|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
March 2002 |
|||||
|
HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT | FEEDBACK | WEATHER | BACK ISSUES | ADVERTISE |
|||||
|
EDITORIAL |
|||||
|
Was
Daniel kidnapped and killed because he was a Westerner, an American, a
reporter, a Jew or some combination of them all? Or was he killed to
avenge the death of innocent people who were targets of the American
bombers during its high-tech air campaign in Afghanistan? Or was he a
victim of the Pakistan-militants, who are angry with General Musharaff,
for withdrawing support to the Taleban, letting America use its
facilities to launch attacks on Afghanistan and now for his announced
decision to stop ISI support and funding of terrorists?
We
may never know precisely why Daniel was snatched and killed. His murderers have achieved no political objective;
they have only defamed Pakistan and Islam and by their savage act
brought into sharper relief the insanity that masquerades in the garb of
nationalism and religion.
The
first war of the new millennium has brought in its wake death and
destruction not only in America, but also in Afghanistan. And in the
next few months it is likely to expand to other countries, possibly,
starting with Iraq.
It's
high time that the world should get united in fighting against the evil
of terrorism than merely be a witness
Terrorism
– whether by militants to ‘justify’ their cause or by a State in
response to terrorist acts – brings only death and destruction to the
innocent people, while the perpetrators or those who sponsor them (or a
State which use the right of self-defence to launch these attacks)
remain mostly safe and unharmed.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger of Collateral Damage, Hollywood’s first
September 11 victim, has this to say on Terrorism (quoted in the Globe
and Mail, Toronto):
“It’s
a very complex issue, and it is naïve to think that we can cross over
and do what we do in the movies to terrorists in real life… Do we cut
the heads off of people who are not guilty of doing anything, but who
could do something awful if they’re called to do something very
dangerous?
“I
think what is more important is to cut down the people who foster
terrorism and who fuel the terror network. And then to understand; we
‘ve got to go a step beyond and say, what can we do as a civilized
country to decrease the amount of terrorists that are blooming. They are
popping up because of dissatisfaction of one kind or another. There’s
obviously a fundamental problem in the Middle East of those who have and
those who don’t have.”
As
Daniel Pearl’s widow, Mariane, told CNN’s Chris Burns, in an
interview: There are also “deeper reasons that we all know but
more vaguely, right? Lack of education, it's a major one, absolutely
major one, lack of resources, lack of hope, lack of scope for the
people”.
We
should try to address the underlying problems that bring about these
kinds of groups.
We
hope that President Bush honors the Pearls by heeding her declaration
that "Revenge would be easy, but it is far more valuable in my
opinion to address this problem of terrorism with enough honesty to
question our own responsibility as nations and as individuals for the
rise of terrorism."
As
we all grapple with the aftermaths of Sept.11th and "our" war
on terrorism we can only try to make sense of the deaths of innocent
people for the larger cause. If we ever needed a "Gandhi" to
lead us to peace it apparently would be now.
- Suresh Jaura |
