New President of the United States, Barrack Obama, will be at the White House as of Jan. 20, 2009. When he announced foreign policy and national security comrades, Obama found himself in the lap of the most severe conflict of the world. A dangerous situation exists between the two nuclear powers of the Asian subcontinent, India and Pakistan, which had fought three times before being nuclear powers.
Since the "Big Depression" in 1929, the world is facing the biggest financial crisis. And Obama, as the "new CEO" of the "World Company" will perhaps have to tackle a large-scale international political crisis to shape up the course of the next century.
Obama made an interesting prediction and signaled that his foreign policy priority will be the Afghanistan-Pakistan axis rather than Iraq. He may not see, however, that the axis may expand to the entire subcontinent including the Kashmir issue. The last terror wave in the Indian city of Mumbai will affect the international community seriously enough to be compared with the 9/11.
Mumbai having Bollywood as the nemesis of Hollywood is the number one popular culture center and finance and trade center of India which is one of the superpower candidates of the 21st century together with China. Mumbai was purposely chosen for terror attacks. One can see that by looking at the targets hit including a Jewish center. Fingerprints of perpetrators reveal that the attack was orchestrated from Pakistan!
The slightest doubts there are that the attackers belong to the Lashker-e Taiba organization located in Kashmir, which has been the source of conflict between India and Pakistan since 1947. Lashker means "soldiers" and Taiba means "good." "Good Soldiers," it is. Their goodness is certainly in the religious sense. Ceysh-e Mohammed is their brother organization, carrying the name of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. As Lashker-e Taiba has godly consent they are called "Good Soldiers."
Let put aside the semantic and etymological side of the story. It is known that these organizations were established in Kashmir and are working in coordination with Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda hides in the Waziristan region at the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
But the real information is that Lashker-e Taiba was formed by the "deep state," I mean very strong military intelligence organization Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of Pakistan in Kashmir where is entirely ruled by India except a little part under Pakistani control. Training and financial support of the organization is provided by ISI and some groups inside the ISI have close connection with al Qaeda. This is not a secret.
The husband of the slain Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the new President of Pakistan, Asef Ali Zardari, has nothing to do with these organizations. It is questionable though how strongly Zardari can control ISI.
In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, India put the blame on Pakistan and says in a way, "Although you do not have responsibility directly, do what is necessary, crash these organization. Or I know what I will do."
Can the Zardari administration have enough power to meet India’s demand? There is almost a consensus over that they cannot.
There is a side of this tension that affects Pakistan’s internal politics and restricts the maneuverability of the Pakistani administration. But there is also another side that has reflections over India’s internal politics and can escalate the tension.
The Congress Party, or CP, government in India is laic and leftist and needs the support of a Muslim minority. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, on the other hand is Hindu nationalist. Muslim minority in India, with 150 million population which is about Pakistan’s entire population, is rising through the JP’s Hindu nationalism, in a period where Muslims do not trust the Indian state anymore.
The BJP accuses the CP of making concessions toward Muslims. But the CP government feels obliged to get tougher against Pakistan, in order to remain in power.
The difficulties are not stemming from political positions only. A mentality of "congregation" in Indian society takes the stage. Professor Suketu Mehta of New York University, a Mumbai native, writes in his New York Times article, "What they hate about Mumbai," as follows:
"Mumbai is a "soft target," the terrorism analysts say. Anybody can walk into the hotels, the hospitals, the train stations, and start spraying with a machine gun. Where are the metal detectors, the random bag checks? In Mumbai, it is impossible to control the crowd. In other cities, if there is an explosion, people run away from it. In Mumbai, people run toward it Ñ to help. Greater Mumbai takes in 1 million new residents a year. This is the problem, say the nativists. The city is just too hospitable. You let them in, and they break your heart.
In the Bombay I grew up in, your religion was a personal eccentricity, like a hairstyle. In my school, you were denominated by which cricketer or Bollywood star you worshipped, not which prophet. In today’s Mumbai, things have changed. Hindu and Muslim demagogues want the mobs to come out again in the streets and slaughter one another in the name of God. They want India and Pakistan to go to war. They want Indian Muslims to be expelled. They want India to get out of Kashmir. They want mosques torn down. They want temples bombed.
In subcontinent Asia, two big countries having nuclear power will engage in fight. We are facing the danger of a multidimensional and deep "Clash of Civilizations."
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as the co-chair of the United Nations patented "Alliance of Civilizations" project is facing a difficult task, as difficult as the one Obama faces. Erdoğan may be expected to take a really serious action as part of the "Alliance of Civilizations" initiative together with his Spanish counterpart and the co-chair of the project, Jos Manuel Rodriguez Zapatero, in this India-Pakistan conflict, rather than delivering speeches at halls or hotels and cocktails in the European capitals.
Erdoğan can never do this alone; cooperation with United States is a must. Even if he tries it, Erdoğan must accurately diagnose the dimensions and depth of the problem.
He may be crashed under the issue; he may seek way out of this "task" or may take the burden. If he can do it, Erdoğan may take Turkey and himself to an upper level in the international arena.