Terror in Russia: Most horrible since 9/11

Children are evidently the dearest to parents. It is more so in a land of falling birth rate where mothers with more children used to be glorified as heroes. As a consequence, Beslan has now turned into a city where the surviving old keep on lamenting the death of their young ones.

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, went on air and condemned in the strongest possible terms this barbaric act of killing the innocent and the young. He expressed his resolve not only to bring the criminals to justice but pledged unprecedented vigil and extra-ordinary measures to prevent such atrocities in future. He had promptly moved the Security Council to pass a unanimous resolution to condemn the carnage and received world-wide messages of sympathy and condolence. All Russia was in mourning for three days.

But the Russian President did not escape criticism. Acts of terror became almost endemic in Russia in recent times. A few days earlier a Chechen woman killed herself and eight others near a Metro station in Moscow. The week earlier, two passenger airliners were destroyed simultaneously by two Chechen women, killing with them over a hundred unsuspecting passengers. The Moscow-installed predecessor of the present Chechen President had also been killed by an exploding bomb in his own capital. The last major hostage-taking took place when Chechen separatists seized 800 spectators in Moscow's Dubrovka theatre in October 2000 in a three-day seize that ended in the death of 129 hostages and 41 militants. All these gruesome crimes were committed within the span of a two-year period, but it appears the world-renowned Russian intelligence system with its wide and intricate network hardly learned the lesson and was not able to prevent such heinous crimes. People cast doubt whether the President's stern warning and pledge for strong remedial measures, would come to fruition. However, the more recent announcement of the Russian authorities to undertake pre-emptive measures, anywhere in the world, adds a new dimension to the hitherto announced anti-terrorist policy and methods of the Kremlin.

To spare the rod and spoil the child method of making the wrong the right is now out-moded, impractical and discarded. It is universally recognised as such, but hardly practiced even by those who preach it. One has to trace the root of the cause that breeds such problems and then to address it in a manner with understanding, compassion and magnaminity which may promise a lasting solution satisfactory to all concerned. But nowhere in the hour-long speech of President Putin the word Chechen was mentioned even once. One may question the propriety of such omission when all the terrorist activities in Russia in recent years were committed by Chechen rebels. It is not merely in Russia but in many other parts of the world that such attempts, wilfully or not, have been made to gloss over the core issue that gave rise to such major problems.

The Chechen demand for independence turned into an open rebellion a decade ago. Moscow took stern action and razed the capital Grozny, in many places, almost to ground reminiscent of post-World War II Berlin. But the strong military action made the militants go underground and create a hydra-headed monster swaying his heads from one corner of the Russian Republic to another. Putin won his election on the pledge of settling the Chechnya problem and he succeeded, albeit temporarily, in bringing the rebels to terms by force. But the outcome did not last long and the same problems assumed a new form wherein the conflict did not remain confined only in Chechnya but spread all over the Russian Republic.

The President declared he was determined to solve this problem by resorting to stronger use of force. But one knows well that violence only begets violence. Use of force becomes efficacious only for a limited period of time. A permanent solution calls for a policy of mutual understanding, a give and take attitude and a will to compromise. Also, politics is a bizarre phenomenon. What was good then may not hold good now. There is nothing to blame, repent or be ashamed of, if there be a change. Change of policy and strategy is a constant phenomenon for any political party, lest it becomes static and is unable to go along with the tide of time. Even at this late stage, many may feel it worthwhile to attempt negotiation with the Chechens, if it does help promote a lasting peace.

On the other hand, it is no easy task for the Russian President to stage a volte-face and dangle an olive branch to those who had committed so many atrocious crimes and whom the President vowed to punish. Behind his solemn pledge, the hardliners lent him strong support. The latter argue, any softening of attitude towards a compromise would only bolster strength of the separatist movement in other parts of Russia where ethnic and religious sentiments run high and have rendered the country vulnerable. The now defunct Soviet Union had even a bigger problem of similar nature and broke into the components of the CIS states. The Baltic and Black Sea coast states in the west and the Muslim dominated states in the southern under belly of the one time superpower seceded and became independent. I had the personal experience of witnessing and even listening to the grievances of the people there during my assignment in Moscow from 1986 to 1989. Moscow did not oppose secession, but kept all the seceding states within the loose bounds of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

But the new Russian Republic still is not bereft of similar ordeals. There exists a number of autonomous regions where ethnic and minority grievances are strong and have been lying dormant for long. These are mostly located in the Caucasus region around the breakaway state of Georgia. Whereas strong dissatisfaction and grievances have erupted into a demand for independence and resulted in armed conflict in Chechnya, those in the neighboring Ingushtia, North Ossetia and even distant Kazan are still brewing. I had the occasion to visit the oil-rich autonomous region of Kazan where the plight of the Muslim dominated population marked a striking contrast to the well-to-do people of the other regions of the country. One must not be oblivious of the fact that the same people, who are terrorists, are regarded as freedom fighters by many others.

So, the Russian President is faced with a big dilemma. If he continues with his policy of resorting to force and only force, he may be dragged into a long-drawn battle with his own people. If, on the other hand, he chooses to enter into the most arduous task of negotiation with the adversaries, there may be some loss of face and even something more to pay as a heavy price, but he may ultimately win peace. The option is open to the Russian President to take, and one feels it should be based on the opinion of the Russian people. The latter, at least the most unfortunate people of Beslan, are now asking the question --- is the state policy worth supporting at the cost of sacrificing one's own flesh and blood and the dearest possession, children?

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.