Let me begin with the other issues. In last Friday’s Daily Campus, you might have seen, in Austin Rucker’s article “The truth as I see it,” a supposed “famous quote” from me: “There are too many ideas on campus.”
Here’s the truth.
I would care to know where Mr. Rucker gets this quote. I have never said nor would ever say such a ludicrous thing. Perhaps he is referring to my response to an answer I received from Beth Newman when I questioned her on her stance on the Bush Library. my response was that “there could never be too many ideas on campus.”
Mr. Rucker himself has apologized: “I went and checked my data. I got the quote wrong.” The real quote came from a previous DC article on Senate passing my legislation on the Bush Library. “Jose pointed out that the SMU campus couldn’t have too many competing ideas regardless of their individual ideologies.”
Just setting the record straight.
On to more important matters. On Sunday, two bombs exploded on a crowded train traveling from New Delhi to Lahore, a Pakistani city; the bombs subsequently started a fire that quickly engulfed two cars with the passengers, mostly Pakistani, trapped inside. On the train, once the flames had been doused, officials found two more crude suitcase bombs packed with explosives and gasoline.
The train was the Samjhauta (Friendship) Express, one of two tracks that run between India and Pakistan. They are a visible sign of the détente between the two nuclear-armed neighbors that has occurred over the past few years.
The bombing was a symbolic attack on the links between these two nations. It has not been determined whether the group(s) responsible are Muslim or Hindu extremists; it could easily be either. In July 2006, bomb attacks on Mumbai (Bombay) commuter trains killed 257 people, prompting India to accuse Pakistan of not doing enough to crack down on terrorist groups and sending diplomatic relations between the two into a nosedive. The peace process, which had been tentatively ongoing at that point, was stalled for months as both sides pointed fingers.
What is shocking this time around is not so much what has been done or said as what has gone unsaid. On Monday Pakistan foreign minister Kurshid Mahmud Kasuri said, “We expect the peace process will hold…No hasty conclusions will be drawn on who is responsible.”
Tuesday, Kasuri is scheduled to visit Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee. Despite the attacks, he will still travel to New Delhi. Hopefully, this signals both sides’ dogged determination in the peace process.
In the past, attacks such as these were also planned before peace summits and the like to have maximum impact on negotiations. Often, this strategy worked, breaking down diplomacy at key moments and causing each side to degenerate into a bout of finger-pointing and saber-rattling. Just when it seemed that the two sides would finally agree on something, negotiations would break down and their respective nuclear forces would be put on standby.
Parallels can be drawn to many similar ongoing conflicts across the globe. Though the reasons and details of such conflicts vary widely, the cycle of violence is a common thread. After Sunday’s attacks, Ayaz Amir, an Indian political commentator, said, “We need to put more meaning in the peace process. Let’s move on with it. We mustn’t let the terrorists win.” If only such determination were more prevalent in Israel and Palestine or Moscow and Chechnya.
Despite such sentiments, who is ultimately responsible for the attacks will play a big role in future reactions. It could be the bombings were perpetrated by Hindu extremists, in which case the Indian government will likely crack down on its own terrorist groups as a sign of determination to see the peace process through.
If it is Muslim extremists, specifically Kashmiri militants, who carried out the attack, it’s possible that it is a sign of resentment at being pressured by the Pakistani government. As mentioned earlier, most of the passengers were Pakistani, and it could be that these extremists are attempting to send a message to Islamabad.
No matter who did it, it seems to have backfired.
“This is a very unique attack. The target is unique: both Indians and Pakistanis, together,” says Ajit Doval, the former director of India’s Intelligence Bureau.
“The irony of this attack is that it does the opposite of what it’s trying to achieve – it brings the people of both countries together.” When a terrorist attack, instead of driving two peoples apart, brings them together, then surely it is a sign of progress.
About the writer:
John Jose is a first-year finance, economics, and international studies major. He can be reached at [email protected].
