We don't need a Putin!

It has become fashionable in elite circles in India to glorify the Alpha unit of Russian commandos who stormed the Theatre Na Dubvovke in Moscow on October 26 and overpowered the Chechen separatist guerrillas who had held over 750 people hostage. This is cited as a 'brilliant' example of what the Indian government should do if, for instance, another December 13 Parliament attack or an Akshardham should happen on a magnified scale. For this view's advocates, Mr Vladimir Putin, the former KGB colonel who is now Russia's president, has replaced Israeli strongman Ariel Sharon as the role model to be emulated for a 'tough,' no-nonsense, ruthless approach to terrorism - befitting a 'strong State,' which India somehow must become.

I find this argument utterly shocking and repulsive, for a number of reasons. To start with, the storming led to the death by poisoning of no fewer than 120 innocent hostages, besides 50 terrorists. The noxious gas used killed all but two of the 120. The sheer disproportion is distressing. Clearly, the Russian state killed its own people - by design, not by mistake. What makes the operation especially ghastly is the fact that it was carried out in the utmost secrecy and amidst an unprecedented media crackdown - and with horrendous callousness towards human life. As Russian social scientist and political activist Boris Kagarlitsky puts it: 'The authorities did in Moscow what they have been doing for more than three years in Chechnya: They blocked the flow of information, they lied and passed off defeat as victory...'

The authorities lied time and again about the casualties. They first said only 30 people had died. For fully four days, they withheld information about the gas used to incapacitate those present in the closed theatre. They did not bother to keep ambulances close to the theatre although they knew that the victims would urgently need treatment. They had 60 hours' notice. Indeed, according to Kagarlitsky, even 'law enforcement officials' admitted that the attack had been 'planned in advance,' and that they had intentionally taunted the gunmen with 'leaks' about the coming storming to keep them 'off-balance, and thereby goad them into starting a fight.'

The identity of the gas has finally been disclosed: it was a cocktail based on derivatives of Fentanyl, a powerful opiate, 50 times more potent than heroin, which abruptly paralyses the respiratory system, in addition to crippling the brain's pain receptors. Because of its relatively persistent and lethal effects, the Fentanyl-based cocktail belongs to a grey area in the Chemical Weapons Convention. The treaty allows signatories to possess riot-control agents, which can produce rapid but very short-term physical disabilities, but not persistent effects lasting for hours or days. That may explain why Moscow chose to hide this vital bit of information. Clearly, the theatre storming was more than a huge botch-up caused by ineptitude. Venality and wickedness were writ large on it. Mr Putin sacrificed 120 civilians in order to continue the Chechnya war, contain the growing popular anti-war mood, and show his 'determination and strong will.'

Russian political analysts see a much bigger plot in the episode. (The Hindu, November 6). Many believe it reflects a fierce behind-the-scenes battle for power between the Kremlin's old guard of oligarchs led by former president Boris Yeltsin and the new Putin group. The terrorist attack, they think, was carried out at the behest of the secret services - to humiliate Mr Putin and undermine his power. Shamil Basayev, the Chechen warlord who took responsibility for the attack, is suspected to have long-standing links with the secret services. The power struggle is related to Mr Putin's recent attacks on the Yeltsin oligarchs who have stashed away billions abroad. Mr Putin's own rival group is deeply indebted to Western, especially US, interests.

Such conspiracies are not as outlandish as they seem. The Russian State disintegrated in 1991 and has not been able to rebuild itself with stable institutions. A third of its army is not even regularly paid. The Chechnya war is more a consequence of the Russian State's internal crisis than of the machinations of Chechens fired by Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the state in September 1999 stooped to the unbelievably abysmal low of setting off four bomb explosions in civilian apartment houses - in order to blame Chechen separatists. These killed over 300 innocent citizens - and spread terror throughout Russia.

The bombings served as a trigger for the Second Chechen War, which catapulted the hitherto-obscure Mr Putin into the presidency after he declared that he would pursue the Chechen terrorists and 'kill them in the shit-house.' Now, a new well-researched book, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within, by Yuri Felshtinsky and former intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko, has produced persuasive evidence that the FSB (the KGB's successor) was indeed involved in the bombings.

There is an even more compelling reason why we should not see Mr Putin's tough, macho tactics as worthy of emulation. They are calculated to drown the legitimate aspirations of the Chechen people in blood. Russia is not the original victim in this terrible conflict, which goes back to the early 18th century when Catherine the Great annexed the Caucasus. The Chechens, as Tolstoy described in Hadji Murat, were repeatedly brutalised when they fought for decolonisation. During World War-II, Stalin deported virtually the entire Chechen population to Siberia and Central Asia, where half of them died.

In 1991, after the Soviet Union's break-up, the Chechens declared independence - peacefully, in response to Mr Yeltsin's invitation to all republics to decide on their autonomy sovereignty. The Russians wouldn't have any of this. In 1994, they attacked Chechnya to launch one of the dirtiest wars in history. But unable to win it, they signed a peace treaty two years later - only to violate it in 1999, placing over 100,000 soldiers in the tiny republic of under a million people. The Second Chechen War has wiped out a tenth of the population, and displaced over 200,000 people. The Russian generals, unable to comprehend partisan guerrilla tactics, are frustrated as they dream in vain of using tanks, heavy artillery and aircraft.

Meanwhile, popular Russian sentiment against the war has grown by leaps and bounds. People are aghast at the extent of human rights violations, such as scores of raids on a single village, with beatings, torture, rape and sodomy. About 45 percent of Russians oppose the war, which has bled their country too, taking a toll of 15 Russian lives a week. Diverse political groups also want unconditional talks with the Chechens. For instance, Mr Grigory Yavlinsky of the Yabloko Party says he believes the hostage-crisis events 'are common defeat, our common tragedy,' which could have been averted if the government had conducted 'step-by-step negotiations with the Chechen terrorists, gradually releasing all or at least some of the hostages.' Parties and intellectuals across the spectrum want the armed conflict to end - and with it, gross human rights abuse, disappearances, and executions. They support a political solution to the Chechen problem.

In India, 'macho' tactics like storming and gassing closed halls appear particularly fraught. Even our commando units, leave alone the police, lack the intelligence, resources, weapons and often training and leadership, to minimise killing innocents and capture terrorists alive - so that hard evidence can be gathered. Besides, there is the question of privilege and veto power in this deeply hierarchical society. Imagine what it would take to launch a Parliament-storming operation that puts the life of a single minister, or five MPs at risk!

The IC-814 hijacking was a classic case of botch-ups and missed chances (e g) to storm the aircraft at Amritsar), further worsened by the enormous pressure exercised on the government by the 'flying class' elite. Given our social and political structures, what is stormed, who is put at risk, and who rescued, becomes an issue of power. The wealthy and the mighty will not allow themselves to be sacrificed in the interests of the nation. All this only sets a negative example to the citizenry. Why would the ordinary mortal, who often gets the rough end of the police's stick and must bribe them, want to sacrifice anything, especially life, in order to save the fat corrupt cop, the rich moneybag, the irresponsible politician? So long as we have our Ravi Kant Sharmas and their protectors in the Establishment, so long as those in high places are exemplars of crass selfishness, so long as the Veerappans roam free thanks to police sloth, corruption and venality, why should the citizen be asked to become a martyr in the cause of those who control the state but give him/her so little?

Postscript: After the November 6 Asian Age report quoting an eyewitness, and the notice issued to the police by the National Human Rights Commission, serious doubts have been cast on the police version of the Ansal Plaza 'encounter.' It is imperative more than ever before that the full truth is established-in the national interest. At stake is the Indian state's credibility.

Praful Bidwai