Resolving the Hijack Crisis
Udayakumar December 26, 1999
#43 Posted by temporal on December 27, 1999 11:48:30 am
Udayakumar:
Thanks for a balanced article.
As long as there is real or perceived injustice in the world there would be other hijackings.
There is only one way to effectively deal with it. Do no negotiate. Do not give in. Ever.
Easier said then done. Because as a corollary to not negotiating, one has to take action to resolve the crisis: to free the hostages. Almost always it entails loss of lives. It is probably the most unpleasant decision any government has to make. That is probably why this plane was allowed to fly out of Amritsar in the first place.
I would suggest a well trained, armed and ready Anti Hijacking Squad under the UN auspices that can be immediately dispatched to anywhere in the world. A sort of Israeli Entebbe Squad crossed with 82nd Airborne readiness. And this can be simply funded by us -- by the airline passengers. Am sure as little as 50cents or a dollar tax imposed on each ticket purchased shall raise sufficient funds to cover the expenses of this Anti Hijacking Squad.
rgds
t
Thanks for a balanced article.
As long as there is real or perceived injustice in the world there would be other hijackings.
There is only one way to effectively deal with it. Do no negotiate. Do not give in. Ever.
Easier said then done. Because as a corollary to not negotiating, one has to take action to resolve the crisis: to free the hostages. Almost always it entails loss of lives. It is probably the most unpleasant decision any government has to make. That is probably why this plane was allowed to fly out of Amritsar in the first place.
I would suggest a well trained, armed and ready Anti Hijacking Squad under the UN auspices that can be immediately dispatched to anywhere in the world. A sort of Israeli Entebbe Squad crossed with 82nd Airborne readiness. And this can be simply funded by us -- by the airline passengers. Am sure as little as 50cents or a dollar tax imposed on each ticket purchased shall raise sufficient funds to cover the expenses of this Anti Hijacking Squad.
rgds
t
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#42 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://www.nzz.ch/online/04_english/background/background2000/background0001/bg000108afghanistan.htm
The Taliban`s ``Hospitality``
The Skyjacking to Kandahar as Image Polishing
Bernard Imhasly
The skyjacking of an Indian airliner to Afghanistan over Christmas may have protected the hijackers from a storming of the aircraft by an Indian anti-terrorism unit. The Taliban used the skyjacking as an occasion on which to show themselves as ``honest brokers`` in the subsequent negotiations, in an attempt to break out of the international isolation into which the Islamic student warriors have maneuvered themselves.
The hijacking of an Indian airliner and the week-long holding of its passengers and crew hostage in Kandahar over the Christmas period created one loser, the Indian government, and two winners, the hijackers and the Taliban. The Islamic students, who have dominated about 85 percent of Afghanistan`s territory since 1997 but are quarantined by the international community because of their inhumane policies, used the stranding of the abducted aircraft in their stronghold of Kandahar to present themselves to the world as honest brokers. On Christmas Day they were suddenly confronted with an act of international piracy, when the Indian Airbus landed on a Kandahar runway. Despite some initial confusion, which may be ascribed to their ideological proximity to the hijackers, the Taliban quickly adjusted to the situation.
``Un-Islamic`` Demands
Throughout the affair, Pakistan vacillated unconvincingly between standing on the sidelines and officially cooperating to bring the incident to an end. But the Taliban performed a balancing act which brought them the esteem of India, UN diplomats and some other countries, but at the same time did not violate the hijackers` trust. At first the Taliban wanted nothing to do with the whole affair and ordered the skyjackers to leave Afghanistan. In fact, on the first day of the abduction, they foiled an attempted landing in Kabul. On the second day, when most of the leaders involved in the affair had arrived in Kandahar, the Shura - Afghan society`s traditional council of elders - under the chairmanship of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, decided that the act of piracy was unacceptable. The Taliban then invited India to take over the negotiations, and threatened to storm the plane if screams or sounds of shooting were heard. Nonetheless, the Taliban managed to retain the confidence of the hostage takers. It was they who assured the hijackers that no Indian commando unit would suddenly appear at the entrances to the aircraft.
When the Taliban learned that the hijackers had made two new demands - a ransom of 200 million dollars and the exhumation of the body of a Kashmiri rebel shot half a year ago - they intervened in the negotiations and convinced the hostage takers that those demands were ``un-Islamic,`` an argument which the Islamist air pirates could not counter. Once again they were asked to free the hostages or to fly on to some other place. Political asylum, said Taliban Foreign Minister Mutawakil, was out of the question. Ultimately, the scaling back of the hijackers` demands cleared the way for a compromise to which India could agree and which ended the week-long incarceration of the hostages.
No Monolithic Leadership
The Taliban`s tough but conciliatory stance toward people who may themselves have been trained in Afghanistan as ``holy warriors`` undoubtedly had overarching political motives. It was certainly aimed at easing the regime`s international isolation. They persist in their inhumane practices with regard to human rights in general and women in particular, and still offer their hospitality to the presumed Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin. But it is clear that their diplomatic isolation - the Kabul regime is recognized only by the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - and the UN economic embargo are increasingly hurting the Taliban rather than strengthening them.
Their surprisingly flexible behavior during this latest skyjacking drama gave further evidence that the Taliban are not quite the monolithic power elite of religious fanatics that most Western portraits make them appear. Even before the hostage taking, there were increasing signs that a more moderate faction was exerting its influence at the leadership level, pushing informally for an easing of Kabul`s harsh social policies without making a public fuss about it. In some Afghan cities, girls again have access to schooling and there have been official statements that the Taliban are willing to discuss issues of education policy. Also informally, there has been a resumption of cooperation with foreign aid groups, giving them narrowly circumscribed but significant latitude in employing women and launching projects concerned specifically with women`s affairs.
These trends are being followed with mistrust by more radical forces, which still enjoy the support of the supreme Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. Representatives of aid groups in Kabul maintain that the UN sanctions which went into effect in mid-November have generated a reaction of defiance which is actually strengthening the hand of these radical elements. The recent skyjacking, on the other hand, may have had the opposite effect, handing moderate leaders associated with Mullah Rabbani in Kabul - including Foreign Minister Mutawakil - an argument about how their country`s international isolation could be overcome, along the lines of: ``We can show the world that it needs a certain minimum of cooperation from us and that the isolation of Afghanistan ultimately harms not only our country but also the international community.``
This argument was bound to have an impact within the Taliban leadership, partly because the UN embargo is increasingly restricting vital support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. That became evident in recent weeks, when the freeze on Pakistani wheat deliveries suddenly raised the specter of famine in Afghanistan.
A Setup?
There is also, however, another way to interpret the latest hostage affair, based on thorough distrust of the Taliban. In fact, from this perspective they can be regarded as co-conspirators. The South Asian stereotype of Afghanis consists mainly of two traits: hospitality and slyness. The Taliban demonstrated their hospitality by supplying the inmates of the hijacked aircraft with food and drink. But could it be that the hostage takers were also ``guests,`` in the same sense that Osama bin Ladin is? Officially, the Taliban want nothing to do with the man; they claim to be merely obeying tribal law, which prescribes that protection be extended to every guest. They may have been following the same principle with regard to the hijackers, for in that situation, too, some things simply did not add up.
After Foreign Minister Mutawakil convinced the abductors to drop two of their demands, he indicated that it was now up to India to demonstrate the same flexibility and accede to the hijackers` demand for the release of 36 prisoners. That may have been the act of an honest broker. But, say some Indian skeptics, perhaps the whole thing was a setup, in which the Taliban told the hijackers to deliberately ratchet up their demands in order to then appear flexible by backing down, providing an effective argument with which to pressure India to also be ``reasonable.`` If that was the plan, it worked perfectly: the abductors achieved the release of their imprisoned colleagues, and the Taliban ended up looking like reliable people with whom it is possible to deal.
The Taliban`s ``Hospitality``
The Skyjacking to Kandahar as Image Polishing
Bernard Imhasly
The skyjacking of an Indian airliner to Afghanistan over Christmas may have protected the hijackers from a storming of the aircraft by an Indian anti-terrorism unit. The Taliban used the skyjacking as an occasion on which to show themselves as ``honest brokers`` in the subsequent negotiations, in an attempt to break out of the international isolation into which the Islamic student warriors have maneuvered themselves.
The hijacking of an Indian airliner and the week-long holding of its passengers and crew hostage in Kandahar over the Christmas period created one loser, the Indian government, and two winners, the hijackers and the Taliban. The Islamic students, who have dominated about 85 percent of Afghanistan`s territory since 1997 but are quarantined by the international community because of their inhumane policies, used the stranding of the abducted aircraft in their stronghold of Kandahar to present themselves to the world as honest brokers. On Christmas Day they were suddenly confronted with an act of international piracy, when the Indian Airbus landed on a Kandahar runway. Despite some initial confusion, which may be ascribed to their ideological proximity to the hijackers, the Taliban quickly adjusted to the situation.
``Un-Islamic`` Demands
Throughout the affair, Pakistan vacillated unconvincingly between standing on the sidelines and officially cooperating to bring the incident to an end. But the Taliban performed a balancing act which brought them the esteem of India, UN diplomats and some other countries, but at the same time did not violate the hijackers` trust. At first the Taliban wanted nothing to do with the whole affair and ordered the skyjackers to leave Afghanistan. In fact, on the first day of the abduction, they foiled an attempted landing in Kabul. On the second day, when most of the leaders involved in the affair had arrived in Kandahar, the Shura - Afghan society`s traditional council of elders - under the chairmanship of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, decided that the act of piracy was unacceptable. The Taliban then invited India to take over the negotiations, and threatened to storm the plane if screams or sounds of shooting were heard. Nonetheless, the Taliban managed to retain the confidence of the hostage takers. It was they who assured the hijackers that no Indian commando unit would suddenly appear at the entrances to the aircraft.
When the Taliban learned that the hijackers had made two new demands - a ransom of 200 million dollars and the exhumation of the body of a Kashmiri rebel shot half a year ago - they intervened in the negotiations and convinced the hostage takers that those demands were ``un-Islamic,`` an argument which the Islamist air pirates could not counter. Once again they were asked to free the hostages or to fly on to some other place. Political asylum, said Taliban Foreign Minister Mutawakil, was out of the question. Ultimately, the scaling back of the hijackers` demands cleared the way for a compromise to which India could agree and which ended the week-long incarceration of the hostages.
No Monolithic Leadership
The Taliban`s tough but conciliatory stance toward people who may themselves have been trained in Afghanistan as ``holy warriors`` undoubtedly had overarching political motives. It was certainly aimed at easing the regime`s international isolation. They persist in their inhumane practices with regard to human rights in general and women in particular, and still offer their hospitality to the presumed Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin. But it is clear that their diplomatic isolation - the Kabul regime is recognized only by the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - and the UN economic embargo are increasingly hurting the Taliban rather than strengthening them.
Their surprisingly flexible behavior during this latest skyjacking drama gave further evidence that the Taliban are not quite the monolithic power elite of religious fanatics that most Western portraits make them appear. Even before the hostage taking, there were increasing signs that a more moderate faction was exerting its influence at the leadership level, pushing informally for an easing of Kabul`s harsh social policies without making a public fuss about it. In some Afghan cities, girls again have access to schooling and there have been official statements that the Taliban are willing to discuss issues of education policy. Also informally, there has been a resumption of cooperation with foreign aid groups, giving them narrowly circumscribed but significant latitude in employing women and launching projects concerned specifically with women`s affairs.
These trends are being followed with mistrust by more radical forces, which still enjoy the support of the supreme Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. Representatives of aid groups in Kabul maintain that the UN sanctions which went into effect in mid-November have generated a reaction of defiance which is actually strengthening the hand of these radical elements. The recent skyjacking, on the other hand, may have had the opposite effect, handing moderate leaders associated with Mullah Rabbani in Kabul - including Foreign Minister Mutawakil - an argument about how their country`s international isolation could be overcome, along the lines of: ``We can show the world that it needs a certain minimum of cooperation from us and that the isolation of Afghanistan ultimately harms not only our country but also the international community.``
This argument was bound to have an impact within the Taliban leadership, partly because the UN embargo is increasingly restricting vital support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. That became evident in recent weeks, when the freeze on Pakistani wheat deliveries suddenly raised the specter of famine in Afghanistan.
A Setup?
There is also, however, another way to interpret the latest hostage affair, based on thorough distrust of the Taliban. In fact, from this perspective they can be regarded as co-conspirators. The South Asian stereotype of Afghanis consists mainly of two traits: hospitality and slyness. The Taliban demonstrated their hospitality by supplying the inmates of the hijacked aircraft with food and drink. But could it be that the hostage takers were also ``guests,`` in the same sense that Osama bin Ladin is? Officially, the Taliban want nothing to do with the man; they claim to be merely obeying tribal law, which prescribes that protection be extended to every guest. They may have been following the same principle with regard to the hijackers, for in that situation, too, some things simply did not add up.
After Foreign Minister Mutawakil convinced the abductors to drop two of their demands, he indicated that it was now up to India to demonstrate the same flexibility and accede to the hijackers` demand for the release of 36 prisoners. That may have been the act of an honest broker. But, say some Indian skeptics, perhaps the whole thing was a setup, in which the Taliban told the hijackers to deliberately ratchet up their demands in order to then appear flexible by backing down, providing an effective argument with which to pressure India to also be ``reasonable.`` If that was the plan, it worked perfectly: the abductors achieved the release of their imprisoned colleagues, and the Taliban ended up looking like reliable people with whom it is possible to deal.
#41 Posted by vineet on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Pussyfooting with Pakistan dangerous
Free Press Journal
January 13, 2000
By M V Kamath
There is a story told about B. K. Nehru who, at various times has been Governor, Ambassador and official in the Government of India. In 1948 Nehru was Joint Secretary in the Finance Ministry. It was his habit every morning to read the Muslim League newspaper Dawn whose sole function, then, was to abuse India and the Hindus in the most vituperative language without any rhyme or reason. Every morning as Nehru would read Dawn, his blood would boil at all the false charges about persecution of Muslims in India levelled by the paper. In disgust Nehru one day asked Mohammad Ali, who was then cabinet secretary in the League Ministry of Pakistan why Dawn was indulging in the hatred campaign against India with the obvious support and encouragement of the Pakistan government. Mohammad Ali knew that the charges made against India were demonstrably false. To Nehru`s questioning, Mohammad Ali`s reply was as simple and straight as the man himself. He admitted that the charges as printed in Dawn were false. But it was necessary to make them, he admitted, to build a new nation of Pakistan. He said the people of Pakistan were diverse. There was nothing to bind them together except religion. They needed an external enemy to keep them together. And who else could the enemy be except India and Hindus? Nehru asked how long Pakistan would need this external enemy and how long would it take to consolidate Pakistan. Five years, came the reply. This conversation took place fifty years ago. Pakistan continues to remain fragmented and hopelessly weak. To keep it together it requires to keep the Kashmir issue alive and it would go to any extent to keep the hate-India fires burning. Taken aback by his one-time I. C. S. colleague`s casual reply, Nehru asked him whether he had ever thought of what would happen if India took up the same line against Pakistan. After all, said Nehru, India was five times larger than Pakistan, had all the money, manpower and talent. To that riposte, the story goes, Mohammad Ali started laughing. Intrigued, Nehru said: ``Why are you laughing? Have I said anything funny?`` ``No`` replied Mohammad Ali ``I am not at all afraid of that``. ``Why?`` ``Because`` Mohammad Ali retorted, `` your religion is incapable of fanaticism``.
And that is the truth. For all that has been said in the media about Hindu fanaticism, Hindus are still not fanatics. Their patience is proverbial. They have taken one thousand years of Islamic assault on their religion, two hundred years of British rule and five hundred years of Portuguese reign in Goa philosophically. The time to change is now. Pakistan needs to be told off in no uncertain terms. For the last fifty years generally, and the last one decade specifically, Pakistan has let loose a reign of terror against India in Kashmir with grim determination. It tried to separate Punjab from India by supporting the Khalistani terrorists. It failed. It is now concentrating all its venom against India in Kashmir. In the past one decade Pakistan-sponsored terrorists have killed 16,850 innocent people in the state, including women and children. Criminal acts, extortions and looting by the Pakistani goons have cost the people over Rs. 10.61 crores. Among those killed, according to figures released by the State to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) were 6,219 Muslims, 719 Hindus, 45 Sikhs and some 267 others. It would clearly show that the so-called `militants` are not Kashmiris themselves but Pakistani terrorists. It is unheard of that Kashmiri Muslims should kill their own people. There is no civil war going on in Kashmir. What we see is naked Pakistani invasion by other means. The best thing that the media could do in the circumstances is to drop the word ``militant`` and recognise them for what they are: Pakistani Armed Forces in disguise. That would be facing the truth.
And what have these Pakistani terrorists done so far? They have killed 352 government officials, 125 politicians, including 15 senior leaders, 10 members of the judiciary and an equal number of journalists. They have kidnapped 2,491 citizens, including 20 foreigners and 135 women. While 809 were subsequently released, in most cases after extortion, torture and exchange of prisoners, 1,036 were brutally killed. The Pakistani terrorists also destroyed 1,264 government buildings, 758 educational institutions, 9,309 private homes, 1,659 shops, 243 bridges and nine hospitals. In the process of protecting the state, 1,416 Indian security personal have lost their lives.
To add to this woeful story one may notice that as a result of Pakistani terrorism over 49,000 Hindu and Sikh families were forced to leave their ancient homes and go to Jammu, Delhi and elsewhere in search of security. In other words Kashmir has, for all practical purposes, ceased to be the homeland of Kashmir Hindus. What was once a Hindu Kingdom before the advent of Islam has now been turned into a cent per cent Muslim state. India has stood by, doing nothing. It is also necessary to remember that the Pakistani armed forces, masquerading as terrorists, have destroyed 93 temples and two gurudwaras, even while destroying 27 mosques belonging to Shias. It shows the virulence of Pakistani hatred. According to the state government, an expenditure of Rs. 26,446 lakhs has been incurred on relief of the Kashmiri migrants between 1991 and 1997. It is a frightening picture.
What has been India`s answer to all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And let not the BJP-led government be blamed for this. It was the Congress and in the 1990s decade a series of short-lived non-BJP governments that were in power. They have stood by helplessly, watching the mindless depredations indulged by the Pakistani forces. Mohammad Ali was quite right when he told B. K. Nehru way back in 1948 that Hindus - and India - are incapable of fanaticism. Neither Hindus nor India need to be `fanatic` to give a fitting reply to Pakistan. The time for giving a fitting reply to our neighbour has come.
We should have learnt our lesson from Kargil. It should have taught us not to expect decency or peace from Pakistan. Islamic Pakistan is relentless in its pursuit of aggression, secure in the belief that India will not retaliate but for ever will remain somnolent. How many times did Ghazni Mohammad invade India? And how many times did Mohammad of Ghouri bring his forces to waylay Hindustan? Prithvi Raj forgave him once and let him go, for the latter only to return and kill his benefactor. Won`t we ever learn from history? History is repeating itself. Pakistan has fought three wars against India and each time it has lost. Notwithstanding, it undertook a silent war against India through the Khalisanis. It failed again. Kargil was yet another adventure. There again it failed miserably. Now it has resorted to hijacking Indian planes. Let it be clearly understood: this incident is not an isolated affair. It has all the markings of planned aggression by other means. In the hijacking affair, the entire Pakistan government is involved no matter how loudly Pakistani government officials may protest their innocence. The hijacking is aggression by other means. It is testing India`s strength to resist. One understands the agony of the relatives of those who ware held prisoners in the Indian Airlines plane. The entire country sympathises with both the prisoners and their relatives. But this has been a test of nerves.
Of the six terrorists - to call them just hijackers minimises the role of the Pakistani government - four of them are known Pakistani nationals. They flew in to Kathmandu in a Pakistan Airlines plane. How come that Pakistan allowed them to fly fully armed? It could not have been due to a lack of security. The Pakistan administration was fully aware of the terrorists` mission and supported it. More specifically the terrorists were agents of the Government of Pakistan who had specific instructions to hijack the Indian Airlines plane. Every detail was worked out to the last point when the terrorists boarded the Delhi-bound Indian Airline plane. Of this there can be no doubt.
There is no need for our liberals to indulge in breast-beating or to blame the BJP-led government for the fiasco. The immediate need is for Pakistan to be declared a terrorist state. Western powers must cease and desist from aiding Pakistan in any way. Importantly, India itself must wake up. We don`t need to copy Islamic fanaticism. But we should now retaliate against Pakistan in such a manner that it will for ever stop needling India.
India has been patient for far too long. That patience has not paid off. On the other hand it has been mistaken for cowardice. The enemy has been emboldened to attack us at various points with obvious impunity. Pakistan now obviously feels that it can do what it likes because it too possesses nuclear weapons. But a risk has to be taken. India must think seriously of ways to neutralise Pakistan. As has been said earlier, the time for doing so is now.
Free Press Journal
January 13, 2000
By M V Kamath
There is a story told about B. K. Nehru who, at various times has been Governor, Ambassador and official in the Government of India. In 1948 Nehru was Joint Secretary in the Finance Ministry. It was his habit every morning to read the Muslim League newspaper Dawn whose sole function, then, was to abuse India and the Hindus in the most vituperative language without any rhyme or reason. Every morning as Nehru would read Dawn, his blood would boil at all the false charges about persecution of Muslims in India levelled by the paper. In disgust Nehru one day asked Mohammad Ali, who was then cabinet secretary in the League Ministry of Pakistan why Dawn was indulging in the hatred campaign against India with the obvious support and encouragement of the Pakistan government. Mohammad Ali knew that the charges made against India were demonstrably false. To Nehru`s questioning, Mohammad Ali`s reply was as simple and straight as the man himself. He admitted that the charges as printed in Dawn were false. But it was necessary to make them, he admitted, to build a new nation of Pakistan. He said the people of Pakistan were diverse. There was nothing to bind them together except religion. They needed an external enemy to keep them together. And who else could the enemy be except India and Hindus? Nehru asked how long Pakistan would need this external enemy and how long would it take to consolidate Pakistan. Five years, came the reply. This conversation took place fifty years ago. Pakistan continues to remain fragmented and hopelessly weak. To keep it together it requires to keep the Kashmir issue alive and it would go to any extent to keep the hate-India fires burning. Taken aback by his one-time I. C. S. colleague`s casual reply, Nehru asked him whether he had ever thought of what would happen if India took up the same line against Pakistan. After all, said Nehru, India was five times larger than Pakistan, had all the money, manpower and talent. To that riposte, the story goes, Mohammad Ali started laughing. Intrigued, Nehru said: ``Why are you laughing? Have I said anything funny?`` ``No`` replied Mohammad Ali ``I am not at all afraid of that``. ``Why?`` ``Because`` Mohammad Ali retorted, `` your religion is incapable of fanaticism``.
And that is the truth. For all that has been said in the media about Hindu fanaticism, Hindus are still not fanatics. Their patience is proverbial. They have taken one thousand years of Islamic assault on their religion, two hundred years of British rule and five hundred years of Portuguese reign in Goa philosophically. The time to change is now. Pakistan needs to be told off in no uncertain terms. For the last fifty years generally, and the last one decade specifically, Pakistan has let loose a reign of terror against India in Kashmir with grim determination. It tried to separate Punjab from India by supporting the Khalistani terrorists. It failed. It is now concentrating all its venom against India in Kashmir. In the past one decade Pakistan-sponsored terrorists have killed 16,850 innocent people in the state, including women and children. Criminal acts, extortions and looting by the Pakistani goons have cost the people over Rs. 10.61 crores. Among those killed, according to figures released by the State to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) were 6,219 Muslims, 719 Hindus, 45 Sikhs and some 267 others. It would clearly show that the so-called `militants` are not Kashmiris themselves but Pakistani terrorists. It is unheard of that Kashmiri Muslims should kill their own people. There is no civil war going on in Kashmir. What we see is naked Pakistani invasion by other means. The best thing that the media could do in the circumstances is to drop the word ``militant`` and recognise them for what they are: Pakistani Armed Forces in disguise. That would be facing the truth.
And what have these Pakistani terrorists done so far? They have killed 352 government officials, 125 politicians, including 15 senior leaders, 10 members of the judiciary and an equal number of journalists. They have kidnapped 2,491 citizens, including 20 foreigners and 135 women. While 809 were subsequently released, in most cases after extortion, torture and exchange of prisoners, 1,036 were brutally killed. The Pakistani terrorists also destroyed 1,264 government buildings, 758 educational institutions, 9,309 private homes, 1,659 shops, 243 bridges and nine hospitals. In the process of protecting the state, 1,416 Indian security personal have lost their lives.
To add to this woeful story one may notice that as a result of Pakistani terrorism over 49,000 Hindu and Sikh families were forced to leave their ancient homes and go to Jammu, Delhi and elsewhere in search of security. In other words Kashmir has, for all practical purposes, ceased to be the homeland of Kashmir Hindus. What was once a Hindu Kingdom before the advent of Islam has now been turned into a cent per cent Muslim state. India has stood by, doing nothing. It is also necessary to remember that the Pakistani armed forces, masquerading as terrorists, have destroyed 93 temples and two gurudwaras, even while destroying 27 mosques belonging to Shias. It shows the virulence of Pakistani hatred. According to the state government, an expenditure of Rs. 26,446 lakhs has been incurred on relief of the Kashmiri migrants between 1991 and 1997. It is a frightening picture.
What has been India`s answer to all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And let not the BJP-led government be blamed for this. It was the Congress and in the 1990s decade a series of short-lived non-BJP governments that were in power. They have stood by helplessly, watching the mindless depredations indulged by the Pakistani forces. Mohammad Ali was quite right when he told B. K. Nehru way back in 1948 that Hindus - and India - are incapable of fanaticism. Neither Hindus nor India need to be `fanatic` to give a fitting reply to Pakistan. The time for giving a fitting reply to our neighbour has come.
We should have learnt our lesson from Kargil. It should have taught us not to expect decency or peace from Pakistan. Islamic Pakistan is relentless in its pursuit of aggression, secure in the belief that India will not retaliate but for ever will remain somnolent. How many times did Ghazni Mohammad invade India? And how many times did Mohammad of Ghouri bring his forces to waylay Hindustan? Prithvi Raj forgave him once and let him go, for the latter only to return and kill his benefactor. Won`t we ever learn from history? History is repeating itself. Pakistan has fought three wars against India and each time it has lost. Notwithstanding, it undertook a silent war against India through the Khalisanis. It failed again. Kargil was yet another adventure. There again it failed miserably. Now it has resorted to hijacking Indian planes. Let it be clearly understood: this incident is not an isolated affair. It has all the markings of planned aggression by other means. In the hijacking affair, the entire Pakistan government is involved no matter how loudly Pakistani government officials may protest their innocence. The hijacking is aggression by other means. It is testing India`s strength to resist. One understands the agony of the relatives of those who ware held prisoners in the Indian Airlines plane. The entire country sympathises with both the prisoners and their relatives. But this has been a test of nerves.
Of the six terrorists - to call them just hijackers minimises the role of the Pakistani government - four of them are known Pakistani nationals. They flew in to Kathmandu in a Pakistan Airlines plane. How come that Pakistan allowed them to fly fully armed? It could not have been due to a lack of security. The Pakistan administration was fully aware of the terrorists` mission and supported it. More specifically the terrorists were agents of the Government of Pakistan who had specific instructions to hijack the Indian Airlines plane. Every detail was worked out to the last point when the terrorists boarded the Delhi-bound Indian Airline plane. Of this there can be no doubt.
There is no need for our liberals to indulge in breast-beating or to blame the BJP-led government for the fiasco. The immediate need is for Pakistan to be declared a terrorist state. Western powers must cease and desist from aiding Pakistan in any way. Importantly, India itself must wake up. We don`t need to copy Islamic fanaticism. But we should now retaliate against Pakistan in such a manner that it will for ever stop needling India.
India has been patient for far too long. That patience has not paid off. On the other hand it has been mistaken for cowardice. The enemy has been emboldened to attack us at various points with obvious impunity. Pakistan now obviously feels that it can do what it likes because it too possesses nuclear weapons. But a risk has to be taken. India must think seriously of ways to neutralise Pakistan. As has been said earlier, the time for doing so is now.
#40 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
IN Washington Times there was another article by Timothy Towell
Timothy Towell
While a ``cold peace`` seems to be settling in over centuries-old animosities between Jewish and Islamic interests in the Middle East, a new front in the wars of religious intolerance seems to be taking its place across South Asia. While the suicide bombings and hijackings of the 1980s and 1990s have abated, the recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet across Nepal, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan harkens back to a time when such heinous acts of extremism were commonplace.
In the wake of this act of cowardice, India`s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has asked Western governments to join him in declaring Pakistan responsible for this latest act of terror. India`s claim is that by providing safe harbor and operational freedom to the manifold terrorist groupings within Pakistan to stage their assaults, the military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf is a complicit and willing sponsor of terrorism. Though the government of India has yet to produce its smoking gun condemning its Pakistani neighbor, circumstantial evidence clearly weighs heavily against Pakistan.
Though little is known about the escaped hijackers, their demand, that India release three senior members of the Pakistan-based group Harakat ul Mujahedeen, implicates them in a series of anti-Indian assaults conducted in Kashmir and carried out against Western interests. Formerly known under its original name, Azhar ul Mujahedeen, after its just-released founder and head Masood Azhar, the group has been on the State Department`s terrorist watch list since 1997. Central to this listing is the group`s responsibility for the 1995 kidnapping of six Western tourists, one of whom was beheaded while four others remain missing.
Active throughout the subcontinent, Harakat is only one of a number of similar terrorist cells operating in clear view of their government protectors and with a single-minded hatred for non-Islamic ``infidels.`` Much like the notorious ``blind cleric,`` Abdul Rahman, who masterminded the World Trade Center bombing, Maulana Masood Azhar, a self-described holy man, prays on the cultural backwardness and economic hardship of local youth to coerce them into lives of terrorist thought and activity, all under the guise of ``finding religion.`` In his first public announcement since hijackers won his escape from an Indian prison, Azhar this week railed from a Karachi mosque, ``I have come here because this is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India.``
Similar groups, like the Lashkar-e-Tayyba, whose membership and leadership include retired members of Pakistan`s army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), are so much a part of the unofficial body politic in Pakistan now that they enjoy open material support from the Musharraf regime. At that group`s annual meeting last November, Lashkar`s chief, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed ranted that ``Issues cannot be solved without introducing the Islamic system. The Jehad is being organized under the leadership of Lashkar-e-Osama [Soldiers of Osama bin Laden]. In this fight, the United States is the biggest terrorist. Its diplomatic missions here patronize us!`` Even more unsettling than the fact that this speech was made exactly one week prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Islamabad, is that this conference received a permit and security protection from the Pakistani government.
Faced with such complicity, what recourse does the United States have in combating and preventing future attacks against its territory and its citizens? In his Senate testimony, Michael Sheehan, the State Department`s new coordinator for counter-terrorism, identified a shift in the center of terrorism ``from Libya, Syria, and Lebanon to South Asia in particular, Afghanistan and Pakistan.`` As a result, the United States has had to press, plead with and cajole Pakistan, its former Cold War ally, ``to end support for terrorist training in Afghanistan, to interdict travel of militants to and from camps in Afghanistan, and to prevent its own militant groups from acquiring weapons.`` Under successive ``democratic`` governments, this was done to little avail. Now, faced with a military junta whose own ties to these Islamic fundamentalist are already well-established, the United States must proceed with a policy of containing this regime and its terrorist allies while engaging the only responsible power left in the region: India.
An initial and highly important first step towards this end was taken last month when U.S. and Indian intelligence officials concluded their discussions on the formation of a Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism. While material and intelligence support by the United States will enable our Indian allies to better combat those terrorist elements at work on its borders and with the capacity to strike our own territory, more must be done to demonstrate U.S. resolve in this fight. U.S. officials should join the Indian prime minister in declaring Pakistan a terrorist state and subject it to the same sort of pariah status as Afghanistan and Iran. To not do so violates the spirit of this country`s tough stand on terrorism.
Timothy Towell was United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1990-1994.
Timothy Towell
While a ``cold peace`` seems to be settling in over centuries-old animosities between Jewish and Islamic interests in the Middle East, a new front in the wars of religious intolerance seems to be taking its place across South Asia. While the suicide bombings and hijackings of the 1980s and 1990s have abated, the recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet across Nepal, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan harkens back to a time when such heinous acts of extremism were commonplace.
In the wake of this act of cowardice, India`s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has asked Western governments to join him in declaring Pakistan responsible for this latest act of terror. India`s claim is that by providing safe harbor and operational freedom to the manifold terrorist groupings within Pakistan to stage their assaults, the military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf is a complicit and willing sponsor of terrorism. Though the government of India has yet to produce its smoking gun condemning its Pakistani neighbor, circumstantial evidence clearly weighs heavily against Pakistan.
Though little is known about the escaped hijackers, their demand, that India release three senior members of the Pakistan-based group Harakat ul Mujahedeen, implicates them in a series of anti-Indian assaults conducted in Kashmir and carried out against Western interests. Formerly known under its original name, Azhar ul Mujahedeen, after its just-released founder and head Masood Azhar, the group has been on the State Department`s terrorist watch list since 1997. Central to this listing is the group`s responsibility for the 1995 kidnapping of six Western tourists, one of whom was beheaded while four others remain missing.
Active throughout the subcontinent, Harakat is only one of a number of similar terrorist cells operating in clear view of their government protectors and with a single-minded hatred for non-Islamic ``infidels.`` Much like the notorious ``blind cleric,`` Abdul Rahman, who masterminded the World Trade Center bombing, Maulana Masood Azhar, a self-described holy man, prays on the cultural backwardness and economic hardship of local youth to coerce them into lives of terrorist thought and activity, all under the guise of ``finding religion.`` In his first public announcement since hijackers won his escape from an Indian prison, Azhar this week railed from a Karachi mosque, ``I have come here because this is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India.``
Similar groups, like the Lashkar-e-Tayyba, whose membership and leadership include retired members of Pakistan`s army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), are so much a part of the unofficial body politic in Pakistan now that they enjoy open material support from the Musharraf regime. At that group`s annual meeting last November, Lashkar`s chief, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed ranted that ``Issues cannot be solved without introducing the Islamic system. The Jehad is being organized under the leadership of Lashkar-e-Osama [Soldiers of Osama bin Laden]. In this fight, the United States is the biggest terrorist. Its diplomatic missions here patronize us!`` Even more unsettling than the fact that this speech was made exactly one week prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Islamabad, is that this conference received a permit and security protection from the Pakistani government.
Faced with such complicity, what recourse does the United States have in combating and preventing future attacks against its territory and its citizens? In his Senate testimony, Michael Sheehan, the State Department`s new coordinator for counter-terrorism, identified a shift in the center of terrorism ``from Libya, Syria, and Lebanon to South Asia in particular, Afghanistan and Pakistan.`` As a result, the United States has had to press, plead with and cajole Pakistan, its former Cold War ally, ``to end support for terrorist training in Afghanistan, to interdict travel of militants to and from camps in Afghanistan, and to prevent its own militant groups from acquiring weapons.`` Under successive ``democratic`` governments, this was done to little avail. Now, faced with a military junta whose own ties to these Islamic fundamentalist are already well-established, the United States must proceed with a policy of containing this regime and its terrorist allies while engaging the only responsible power left in the region: India.
An initial and highly important first step towards this end was taken last month when U.S. and Indian intelligence officials concluded their discussions on the formation of a Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism. While material and intelligence support by the United States will enable our Indian allies to better combat those terrorist elements at work on its borders and with the capacity to strike our own territory, more must be done to demonstrate U.S. resolve in this fight. U.S. officials should join the Indian prime minister in declaring Pakistan a terrorist state and subject it to the same sort of pariah status as Afghanistan and Iran. To not do so violates the spirit of this country`s tough stand on terrorism.
Timothy Towell was United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1990-1994.
#39 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Jan. 12, 2000, 6:23PM
Houston Chronicle Editorial: Despite help ending hijacking, too early to laud Taliban
Afghanistan`s Taliban militia received much positive recognition for its help in negotiating a resolution to the Christmas Eve hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane. But too much praise is heaped on this brutal regime for a single righteous act; let us not forget the Taliban`s terrible record on human rights and international terrorism.
The eight-day ordeal ended after India released three militants in exchange for the hostages, but not before the hijackers diverted the plane to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, apparently because they expected Taliban support. And no wonder. The militia, which now controls some 80 percent of Afghanistan, has shown itself to be a haven for terrorists. What was surprising was that the Taliban publicly condemned the hijacking and threatened to storm the plane if more hostages were killed after the hijackers stabbed one passenger to death.
What is less surprising is that French passengers are saying the hijackers appeared to receive new weapons when the plane landed in Kandahar.
The world should not assume that the Taliban has changed its stripes simply because it chose to act as a go-between for the Indian government and the hijackers -- four from Pakistan, which is one of only three countries that have diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and one from Afghanistan. If nothing else, the Taliban`s decision to act as mediator probably was a calculated move to soften world opinion. The world should not be swayed so easily.
The Taliban forbids most education of girls and women, prohibits their working outside the home and does not even allow women to walk about except in the company of a close male relative.
The regime sanctions terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan and last year refused to hand over Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who the United States contends masterminded the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 227 people. The standoff led the United Nations to impose sanctions on Afghanistan in October.
The Taliban militia, furthermore, is blamed for its support of the separatist war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In fact, it is the radical Islamic group Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen that is believed to be behind the hijacking. These militants have been on the U.S. terrorist list since 1997 for their alleged role in various kidnappings of Westerners in India, yet they operate freely inside Afghanistan.
There is still much evil for which the Taliban must answer. To shine a more flattering light on the themselves will take more than playing intermediary during a hijacking that the regime`s own coddling of terrorists encourages.
Houston Chronicle Editorial: Despite help ending hijacking, too early to laud Taliban
Afghanistan`s Taliban militia received much positive recognition for its help in negotiating a resolution to the Christmas Eve hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane. But too much praise is heaped on this brutal regime for a single righteous act; let us not forget the Taliban`s terrible record on human rights and international terrorism.
The eight-day ordeal ended after India released three militants in exchange for the hostages, but not before the hijackers diverted the plane to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, apparently because they expected Taliban support. And no wonder. The militia, which now controls some 80 percent of Afghanistan, has shown itself to be a haven for terrorists. What was surprising was that the Taliban publicly condemned the hijacking and threatened to storm the plane if more hostages were killed after the hijackers stabbed one passenger to death.
What is less surprising is that French passengers are saying the hijackers appeared to receive new weapons when the plane landed in Kandahar.
The world should not assume that the Taliban has changed its stripes simply because it chose to act as a go-between for the Indian government and the hijackers -- four from Pakistan, which is one of only three countries that have diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and one from Afghanistan. If nothing else, the Taliban`s decision to act as mediator probably was a calculated move to soften world opinion. The world should not be swayed so easily.
The Taliban forbids most education of girls and women, prohibits their working outside the home and does not even allow women to walk about except in the company of a close male relative.
The regime sanctions terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan and last year refused to hand over Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who the United States contends masterminded the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 227 people. The standoff led the United Nations to impose sanctions on Afghanistan in October.
The Taliban militia, furthermore, is blamed for its support of the separatist war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In fact, it is the radical Islamic group Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen that is believed to be behind the hijacking. These militants have been on the U.S. terrorist list since 1997 for their alleged role in various kidnappings of Westerners in India, yet they operate freely inside Afghanistan.
There is still much evil for which the Taliban must answer. To shine a more flattering light on the themselves will take more than playing intermediary during a hijacking that the regime`s own coddling of terrorists encourages.
#38 Posted by vineet on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
India displays `Ghandian fortitude` in dealing with hijackers (Washington Post)
This administration should give up its retrograded Cold War approach to South Asian politics and help support and defend the only Western democracy in the region: India (``U.S. avoids comments on anti-Pakistan accusations,`` World, Jan. 4).
Neighboring a country that sponsors terrorism against it and most assuredly sponsored the Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijacking, and negotiating through a fundamentalist regime no Western country recognizes, India exhibited the kind of Ghandian fortitude for which it is known.
Violence only begets violence, and in this nuclear-armed region, upping the ante is the easiest way to stumble inadvertently into a far more deadly situation. Drawing upon its nonviolent roots, India may have helped avoid a larger conflict in the short term. However, for there to be any hope for long-term security in the region, Pakistan should be recognized for what it is, a state sponsor of terrorism, and contained as such by Western powers.
TIMOTHY TOWELL
Former U.S. ambassador to Paraguay
Washington
This administration should give up its retrograded Cold War approach to South Asian politics and help support and defend the only Western democracy in the region: India (``U.S. avoids comments on anti-Pakistan accusations,`` World, Jan. 4).
Neighboring a country that sponsors terrorism against it and most assuredly sponsored the Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijacking, and negotiating through a fundamentalist regime no Western country recognizes, India exhibited the kind of Ghandian fortitude for which it is known.
Violence only begets violence, and in this nuclear-armed region, upping the ante is the easiest way to stumble inadvertently into a far more deadly situation. Drawing upon its nonviolent roots, India may have helped avoid a larger conflict in the short term. However, for there to be any hope for long-term security in the region, Pakistan should be recognized for what it is, a state sponsor of terrorism, and contained as such by Western powers.
TIMOTHY TOWELL
Former U.S. ambassador to Paraguay
Washington
#36 Posted by jay on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
HIJACKING OF PEACE
Sitting on the banks of Farook River, oh. that is a muslim name, how did this river in Kerala, old as the mountains get a muslim name, I will find out, Chowk at times appear to be a different world. There are people fishing, they all are using a simple hook with earthworm on it, I am the one with a fishing gear that will easily cost five years earnings of a fisherman, trying to catch a fish with lures. They all had a look at my lures, they have never heard of it, and they declared promptly that no Kerala fish could be foolish to swallow this plastic crap. May be the fish need to be trained, I am working on it.
Some do have Internet connection; they use for e-mails and of course for porno. I want to show them something else that can be done on the net, visceral porno to cerebral polemics and all the way to peace with Pakistan. May be I should stick with the fish, but at least let me give a demo of the good work that can be done.
The discussion on hijacking did not lead to any kind of understanding on two prime issues. The Pakistanis asked how can the passengers see the hijackers and here in comes the social differences. In Pakistan a hijacker is a person on the ground, like Nawas Sheriff, how nicely he has been charged and the trial is proceeding, while the Indians believe that a hijacker has to be on the aircraft. The reason is simple, the Pak laws have to conform to sheria, see the case of interest rates, and as such only a man on the ground can be charged, when sheria was written there were no aircraft. Now at last there is understanding, hijacker is defined by the social setting and one has to recognize that.
The other aspect is Asghar has been acquitted by the Indian courts. Again look at parallel events in Pakistan, Bhutto was hanged, because he allegedly knew that a person is going to be killed. A woman was shot dead in the office of a law firm of Asma Jehangir, no case has been filed. India should have got the Bhutto judges to try Asghar.
Now this is only a demonstration of the promotion of understanding and good will across the globe by this new toy, some thing I am trying to convince these illiterate Keralites and to wean them away from porno.
May be teaching the fish to bite the lure should be easier than my other longing. I have fish queuing up.
Sitting on the banks of Farook River, oh. that is a muslim name, how did this river in Kerala, old as the mountains get a muslim name, I will find out, Chowk at times appear to be a different world. There are people fishing, they all are using a simple hook with earthworm on it, I am the one with a fishing gear that will easily cost five years earnings of a fisherman, trying to catch a fish with lures. They all had a look at my lures, they have never heard of it, and they declared promptly that no Kerala fish could be foolish to swallow this plastic crap. May be the fish need to be trained, I am working on it.
Some do have Internet connection; they use for e-mails and of course for porno. I want to show them something else that can be done on the net, visceral porno to cerebral polemics and all the way to peace with Pakistan. May be I should stick with the fish, but at least let me give a demo of the good work that can be done.
The discussion on hijacking did not lead to any kind of understanding on two prime issues. The Pakistanis asked how can the passengers see the hijackers and here in comes the social differences. In Pakistan a hijacker is a person on the ground, like Nawas Sheriff, how nicely he has been charged and the trial is proceeding, while the Indians believe that a hijacker has to be on the aircraft. The reason is simple, the Pak laws have to conform to sheria, see the case of interest rates, and as such only a man on the ground can be charged, when sheria was written there were no aircraft. Now at last there is understanding, hijacker is defined by the social setting and one has to recognize that.
The other aspect is Asghar has been acquitted by the Indian courts. Again look at parallel events in Pakistan, Bhutto was hanged, because he allegedly knew that a person is going to be killed. A woman was shot dead in the office of a law firm of Asma Jehangir, no case has been filed. India should have got the Bhutto judges to try Asghar.
Now this is only a demonstration of the promotion of understanding and good will across the globe by this new toy, some thing I am trying to convince these illiterate Keralites and to wean them away from porno.
May be teaching the fish to bite the lure should be easier than my other longing. I have fish queuing up.
#35 Posted by vineet on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0117/india.valuablecargo.html
Who Was That Special Passenger?
By MASEEH RAHMAN New Delhi
At one point during the eight-day hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, the abductors demanded $200 million from the Indian government. Little did they know that one of the hostages sitting in economy class could have effortlessly written them a check for that amount. Roberto Giori, owner of the Lausanne-based company De La Rue Giori, boarded Flight 814 after a holiday in Katmandu with his companion Cristina Calabresi. De La Rue Giori, which Giori inherited from his father, happens to control 90% of the world`s currency-printing business. The 50-year-old Giori, who holds dual Swiss and Italian nationality, is one of Switzerland`s richest men.
When the plane was hijacked over northern India, Giori and other business-class passengers were herded into economy. The scariest moment came three hours later when the pilot tried to land at the airport in Lahore, Pakistan. ``I thought it was the end,`` Giori later recalled. ``The runway was not visible because the lights were off, the plane had no fuel and the pilot even tried to land on a brightly lit road next to the airport.``
After the plane landed in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, where it would remain for seven days, Switzerland sent a special envoy to the airport to deal with the abduction of its ``currency king,`` his companion and two other Swiss nationals. It also put pressure on New Delhi to come to a solution that ensured their safe release. Meanwhile, Giori experienced harassment and deprivation along with the rest of the passengers, including irregular rice-and-mutton-curry meals, inadequate drinking water, no tea or coffee, stinking toilets and sudden bursts of temper from the hijackers. On top of that came constant lectures from the hostage-takers on Islam and the Kashmir separatist struggle, piped through the passenger address system. According to Giori, the hijackers told the hostages: ``As you suffer, think of how our brothers suffer in Indian jails.``
After being freed and flown to New Delhi, Giori said: ``I realized suddenly that these men had no problem killing or getting killed. I am one hundred thousand percent certain they would have fought until the end. They were extremely well-trained and highly motivated.`` Giori said he was convinced that if India hadn`t released militant leader Maulana Masood Azhar, the hijackers would have forced the aircraft to take off and then deliberately crashed it into the hills around Kandahar.
The week-long ordeal had an unexpected impact on the currency tycoon. ``What I experienced on the plane has changed me forever,`` said Giori. ``I don`t know what it is: Hinduism, the so-called fatalism of Indians. But the way the passengers stayed so calm throughout, even the children, was exemplary. I told myself, if the plane had been full of Italians or French, it would have been very different.``
Who Was That Special Passenger?
By MASEEH RAHMAN New Delhi
At one point during the eight-day hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, the abductors demanded $200 million from the Indian government. Little did they know that one of the hostages sitting in economy class could have effortlessly written them a check for that amount. Roberto Giori, owner of the Lausanne-based company De La Rue Giori, boarded Flight 814 after a holiday in Katmandu with his companion Cristina Calabresi. De La Rue Giori, which Giori inherited from his father, happens to control 90% of the world`s currency-printing business. The 50-year-old Giori, who holds dual Swiss and Italian nationality, is one of Switzerland`s richest men.
When the plane was hijacked over northern India, Giori and other business-class passengers were herded into economy. The scariest moment came three hours later when the pilot tried to land at the airport in Lahore, Pakistan. ``I thought it was the end,`` Giori later recalled. ``The runway was not visible because the lights were off, the plane had no fuel and the pilot even tried to land on a brightly lit road next to the airport.``
After the plane landed in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, where it would remain for seven days, Switzerland sent a special envoy to the airport to deal with the abduction of its ``currency king,`` his companion and two other Swiss nationals. It also put pressure on New Delhi to come to a solution that ensured their safe release. Meanwhile, Giori experienced harassment and deprivation along with the rest of the passengers, including irregular rice-and-mutton-curry meals, inadequate drinking water, no tea or coffee, stinking toilets and sudden bursts of temper from the hijackers. On top of that came constant lectures from the hostage-takers on Islam and the Kashmir separatist struggle, piped through the passenger address system. According to Giori, the hijackers told the hostages: ``As you suffer, think of how our brothers suffer in Indian jails.``
After being freed and flown to New Delhi, Giori said: ``I realized suddenly that these men had no problem killing or getting killed. I am one hundred thousand percent certain they would have fought until the end. They were extremely well-trained and highly motivated.`` Giori said he was convinced that if India hadn`t released militant leader Maulana Masood Azhar, the hijackers would have forced the aircraft to take off and then deliberately crashed it into the hills around Kandahar.
The week-long ordeal had an unexpected impact on the currency tycoon. ``What I experienced on the plane has changed me forever,`` said Giori. ``I don`t know what it is: Hinduism, the so-called fatalism of Indians. But the way the passengers stayed so calm throughout, even the children, was exemplary. I told myself, if the plane had been full of Italians or French, it would have been very different.``
#34 Posted by vineet on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Fallout from Flight 814
The aftermath of the Indian Airlines hijacking suggests that tension over Kashmir is getting worse
By NISID HAJARIAP
Azhar: ``Present me with a garland of shoes, blacken my face, because India is yet to be destroyed.``
Confined to an Indian prison cell, Maulana Masood Azhar had to watch his words. ``It is against the tenets of our religion to bargain over the lives of innocents,`` he reportedly told one of his jailers when informed that five masked gunmen had hijacked an Indian Airlines jet on Christmas Eve and demanded his release. ``The hostages should be released unconditionally.`` After being freed, however, Azhar loosened his tongue. Five days after New Delhi exchanged Azhar and two other alleged terrorists for the 155 passengers and crew on board Flight 814, the 31-year-old militant Islamic leader resurfaced in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, breathing fire. ``Don`t hail me. Don`t congratulate me over my release. Don`t raise slogans for me,`` he told a crowd of several thousand supporters, many of them armed, who had gathered in front of a Muslim seminary. ``Instead, present me with a garland of shoes, blacken my face, because India is yet to be destroyed.``
Indian negotiators may have thought they closed the book on the hijacking on Dec. 31, when all the hostages were freed at the airport in Kandahar, Afghanistan. But in the week since, the repercussions of the deal have begun to echo deafeningly across South Asia. ``I have come here because this is my duty, to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India,`` Azhar exhorted the Karachi crowd. In Kashmir itself, Muslim militants launched at least two attacks on Indian security installations, killing four soldiers, while a land mine planted in a Srinagar market killed 15 bystanders. In Pakistan-held Kashmir, five civilians were killed by Indian shells. As charges and countercharges were also lobbed across the border, the only thing certain was that the two sides were nowhere near resolving the issue at the center of all the violence: the fate of Kashmir.
The fallout began to spread almost as soon as the hostages were released in Kandahar. According to Azhar, the five hijackers and three militants--with an unarmed member of Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia as hostage--drove out of Kandahar for about 30 minutes. Then the hijackers, whom he says had not taken off their masks, freed the Taliban official and set off on their own. Azhar and the others--Kashmiri militant Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Ahmed Umar Saeed Sheikh, a Pakistani-born British citizen--crossed into Pakistan together. Azhar made his way to Karachi and ultimately to his hometown of Bahawalpur. Zargar was reported to have returned to a hero`s welcome in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. By week`s end Sheikh had yet to surface.
Their freedom mocks the government of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, which has been criticized by everyone from Jane`s Defence Weekly to its own political mentors for striking a deal with the hijackers. Not surprisingly, Vajpayee`s Hindu nationalist team has responded by ratcheting up accusations against India`s neighbor. ``Pakistan is neck-deep in this dirty game of hijacking,`` declared India`s hawkish Home Minister L.K. Advani. He bases his case on the arrests of four Bombay residents (including two Pakistani citizens), whom he claims had helped the hijackers prepare for their mission. By interrogating the four, authorities were supposedly able to identify the hijackers, whose pictures were promptly plastered across the front pages of India`s major dailies. All five named, including Azhar`s brother, Ibrahim Athar, are Pakistani nationals. Azhar denies that his brother was one of the hijackers, says he never saw their faces and contends that they identified themselves as Indian citizens from Kashmir.
Islamabad scoffs at charges that it was in any way involved, and Advani could point to no direct link between the Pakistani government and the hijackers. But the rhetoric emanating from Pakistan has been equally florid--and the angry denials don`t fully pass the plausibility test. When the Taliban allowed the hijackers their freedom on New Year`s Eve, they gave them 10 hours to get off Afghan soil. The only country they could have realistically reached in that time was Pakistan. Border guards at Quetta, the Pakistani city nearest to Kandahar, told reporters they had been placed on alert--yet they also conceded they had no idea who or what they were supposed to be looking for. (In Pakistan`s view, in any case, the hijackers are the only political hot potatoes, and authorities have vowed to arrest them if they are found in Pakistan. Azhar was allowed openly into the country, since Islamabad says he has broken no Pakistani laws.)
At the very least, Pakistan has exposed itself to criticism for tolerating Islamic militia groups like Lashkar-i-Tayyaba and Azhar`s Harkat ul-Mujahideen, which has been listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. ``These groups have become so autonomous that the government, despite its best efforts, has not been able to exercise very tight control over their activities,`` says Rifaat Hussain, chairman of defense studies at Islamabad`s Quaid-i-Azam University. Much of the Pakistani public supports Kashmir separatism, and any crackdown on militants would be political suicide. But allowing free rein to Azhar could prove even more dangerous to the regime of General Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew an elected Prime Minister in October. Thus far the U.S. has rejected India`s calls to brand Pakistan a terrorist state. But State Department spokesman James Rubin called Azhar`s remarks in Karachi ``deplorable and unacceptable`` and warned that Washington would hold Pakistani officials responsible for any activities of his that threatened the safety of Americans.
Azhar himself recognizes the need for circumspection. ``The media coverage of this hijacking put a lot of pressure on the [Pakistani] government, and it wants us to keep a low profile,`` he told Time in Karachi last week. Indian officials naturally worry that the inspirational orator could fan the flames, already hot, of the separatist insurgency in Kashmir. But even if he doesn`t make things worse, the depth of mistrust and resentment that has built up in Delhi and Islamabad means things are not likely to get cooler any time soon.
The aftermath of the Indian Airlines hijacking suggests that tension over Kashmir is getting worse
By NISID HAJARIAP
Azhar: ``Present me with a garland of shoes, blacken my face, because India is yet to be destroyed.``
Confined to an Indian prison cell, Maulana Masood Azhar had to watch his words. ``It is against the tenets of our religion to bargain over the lives of innocents,`` he reportedly told one of his jailers when informed that five masked gunmen had hijacked an Indian Airlines jet on Christmas Eve and demanded his release. ``The hostages should be released unconditionally.`` After being freed, however, Azhar loosened his tongue. Five days after New Delhi exchanged Azhar and two other alleged terrorists for the 155 passengers and crew on board Flight 814, the 31-year-old militant Islamic leader resurfaced in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, breathing fire. ``Don`t hail me. Don`t congratulate me over my release. Don`t raise slogans for me,`` he told a crowd of several thousand supporters, many of them armed, who had gathered in front of a Muslim seminary. ``Instead, present me with a garland of shoes, blacken my face, because India is yet to be destroyed.``
Indian negotiators may have thought they closed the book on the hijacking on Dec. 31, when all the hostages were freed at the airport in Kandahar, Afghanistan. But in the week since, the repercussions of the deal have begun to echo deafeningly across South Asia. ``I have come here because this is my duty, to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India,`` Azhar exhorted the Karachi crowd. In Kashmir itself, Muslim militants launched at least two attacks on Indian security installations, killing four soldiers, while a land mine planted in a Srinagar market killed 15 bystanders. In Pakistan-held Kashmir, five civilians were killed by Indian shells. As charges and countercharges were also lobbed across the border, the only thing certain was that the two sides were nowhere near resolving the issue at the center of all the violence: the fate of Kashmir.
The fallout began to spread almost as soon as the hostages were released in Kandahar. According to Azhar, the five hijackers and three militants--with an unarmed member of Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia as hostage--drove out of Kandahar for about 30 minutes. Then the hijackers, whom he says had not taken off their masks, freed the Taliban official and set off on their own. Azhar and the others--Kashmiri militant Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Ahmed Umar Saeed Sheikh, a Pakistani-born British citizen--crossed into Pakistan together. Azhar made his way to Karachi and ultimately to his hometown of Bahawalpur. Zargar was reported to have returned to a hero`s welcome in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. By week`s end Sheikh had yet to surface.
Their freedom mocks the government of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, which has been criticized by everyone from Jane`s Defence Weekly to its own political mentors for striking a deal with the hijackers. Not surprisingly, Vajpayee`s Hindu nationalist team has responded by ratcheting up accusations against India`s neighbor. ``Pakistan is neck-deep in this dirty game of hijacking,`` declared India`s hawkish Home Minister L.K. Advani. He bases his case on the arrests of four Bombay residents (including two Pakistani citizens), whom he claims had helped the hijackers prepare for their mission. By interrogating the four, authorities were supposedly able to identify the hijackers, whose pictures were promptly plastered across the front pages of India`s major dailies. All five named, including Azhar`s brother, Ibrahim Athar, are Pakistani nationals. Azhar denies that his brother was one of the hijackers, says he never saw their faces and contends that they identified themselves as Indian citizens from Kashmir.
Islamabad scoffs at charges that it was in any way involved, and Advani could point to no direct link between the Pakistani government and the hijackers. But the rhetoric emanating from Pakistan has been equally florid--and the angry denials don`t fully pass the plausibility test. When the Taliban allowed the hijackers their freedom on New Year`s Eve, they gave them 10 hours to get off Afghan soil. The only country they could have realistically reached in that time was Pakistan. Border guards at Quetta, the Pakistani city nearest to Kandahar, told reporters they had been placed on alert--yet they also conceded they had no idea who or what they were supposed to be looking for. (In Pakistan`s view, in any case, the hijackers are the only political hot potatoes, and authorities have vowed to arrest them if they are found in Pakistan. Azhar was allowed openly into the country, since Islamabad says he has broken no Pakistani laws.)
At the very least, Pakistan has exposed itself to criticism for tolerating Islamic militia groups like Lashkar-i-Tayyaba and Azhar`s Harkat ul-Mujahideen, which has been listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. ``These groups have become so autonomous that the government, despite its best efforts, has not been able to exercise very tight control over their activities,`` says Rifaat Hussain, chairman of defense studies at Islamabad`s Quaid-i-Azam University. Much of the Pakistani public supports Kashmir separatism, and any crackdown on militants would be political suicide. But allowing free rein to Azhar could prove even more dangerous to the regime of General Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew an elected Prime Minister in October. Thus far the U.S. has rejected India`s calls to brand Pakistan a terrorist state. But State Department spokesman James Rubin called Azhar`s remarks in Karachi ``deplorable and unacceptable`` and warned that Washington would hold Pakistani officials responsible for any activities of his that threatened the safety of Americans.
Azhar himself recognizes the need for circumspection. ``The media coverage of this hijacking put a lot of pressure on the [Pakistani] government, and it wants us to keep a low profile,`` he told Time in Karachi last week. Indian officials naturally worry that the inspirational orator could fan the flames, already hot, of the separatist insurgency in Kashmir. But even if he doesn`t make things worse, the depth of mistrust and resentment that has built up in Delhi and Islamabad means things are not likely to get cooler any time soon.
#33 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Hijacked!
20/20 ABC news program
Friday, Jan. 7, 1999
(This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.)
Prepared by Burrelle’s Information Services, which takes sole responsibility for accuracy of transcription.
BARBARA WALTERS, ABCNEWS Tonight you’re going to hear a firsthand account of a terrifying ordeal watched by the whole world. It began on Christmas Eve when terrorists hijacked an Indian Airliner eventually forcing it to land in Afghanistan. On board, 155 frightened people, including just one American. For eight days Californian Jeanne Moore never knew minute to minute whether she would live or die. What was it like on board that plane? How were the hostages treated? Last night Jeanne Moore flew to New York to be with us, and just hours ago I spoke with her about her week long ordeal.
(VO) The grandeur of Mount Everest and the glories of the Taj Mahal. That’s what the new century was supposed to bring for 53-year-old grandmother Jeanne Moore, a woman accustomed to exotic vacations. But 90 minutes into a routine flight from the mountain kingdom of Nepal to the Indian capitol of New Delhi, her plane was taken over by five heavily armed men who said they wanted freedom for Kashmiri separatists held in Indian jails. Of the 155 people on board, Californian Jeanne Moore was the only American. It was Christmas Eve.
How did you first know that the plane was actually being hijacked?
JEANNE MOORE Two men in the front appeared holding up grenades and guns, and for an instant it looked like one was pursuing the other, perhaps some kind of policeman action. And then they said this plane is hijacked. And lots of running and yelling. For an instant at least, I thought had I nodded off and this was a bad dream? Or bad dinner theater? Something along that line. But then within a minute or two, it became apparent that it was real and it was serious and we were ordered to put our heads down.
BARBARA WALTERS What was the mood like on the plane? What were the passengers like?
JEANNE MOORE It depended upon the time. Sometimes people were just panic-stricken. Sometimes people were just attempting to relax for a few minutes in between what we called the drills. You know, what drill is coming up next? Or what’s going to happen next? You got to take a breath and look and see if everybody you saw a few minutes ago was still there.
BARBARA WALTERS You were the only American aboard this plane. Did you feel that your being an American helped or hurt you?
JEANNE MOORE We wondered if that was going to trigger some kind of reaction in the states or not that would bring more trouble to us already on the plane.
BARBARA WALTERS What were the hijackers like?
JEANNE MOORE Variable. Each one had their own personality. And then at times of stress, they would do different things. But overall, they wanted us to think that they were polite and apologetic and concerned.
BARBARA WALTERS Ms. Moore, did you think you were going to be killed?
JEANNE MOORE I think we all thought that probably we would all be killed, whether it was by the captors or whether it would be as a demonstration afterwards or whether it be by enemies of the captors who wanted to make the captors look bad. There were several different scenarios, but they all ended up with a big bang, yeah. We thought we would go out that way.
BARBARA WALTERS (VO) Twelve hours later, the hijacked plane eventually landed here in the United Arab Emirates along the Persian Gulf. For the first time, there was some good news: 27 women and children were released to be sent home. But there was a chilling reminder of violence. The hijackers also released the body of an Indian man they had brutally killed, reportedly for refusing to wear a blindfold.
Ms. Moore, there was a passenger on board whose throat was cut and he died. Did you know this?
JEANNE MOORE It was sometimes rumored. We didn’t absolutely know for sure, and I think some of us felt better thinking that maybe there was no death yet.
BARBARA WALTERS You did not find out until the flight was over?
JEANNE MOORE Right.
BARBARA WALTERS At one point, you were hit in the head?
JEANNE MOORE It was during a time that we were to be down and not moving. And a particular guy that did hit me on the head had actually punched out several people that night.
BARBARA WALTERS For moving?
JEANNE MOORE It sounds so funny. But there was a bug on my arm. And after watching it for several minutes, it was like a reflex. You go, whoo, and he was standing so close that he heard me do that and he hit me on the back of the head.
BARBARA WALTERS Were people crying?
JEANNE MOORE Very few. The one or two that did cry had guns put in their faces and were told to stop crying. And by shock, they stopped.
BARBARA WALTERS (VO) On Christmas day, the plane finally landed in Afghanistan. Everyone was to remain there for six more agonizing days. No ventilation, window shades shut tight, movement rigidly controlled, appalling conditions.
Were you fed?
JEANNE MOORE Sometimes.
BARBARA WALTERS Were you hungry?
JEANNE MOORE Sometimes. I didn’t get hungry. A lot of us chose not to eat so that we wouldn’t need to use the bathroom facilities. And we didn’t know what was in the food or where the food was coming from. So many of us just didn’t eat.
BARBARA WALTERS Did the hijackers, your captors, try any psychological torture?
JEANNE MOORE When they wanted you to go to sleep. They would turn up the heat. When they wanted you to be miserable and shivering in the cold, they would reach up and make it very cold. Lighting control was used. Terror tactics. You’d settle down for a bit. Then all of a sudden, it was, you know, on the ground and the commandos could be coming in or look out or don’t move for hours at a time.
BARBARA WALTERS Were you scared?
JEANNE MOORE Not so much for us on the plane because we really didn’t think we were going to get out of there anyway. But for family members, I was concerned.
BARBARA WALTERS On New Year’s Eve, the Indian government agreed to meet most of the demands of the hijackers, and they freed three Kashmiri rebels who were brought to Afghanistan. How did you hear about this? And what was your reaction?
JEANNE MOORE We heard about it when we heard that the prisoners were being released to come and join us. That did not seem like a good idea to me. I did not want to get on another plane and go anywhere with both the hijackers and the released prisoners.
BARBARA WALTERS When the hijackers left, what did they say to you?
JEANNE MOORE I had looked down out the window because the windows were open that particular time. Most of the time they were not open. But on this particular time, the generator had gone out in the morning and they had opened the windows. There was something new going on. And I looked down and saw in one of the hijackers getting into a vehicle. And there was no gun in his hand. His hands were not—he was just going. And about the time that that registered and I pointed it out to someone else on the plane. Then another one of the hijackers came in and made a grand statement with, you know, gun in the air, running forward with a ‘We love you all,’ and went up into the cockpit area and was gone. That was it.
BARBARA WALTERS Is it true that the hijackers told you all that you should have psychotherapy, that you should have counseling?
JEANNE MOORE Counseling.
BARBARA WALTERS Tell me about this.
JEANNE MOORE At least three different times, the hijacker that was doing the most talking said in English, and I imagine in other languages, too, that, you know, we were being put through a terrible situation, that he was very apologetic, and suggested that we each make our families and ourselves available to counseling and that our families would also need help, too.
BARBARA WALTERS In the final analysis, the hijackers got what they wanted. They got release of some of the prisoners.
JEANNE MOORE And they got away.
BARBARA WALTERS And they got away. How do you personally feel about the exchange of prisoners for passengers?
JEANNE MOORE Bargaining for prisoners, no. I am not in favor of dealing with terrorists in general.
BARBARA WALTERS Even though you might have died?
JEANNE MOORE Yes.
BARBARA WALTERS Thank you. Again, welcome home.
JEANNE MOORE Thank you very much for having me. Thank you.
BARBARA WALTERS That is a courageous and cool lady.
20/20 ABC news program
Friday, Jan. 7, 1999
(This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.)
Prepared by Burrelle’s Information Services, which takes sole responsibility for accuracy of transcription.
BARBARA WALTERS, ABCNEWS Tonight you’re going to hear a firsthand account of a terrifying ordeal watched by the whole world. It began on Christmas Eve when terrorists hijacked an Indian Airliner eventually forcing it to land in Afghanistan. On board, 155 frightened people, including just one American. For eight days Californian Jeanne Moore never knew minute to minute whether she would live or die. What was it like on board that plane? How were the hostages treated? Last night Jeanne Moore flew to New York to be with us, and just hours ago I spoke with her about her week long ordeal.
(VO) The grandeur of Mount Everest and the glories of the Taj Mahal. That’s what the new century was supposed to bring for 53-year-old grandmother Jeanne Moore, a woman accustomed to exotic vacations. But 90 minutes into a routine flight from the mountain kingdom of Nepal to the Indian capitol of New Delhi, her plane was taken over by five heavily armed men who said they wanted freedom for Kashmiri separatists held in Indian jails. Of the 155 people on board, Californian Jeanne Moore was the only American. It was Christmas Eve.
How did you first know that the plane was actually being hijacked?
JEANNE MOORE Two men in the front appeared holding up grenades and guns, and for an instant it looked like one was pursuing the other, perhaps some kind of policeman action. And then they said this plane is hijacked. And lots of running and yelling. For an instant at least, I thought had I nodded off and this was a bad dream? Or bad dinner theater? Something along that line. But then within a minute or two, it became apparent that it was real and it was serious and we were ordered to put our heads down.
BARBARA WALTERS What was the mood like on the plane? What were the passengers like?
JEANNE MOORE It depended upon the time. Sometimes people were just panic-stricken. Sometimes people were just attempting to relax for a few minutes in between what we called the drills. You know, what drill is coming up next? Or what’s going to happen next? You got to take a breath and look and see if everybody you saw a few minutes ago was still there.
BARBARA WALTERS You were the only American aboard this plane. Did you feel that your being an American helped or hurt you?
JEANNE MOORE We wondered if that was going to trigger some kind of reaction in the states or not that would bring more trouble to us already on the plane.
BARBARA WALTERS What were the hijackers like?
JEANNE MOORE Variable. Each one had their own personality. And then at times of stress, they would do different things. But overall, they wanted us to think that they were polite and apologetic and concerned.
BARBARA WALTERS Ms. Moore, did you think you were going to be killed?
JEANNE MOORE I think we all thought that probably we would all be killed, whether it was by the captors or whether it would be as a demonstration afterwards or whether it be by enemies of the captors who wanted to make the captors look bad. There were several different scenarios, but they all ended up with a big bang, yeah. We thought we would go out that way.
BARBARA WALTERS (VO) Twelve hours later, the hijacked plane eventually landed here in the United Arab Emirates along the Persian Gulf. For the first time, there was some good news: 27 women and children were released to be sent home. But there was a chilling reminder of violence. The hijackers also released the body of an Indian man they had brutally killed, reportedly for refusing to wear a blindfold.
Ms. Moore, there was a passenger on board whose throat was cut and he died. Did you know this?
JEANNE MOORE It was sometimes rumored. We didn’t absolutely know for sure, and I think some of us felt better thinking that maybe there was no death yet.
BARBARA WALTERS You did not find out until the flight was over?
JEANNE MOORE Right.
BARBARA WALTERS At one point, you were hit in the head?
JEANNE MOORE It was during a time that we were to be down and not moving. And a particular guy that did hit me on the head had actually punched out several people that night.
BARBARA WALTERS For moving?
JEANNE MOORE It sounds so funny. But there was a bug on my arm. And after watching it for several minutes, it was like a reflex. You go, whoo, and he was standing so close that he heard me do that and he hit me on the back of the head.
BARBARA WALTERS Were people crying?
JEANNE MOORE Very few. The one or two that did cry had guns put in their faces and were told to stop crying. And by shock, they stopped.
BARBARA WALTERS (VO) On Christmas day, the plane finally landed in Afghanistan. Everyone was to remain there for six more agonizing days. No ventilation, window shades shut tight, movement rigidly controlled, appalling conditions.
Were you fed?
JEANNE MOORE Sometimes.
BARBARA WALTERS Were you hungry?
JEANNE MOORE Sometimes. I didn’t get hungry. A lot of us chose not to eat so that we wouldn’t need to use the bathroom facilities. And we didn’t know what was in the food or where the food was coming from. So many of us just didn’t eat.
BARBARA WALTERS Did the hijackers, your captors, try any psychological torture?
JEANNE MOORE When they wanted you to go to sleep. They would turn up the heat. When they wanted you to be miserable and shivering in the cold, they would reach up and make it very cold. Lighting control was used. Terror tactics. You’d settle down for a bit. Then all of a sudden, it was, you know, on the ground and the commandos could be coming in or look out or don’t move for hours at a time.
BARBARA WALTERS Were you scared?
JEANNE MOORE Not so much for us on the plane because we really didn’t think we were going to get out of there anyway. But for family members, I was concerned.
BARBARA WALTERS On New Year’s Eve, the Indian government agreed to meet most of the demands of the hijackers, and they freed three Kashmiri rebels who were brought to Afghanistan. How did you hear about this? And what was your reaction?
JEANNE MOORE We heard about it when we heard that the prisoners were being released to come and join us. That did not seem like a good idea to me. I did not want to get on another plane and go anywhere with both the hijackers and the released prisoners.
BARBARA WALTERS When the hijackers left, what did they say to you?
JEANNE MOORE I had looked down out the window because the windows were open that particular time. Most of the time they were not open. But on this particular time, the generator had gone out in the morning and they had opened the windows. There was something new going on. And I looked down and saw in one of the hijackers getting into a vehicle. And there was no gun in his hand. His hands were not—he was just going. And about the time that that registered and I pointed it out to someone else on the plane. Then another one of the hijackers came in and made a grand statement with, you know, gun in the air, running forward with a ‘We love you all,’ and went up into the cockpit area and was gone. That was it.
BARBARA WALTERS Is it true that the hijackers told you all that you should have psychotherapy, that you should have counseling?
JEANNE MOORE Counseling.
BARBARA WALTERS Tell me about this.
JEANNE MOORE At least three different times, the hijacker that was doing the most talking said in English, and I imagine in other languages, too, that, you know, we were being put through a terrible situation, that he was very apologetic, and suggested that we each make our families and ourselves available to counseling and that our families would also need help, too.
BARBARA WALTERS In the final analysis, the hijackers got what they wanted. They got release of some of the prisoners.
JEANNE MOORE And they got away.
BARBARA WALTERS And they got away. How do you personally feel about the exchange of prisoners for passengers?
JEANNE MOORE Bargaining for prisoners, no. I am not in favor of dealing with terrorists in general.
BARBARA WALTERS Even though you might have died?
JEANNE MOORE Yes.
BARBARA WALTERS Thank you. Again, welcome home.
JEANNE MOORE Thank you very much for having me. Thank you.
BARBARA WALTERS That is a courageous and cool lady.
#32 Posted by macgupta on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The Bombay connection of the hijackers :
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jan/10jake.htm
-arun gupta
#31 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
bahmed:
So what is the answer. Why dont you post it? It will take me few days to read the book.
So what is the answer. Why dont you post it? It will take me few days to read the book.
#30 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
In response to mohajir (Reply # 159)
Dear mohajir:
You may find a good answer of you post in Akbar S. Ahmed`s Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity (Routledge, 1997; pp. 16-19.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear mohajir:
You may find a good answer of you post in Akbar S. Ahmed`s Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity (Routledge, 1997; pp. 16-19.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#29 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Is there any truth that Dina Wadia daughter of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah who lives in New York considers herself as an Indian-American rather than Pakistani-American? She had strained relations with her father when she married a Non-Muslim eventhough Jinnah himself had married a Non-Muslim (Parsi).
This may be because Jinnah`s Parsi wife`s family (Ruttie) were hardcore Indian nationalists who strongly opposed Jinnah`s partition plans. We are not sure how Ruttie who herself was Indian nationalist would have reacted had she lived post partition.
This may be because Jinnah`s Parsi wife`s family (Ruttie) were hardcore Indian nationalists who strongly opposed Jinnah`s partition plans. We are not sure how Ruttie who herself was Indian nationalist would have reacted had she lived post partition.
#28 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Hijacking Pushes India and Pakistan Further Apart
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 9, 2000; Page A21
NEW DELHI, Jan. 8—Just when it seemed that relations between India and Pakistan could not get much worse, the eight-day hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane by Muslim separatists has plunged the two rivals into an alarming new round of accusations and name calling.
In the past four days, the Indian government has claimed it has ``conclusive proof`` that Pakistan was ``neck-deep`` in the hijacking plot and that the hijackers acted on behalf of Pakistani intelligence services. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has demanded that the world declare Pakistan a terrorist state.
Pakistan, in turn, has adamantly denied the charges and suggested that India is trying to use the incident to antagonize and isolate Pakistan, partly because it was taken over by a military regime in October and partly to deflect attention from the burning issue of Kashmir, the disputed Himalayan region divided between the two countries.
``The relationship is more brittle now than it has been in a long time,`` said Uday Bhaskar, an Indian naval officer and deputy director of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis. ``I think both countries understand each other`s war of words,`` he said, ``but there is a wild card of terrorist violence`` that can erupt any time in such a volatile atmosphere.
The strained relationship between the two countries and their protracted conflict over Kashmir have drawn special concern internationally since May 1998, when both tested nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, a majority Muslim state, has long supported the Kashmiri rebel movement in India, which is 90 percent Hindu. Pakistan`s armed forces have trained and supplied numerous insurgent groups, and last summer they supported rebel fighters who entered India`s Kargil mountains and held them for more than two months against India`s far larger forces.
In the wake of that conflict and the unexpected takeover of Pakistan by its army chief three months ago, hope for a resumption of talks on a series of issues, starting with Kashmir, seemed extremely dim.
Pessimism continued to grow as insurgent violence in Indian Kashmir, the political heart of the disputed region, surged to levels not seen in 10 years. Since July, Muslim rebels have killed several hundred people in bombings and ambushes in Kashmir, and their leaders have threatened to escalate the attacks further.
Then, on Dec. 24, five armed men hijacked an Indian jet flying from Katmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi with 189 people aboard. The hijackers claimed to support insurgents in Kashmir, and they demanded the release of numerous imprisoned rebels. Finally, they settled for three, who were freed in exchange for the hostages on New Year`s Eve.
Although the hijacking drama was brought to a peaceful end, the diplomatic success was rapidly eclipsed in the ensuing bout of accusations between India and Pakistan. Three days ago, one of the freed prisoners, Maulana Masood Azhar, surfaced in Pakistan and gave a rabble-rousing speech, claiming triumph for the Kashmiri cause and warning of more violence against India and the West.
``After the conflict in Kargil, we said we still wanted to normalize relations with Pakistan, but they would have to earn our trust by stopping their support for terrorism against India,`` said R.S. Jassal, spokesman for India`s Foreign Ministry. ``Instead, what happened? A graphic example of Pakistan`s support for such terrorism.``
On Thursday, Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani presented what he said was ``irrefutable evidence`` that Pakistan was involved in the hijacking. Advani said that Indian police had arrested five men in Bombay who were accomplices to the crime and that they had located photographs of the hijackers identifying them as Pakistanis.
Advani said India had intercepted radio communications between the hijackers and their Pakistani advisers, and he charged that Pakistan was ``neck deep`` in the plot. Officials said the key evidence was an intercepted phone call from the Bombay group to a journalist in London on Dec. 29 in which a member of the Bombay group threatened that the plane would be blown up if the hijackers` demands were not met.
But Bombay police, contradicting federal authorities, insisted that the arrested men were wanted for a bank robbery and had nothing to do with the hijacking. Pakistan, meanwhile, said it had cooperated fully with Indian authorities during the hijacking and asserted that if the hijackers appeared in Pakistan, they would be arrested and prosecuted.
``These charges are utterly baseless,`` said Jehangir Qazi, Pakistan`s senior diplomat here. ``We support the freedom struggle in Kashmir, but that doesn`t mean we condoned or organized the hijacking.
``India has had a negative attitude toward Pakistan ever since the change of government,`` he said. ``They want to show we are a failed state, a military state, a terrorist state, in order to deflect attention from the real issue of Kashmir.``
The United States and other Western governments, wary of becoming embroiled in the Indo-Pakistani conflict, declined to act on India`s call to label Pakistan a terrorist state. In Washington, officials expressed alarm about Azhar`s inflammatory remarks, but they stopped far short of blaming Pakistan for the upsurge in terrorist violence against Indian targets.
Western diplomats in the region, meanwhile, expressed concern this week over the escalation of hostilities, stressing that no matter how tense their current relations may be, India and Pakistan eventually must sit down and thrash out their differences.
``We have told them they must stop this infernal bickering,`` said one Western diplomat. ``The real casualty of the hijacking has been Indo-Pakistani relations. It has brought relations to a new and pathological low. We just wish both sides would stop this petty quarreling and start dealing with each other.``
Given the events of the past two weeks, however, such a development hardly seems likely. In the wake of the hijacking, a dozen people have been killed in the Kashmir Valley, a passenger train was bombed in New Delhi, and Indian military officials--furious at civilian authorities for giving in to the hijackers` demands--have hinted at India`s readiness to wage and win more ``limited wars`` in the region.
The only ray of hope, analysts and diplomats here said, lies in a basic instinct for survival on the part of both India and Pakistan. Beneath their escalating war of words, they said, the world`s two newest nuclear states must realize that if a real war were to erupt on the subcontinent, both would suffer greatly.
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 9, 2000; Page A21
NEW DELHI, Jan. 8—Just when it seemed that relations between India and Pakistan could not get much worse, the eight-day hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane by Muslim separatists has plunged the two rivals into an alarming new round of accusations and name calling.
In the past four days, the Indian government has claimed it has ``conclusive proof`` that Pakistan was ``neck-deep`` in the hijacking plot and that the hijackers acted on behalf of Pakistani intelligence services. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has demanded that the world declare Pakistan a terrorist state.
Pakistan, in turn, has adamantly denied the charges and suggested that India is trying to use the incident to antagonize and isolate Pakistan, partly because it was taken over by a military regime in October and partly to deflect attention from the burning issue of Kashmir, the disputed Himalayan region divided between the two countries.
``The relationship is more brittle now than it has been in a long time,`` said Uday Bhaskar, an Indian naval officer and deputy director of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis. ``I think both countries understand each other`s war of words,`` he said, ``but there is a wild card of terrorist violence`` that can erupt any time in such a volatile atmosphere.
The strained relationship between the two countries and their protracted conflict over Kashmir have drawn special concern internationally since May 1998, when both tested nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, a majority Muslim state, has long supported the Kashmiri rebel movement in India, which is 90 percent Hindu. Pakistan`s armed forces have trained and supplied numerous insurgent groups, and last summer they supported rebel fighters who entered India`s Kargil mountains and held them for more than two months against India`s far larger forces.
In the wake of that conflict and the unexpected takeover of Pakistan by its army chief three months ago, hope for a resumption of talks on a series of issues, starting with Kashmir, seemed extremely dim.
Pessimism continued to grow as insurgent violence in Indian Kashmir, the political heart of the disputed region, surged to levels not seen in 10 years. Since July, Muslim rebels have killed several hundred people in bombings and ambushes in Kashmir, and their leaders have threatened to escalate the attacks further.
Then, on Dec. 24, five armed men hijacked an Indian jet flying from Katmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi with 189 people aboard. The hijackers claimed to support insurgents in Kashmir, and they demanded the release of numerous imprisoned rebels. Finally, they settled for three, who were freed in exchange for the hostages on New Year`s Eve.
Although the hijacking drama was brought to a peaceful end, the diplomatic success was rapidly eclipsed in the ensuing bout of accusations between India and Pakistan. Three days ago, one of the freed prisoners, Maulana Masood Azhar, surfaced in Pakistan and gave a rabble-rousing speech, claiming triumph for the Kashmiri cause and warning of more violence against India and the West.
``After the conflict in Kargil, we said we still wanted to normalize relations with Pakistan, but they would have to earn our trust by stopping their support for terrorism against India,`` said R.S. Jassal, spokesman for India`s Foreign Ministry. ``Instead, what happened? A graphic example of Pakistan`s support for such terrorism.``
On Thursday, Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani presented what he said was ``irrefutable evidence`` that Pakistan was involved in the hijacking. Advani said that Indian police had arrested five men in Bombay who were accomplices to the crime and that they had located photographs of the hijackers identifying them as Pakistanis.
Advani said India had intercepted radio communications between the hijackers and their Pakistani advisers, and he charged that Pakistan was ``neck deep`` in the plot. Officials said the key evidence was an intercepted phone call from the Bombay group to a journalist in London on Dec. 29 in which a member of the Bombay group threatened that the plane would be blown up if the hijackers` demands were not met.
But Bombay police, contradicting federal authorities, insisted that the arrested men were wanted for a bank robbery and had nothing to do with the hijacking. Pakistan, meanwhile, said it had cooperated fully with Indian authorities during the hijacking and asserted that if the hijackers appeared in Pakistan, they would be arrested and prosecuted.
``These charges are utterly baseless,`` said Jehangir Qazi, Pakistan`s senior diplomat here. ``We support the freedom struggle in Kashmir, but that doesn`t mean we condoned or organized the hijacking.
``India has had a negative attitude toward Pakistan ever since the change of government,`` he said. ``They want to show we are a failed state, a military state, a terrorist state, in order to deflect attention from the real issue of Kashmir.``
The United States and other Western governments, wary of becoming embroiled in the Indo-Pakistani conflict, declined to act on India`s call to label Pakistan a terrorist state. In Washington, officials expressed alarm about Azhar`s inflammatory remarks, but they stopped far short of blaming Pakistan for the upsurge in terrorist violence against Indian targets.
Western diplomats in the region, meanwhile, expressed concern this week over the escalation of hostilities, stressing that no matter how tense their current relations may be, India and Pakistan eventually must sit down and thrash out their differences.
``We have told them they must stop this infernal bickering,`` said one Western diplomat. ``The real casualty of the hijacking has been Indo-Pakistani relations. It has brought relations to a new and pathological low. We just wish both sides would stop this petty quarreling and start dealing with each other.``
Given the events of the past two weeks, however, such a development hardly seems likely. In the wake of the hijacking, a dozen people have been killed in the Kashmir Valley, a passenger train was bombed in New Delhi, and Indian military officials--furious at civilian authorities for giving in to the hijackers` demands--have hinted at India`s readiness to wage and win more ``limited wars`` in the region.
The only ray of hope, analysts and diplomats here said, lies in a basic instinct for survival on the part of both India and Pakistan. Beneath their escalating war of words, they said, the world`s two newest nuclear states must realize that if a real war were to erupt on the subcontinent, both would suffer greatly.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- majumdar: Tahmed sahib, Re: 313 Does Pakistan... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: #312 not only have... Dhokha and Being a
- majumdar: DM sahib, My first English... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: #309 DM: You are... Dhokha and Being a
- dost_mittar: majumdar, tahmed: Interesting tidbit re.... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: #307 i had understood... Dhokha and Being a
- majumdar: DM sahib, For example, is... Dhokha and Being a
- iron_mask: Re: # 82 "...just... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
