ISI gaining from communal divide

A study of communal violence may not suggest ISI's hand behind them, but they gave it an opportunity.

When General Zia-ul-Haq advanced the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to wage its ‘proxy’ war against India, prominence was laid on combining psychological operations with paramilitary action.

Psychological operations were mainly intended to divide India by taking advantage of its social diversity while paramilitary action would complement the psy-ops by either empowering fighting groups or using foreign mercenaries to instigate violence.

Since then, as part of its propaganda activity, the ISI has ruthlessly exploited the communal divide existent in the Indian society. A study of communal violence in India may not suggest an ISI’s hidden hand behind all events that occurred, but they certainly did provide the ISI with an opportunity to take advantage of.

The Khalistani movement could not survive its days without direct support from the local Sikh populace; and, the militancy in Kashmir gained momentum only with the Muslim majority of Kashmir allying with them. In both cases, the ISI sought religious polarisation of the locals using false propaganda.

Pakistani militia (dressed as Sikhs) engaged in selective execution of Hindus in Punjab; and, an ethnic cleansing campaign was undertaken in Kashmir resulting in the exodus of Hindus from the valley.

The prime intent for such horrendous crimes was creation of communal polarisation. In 2 other terrorist attacks carried under the aegis of the ISI, harvesting hatred and violence between Hindus and Muslims was a key objective.

While economic hotspots were attacked, particularly Hindu majority areas were selected in 1993 and the 26/11 fedayeens wore saffron wrist-bands to transmit false propaganda.

In some cases, the ISI need not invest to create a divide but can just take opportunistic advantage the Indian state presents itself with to disturb the status quo. In 2012, following the Bodo-Muslim clashes, doctored online images originating from Pakistan led to thousands in the north lose faith in the security establishment.

Recently, following the Dadri lynching incident, which gave birth to a self destructive idea of terming the nation ‘intolerant’, a top Karnataka BJP leader alleged receiving threat calls from Pakistan for exposing a similar act of violence against a Hindu activist.

Although communal polarisation will remain crucial in ISI’s “black operations” against the right-wing Indian government, newer problems have emerged much to the convenience of the former.

Termed as “JNU row” by media, a campus protest criticising the alleged judicial killing of Afzal Guru, parliament attack conspirator, garnered nationwide reactions and divided the intellectual community on the lines of freedom of speech and nationalism. While one party advocated intellectual debates as necessary indicators of progress, the other vehemently opposed unregulated freedom as a grave threat.

Intellectual community

This is not to assert that all the protesting students were Agent Provocateurs, but questions do remain about the masked protesters whom the university dwellers reported as ‘unidentified outsiders’.

If these outsiders were there just for the sake of shouting anti-India slogans then the issue needs to be looked at, not just from the perspective of ‘freedom of speech’, but from a larger security point of view. Universities and higher education institutions have always been potential targets of foreign intelligence services.

Recently, US’ counterintelligence agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported increasing economic espionage activities in universities and the Tokyo police incarcerated an ex-professor who previously indoctrinated South Koreans and Chinese citizens with North Korean ideology.

Agents on campuses seek to gain access to the nation’s knowledge pool, to steal secrets on innovation and research; and to induce anti-national ideas and extremist ideologies as part of propaganda activities. Invariably, such activities lead to loss of faith in the government, intolerant behaviour towards other communities, and admiration to an outside ideology or nation and so on.

In this case, it spiralled into a debate on nationalism, dissent and significance of the national flag, although the existence or not of a foreign hand hasn’t been ascertained.

All these arguments aren’t to accuse anyone of treason but to warn the security establishment of the impending threats these events could pose if not handled appropriately. NSA Ajit Doval opines that “the success of counterterrorism lies in degrading the terrorist’s capabilities, forcing them to change their intentions and denying them opportunities to strike.”

One of the important ways to achieve the second point is through deflecting public/intellectual opinion against the terrorist cause. It is a challenging task to eliminate militancy in Kashmir while some stand in solidarity with its separatist cause.

Isolating policy faultlines and critiquing the government merely on communal lines is regressive and will carry negative implications on long-term security planning.

Therefore, the academia, the intellectual community and the political class must look towards national integration and unity while loathing ideas of extremism and separatism unless they wish the inimical forces, like the ISI, to have the last laugh.

(The writer is a Researcher, Counterterrorism and South-Asia Desk, Wikistrat)