US President Donald Trump may not be liked much in India for some of his initial actions, but when it comes to appreciating India’s concerns on terrorism, the Trump administration has duly come up to the country’s expectations better than his predecessors. A majority of Indians did want Trump to become the US President in the second term. Some even performed ‘hawan’ and ‘puja’ and prayed for him to get elected.
However, some of his initial actions, though not exclusively about India, did come as a disappointment. Particularly the way “undocumented” Indians were deported and repatriated to India, handcuffed in military planes, did come as a shock. Indians and the government of India had expected better from Trump.
Trump’s stringent “tariff” policy again is not exclusively meant for India. He has not spared even the trusted and long-time friends of the US like Canada and the European countries. India has no reason to be treated specially. Still, Trump has offered some mutually beneficial proposals to India.
Indians’ support for Trump was majorly because of his no-nonsense approach to terrorism and extremism. On this front, the Trump administration has duly come up to India’s expectations. The recent order of the US government designating “The Resistance Front” (TRF), a proxy for the Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, as a terrorist organisation is a clear signal that it appreciates India’s concerns on terrorism better than others.
The TRF was responsible for the Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 tourists were gunned down. It had initially claimed responsibility for the terror attack, but backed out later, apparently on the instructions of the ISI, which knew that TRF roots would be traced to LeT and eventually the ISI.
By designating the TRF as a global terrorist organisation, the US has sent out a clear signal not only against terrorism, but also to those who have been patronising such outfits. And the message was unambiguously loud and clear. It was actually meant for Pakistan and was not lost on that country. Pakistan realised the import of the message and the Pakistan government came out with a detailed clarification trying to put a lame defence and playing a victim to terrorism.
The country indeed turned defensive and issued a statement, trying to distance itself from the TRF, an LeT proxy. In the same statement, trying to prove its credentials of fighting terrorism, it referred to nabbing Sharifullah, the mastermind of the Abbey Gate terror attack in Afghanistan, whom it handed over to the US.
After the US government designated TRF as a terrorist organisation, the Pakistan government released a statement, saying, “Pakistan condemns terrorism in all forms and manifestations; zero tolerance and international cooperation against terrorism are cornerstone of our policy. Pakistan has been, and is a frontline state against terrorism, and has contributed tremendously towards achievement of global peace through its CT (counter-terrorism) efforts, including apprehension of Terrorist Sharifullah, the mastermind of Abbey Gate Bombing”.
Trying to wash its hands of the Pahalgam terror attack and seeking to delink it from the LeT, the statement described the Pahalgam terror attack merely as an “incident”. “Investigations into the Pahalgam incident, which happened in the internationally recognised disputed region of IIOJ&K, are still inconclusive. Any linkage with LeT, a defunct organisation banned in Pakistan, belies ground realities. Pakistan has effectively and comprehensively dismantled concerned outfits, arrested and prosecuted the leadership and de-radicalised its cadres,” it said.
Seeking to play down the US designating the TRF as a terrorist organisation, it tried to explain, “While the issue under consideration pertains to US domestic laws, India has a track record of exploiting such designations to push anti-Pakistan propaganda with a view to divert international attention from its irresponsible and rogue behaviour, including ongoing human rights atrocities, especially in IIOJ&K.”
While on one hand it has played down TRF’s designation as a terrorist organisation, it seeks to designate “Majeed Brigade” as a proxy of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) on the other. The Pakistan government coming to such a defensive position and being forced to provide a long explanation to distance itself from the Pahalgam terror attack has become possible mainly because the current Trump administration in the US has a clear policy against global terrorism. Credit goes to the FBI Director Kash Patel, who has a better understanding of the things.
Trump’s statements notwithstanding, although none of these are in any way hostile towards India, the Trump administration is definitely addressing the issues of terrorism the way India has been seeking to address them for a long time. The decision to extradite gangster turned pro-Khalistan terrorist Happy Passia is also part of the same policy. At least the terrorists have now realised that they cannot seek safe shelter in the US in the name of freedom and liberty.
Recently, the Pakistani media reported that President Trump would be paying a visit to Islamabad in the month of September, which was denied by the White House, saying he planned to visit Scotland only. The last US President to visit Pakistan was George W Bush in 2006.
Trump’s supposed visit was speculated apparently in view of Pakistan army chief Asim Munir’s visit to White House, where he was hosted for lunch by Trump. The luncheon, as it later turned out, was in anticipation of Pakistan’s support for the US attack on Iran, which proved quite embarrassing for Pakistan.
No matter what Trump’s stand on tariffs and immigration will be, the Trump administration’s approach to deal with terrorism, radicalism and extremism suits India the best. Besides, the Trump administration is full of people who not only understand and appreciate India’s concerns on terror, but also favour a much better and stronger strategic partnership with India. The Trump administration in general and Trump in particular must not be judged from his innocuous frequent statements that he mediated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Even while speaking so, he does not mean any ill will towards India, probably not realising the impact of such statements on India’s domestic politics.
Follow us
