Terror Strikes, Interpretation Divides
Mirza Zulfiqur Rahman
MPhil Student, Jawaharlal Nehru University
e-mail:
mirzalibra10@gmail.com
The recent terror strikes in Assam have been truly unprecedented in the history of insurgency and disturbance in Northeast India. The blasts that ripped through Guwahati, Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon and Barpeta left people shocked and looking for answers to this mindless terror, which would haunt them for quite some time. The various interpretations that came immediately following the blasts, from the state government, the media, and the counter-insurgency establishment should be examined in greater detail, in order to place things in context, given the overall tense environment.
The state government was quick to react and attributed the blasts as the handiwork of the banned United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), as has been the ritual in many such incidents in the past. The next statement was about the involvement of certain radical jihadi groups, believed to be operating in the state of Assam. A comprehensive statement came out through the media in the evening that the blasts were carried out by the combination of ULFA-Islamic jihadi groups, and investigations were underway in order to bring out a 'clearer picture,' as to who were actually involved in the terror strikes.
The usual run-of-the-mill reports of ULFA camps and their networks with the jihadi organizations came to dominate the headlines subsequently. The Bangladesh link was shown repeatedly in the media, with archival footage of ULFA camps in collaboration with jihadi groups and with active support from Bangladesh's Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI). A section of the media also brought out reports of the active China link in these blasts, and also explored the active backing of the Chinese government with sponsored terror camps in Yunnan province. The stories were played over and over again with interpretations abound.
The question is, however, whether amidst all these statements, investigations underway, and media reports, where was the most crucial 'clear picture' on the blasts? The answer is that these were in the first place meant to create confusion and cloud of ambiguity for the state government and the counter-insurgency establishment to hide behind. This is not the first time that this has happened in Assam or elsewhere in the Northeast. The strong sense of ambiguity helps in washing off the responsibility of the government to seriously pursue investigations and come out with concrete results in the face of rising public anger and frustration at the inability of the government to end this cycle of violence.
If we look closely at the various interpretations, blaming of the ULFA upfront creates a sense of the local element in the insurgency and therefore attempts at excluding other groups. The ULFA-jihadi groups' connection is convenient for the state government as it reduces the pressure on them to act on the ever-growing network of jihadi terror in Assam. It therefore, manages not to be in an uncomfortable position on the question of the large illegal Bangladeshi migrant population in Assam, which has proven fertile ground for its breeding and support, and especially just before the Parliamentary elections.
The situation becomes murkier, when speculation abounds that whether this is a ULFA project with jihadi support from the outside, or a jihadi terror project with ULFA support on the ground. No investigation in the recent history of such blasts in Assam has been independently pursued, and all that has been done is the employment of a broad brush to depict things, and carry out token operations on random ULFA camps. However, nothing purposive has been done to contain the growing jihadi clout on an independent basis, which is the need of the hour. The completely mundane and obvious Bangladeshi links are overplayed, and nonsensical reports of ULFA links with China are brought to the fore, while no attempts are made to address the problem within Assam. The government and analysts hang on to the foreign thread that continues to drive speculation.
The ULFA would not do such a thing at this moment, clearly because it is counter-productive for them, and for the record there have been factions within the ULFA, with some companies surrendering recently. The local ULFA elements, if at all, are basically a force of mercenaries. The well-planned blasts were preceded by equally well-planned communal riots in the Bodo heartland a month ago, which later became an all-out communal riot affecting across communities. This link is consciously ignored.
The current interpretations have a damning effect on peace in the region, as the overall ambiguity leads to intense suspicion between various communities and these become entrenched over a period of time. These processes are dangerously irreversible and have wide-ranging effects. The very fact that these statements are made and interpretations arrived at, before a proper investigation takes place, creates insecurity and actually facilitates further terror activities. The state government should stop making such ambiguous and broad-brushed statements and harping on foreign links, on which it can do little; instead it should concentrate on correcting various anomalies within, thereby creating a sense of trust in the system . Irresponsible interpretations prevent a 'clear picture' from emerging and in turn prevents effective sustained counter-terrorism operations.
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
