed their sentences, but being illegally detained by the Indian authorities. Recent months have seen a huge support for Khalsa and his legitimate struggle. Khalsa’s struggle has resulted into mass-mobilisation in Indian Punjab with a support from various Indian political leaders and parties. Khalsa’s hunger strike has also drawn support from across the world from Sikh political and religious spectrum. It has gained international attention, as Sikhs have marched outside the White House and British Parliament in favor of his demands. It is becoming increasing difficult for Indian governments both at centre and in Punjab to deal with the issue of the Sikh political prisoners. Recently there has been various public gatherings and marches in Indian Punjab in support of Khalsa.
Khalsa’s health has deteriorated during his un-to-death hunger strike but he is determined to end his life if Government of India fails to respond to his legitimate call. If he passes away during his hunger strike it can immediately spark massive protests in Indian Punjab. It is a commonly believed that law and order situation will become worse in Indian Punjab in case of his death. However, the recent armed attack will give Indian government an excuse to declare ban on public gathering due to security concerns. Following the Indian Supreme Court verdict of 23 July, 2015 the Sikh activists have already demanded that Punjab Government should immediately ensure the release of Sikh prisoners in cases which fell under state purview. It is believed to be an attempt to distract the public attention from the issue of Sikh political prisoners. In such a situation, any opposition to State's writ or dissent is viewed as a threat, necessitating it to be persecuted and silenced.
This operation also has an international dimension. Indian media has also shown that combatants were equipped with Chinese made grenades. So through this false flag operation India wants to demonise both Pakistan and China. It is important to remember that only a month ago on 27th June, India presented a resolution in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to impose sanctions on Pakistan. India based the resolution over the grant of bail to Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi by a Pakistani Court. Lakhvi is the commander of Lashkar-e-Taiba. He is alleged to be a central planner in the November 2008 terror attack in Mumbai. However to utter dismay of Indian Ministry of External affairs, the resolution was vetoed by China. Gurdaspur operation will once again provide Indian government an opportunity to propagate against Pakistan in the international comity. India has constantly been lobbing against Pakistan ever since the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement has been signed between China and Pakistan.
Pakistani intelligence agency ISI is once again in the limelight and being alleged to sponsor this attack. Previously ISI was also alleged for Samjohota express carnage. However, in 2010, Indian government admitted that the extremist group Abhinav Bharat and its affiliate Indian Army‘s serving officer Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit, was responsible for the Samjohota express carnage.
Few spectators are also concluding that Pakistani military controls its country’s relations with India, and army leaders are fundamentally opposed to the idea of peace with New Delhi. But it is not Pakistan Army which is hampering the meaningful dialogue between the two countries but it’s the cold shoulder policy of India. Indian government has consistently used Mumbai attacks as an excuse not to start any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. Despite of Pakistan’s assurances to fully cooperate to uncover the offenders of this crime, the then Indian Foreign Minister and present Indian President, Pranab Mukherjee, announced on December 16, 2008 to put on hold composite dialogue with Pakistan.
In the recent past; behind-the-scenes the United States (U.S.) has played her role to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. The U.S. was concerned that Pakistan-India tensions could derail its strategy to stabilise Afghanistan. American officials had been vigorously pressing for an easing of tensions and revival of dialogue between India and Pakistan so that Pakistan could focus more on fighting militancy on its western border. However, India will probably use this false flag operation to stop the negotiation process.
Regardless, who has conducted this operation; Government of Indian is answerable for this incident. Supposedly if it’s an attack aided by any foreign government, agency or terrorist group then it’s a failure of Indian intelligence and law enforcement agencies. If Indian agencies have conducted this false flag operation to suppress the Sikh mass mobilization and to blame its neighbouring country then it’s a state-led terrorism as per Professor Wolzer typology of terrorism.