Pardon terrorists at your own risk

Whiskey and Rye
    By John Schochet

On New Year's Eve, the Indian government agreed to free three Islamic militants in exchange for the release of the hostages on board an Indian Airlines jet that had been hijacked a week earlier. Terrorists worldwide must have read India's message loud and clear: hijacking Indian airplanes is a good way to get what you want.

It's difficult to criticize an action that resulted in saving the lives of all the hostages on a hijacked airplane. It's even more difficult to argue that a different action should have been taken, one that would likely have ended in some of the passengers' deaths. But India, the United States, and other democracies are fighting a war against terrorism. It is critical that fanatics who endorse violence and use innocent lives as pawns see that terrorism never pays. India's decision to release the militants had the opposite effect, and it will make fighting terrorism in the future a more difficult endeavor.

On Christmas Eve, Indian Airlines flight 814 left Kathmandu, Nepal, bound for New Delhi, India. However, 40 minutes into the flight, Islamic militants opposed to India's control of Kashmir hijacked the plane. The hijackers were armed with pistols and knives, which they managed to carry onto the plane through Kathmandu's lax airport security. After the jet landed in India and Pakistan, it flew to Dubai, where it refueled and released some of the hostages. Finally, the hijackers brought the plane to Afghanistan, where it sat on the ground until Thurs., Dec. 31.

Once the plane was in Afghanistan, the situation stabilized into a staring match. India blinked first. The hijackers demanded the release of three terrorists being held in Indian jails. Then they decided that they also wanted several hundred million dollars and the exhumed body of an additional terrorist.

At this point, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan stepped in to chastise the hijackers. The Taliban, as we know, are the kind folks who brought the world's most reactionary form of Islamic fundamentalism to the mountains of Afghanistan. Their "reforms" include a ban on women receiving any education or being seen on the street (even with a veil) without a husband or male relative. So these enlightened visionaries informed the hijackers that it was "un-Islamic" to demand money for hostages. Apparently, there's no problem demanding three terrorists' freedom for hostages.

The Taliban tried to make themselves look like the good guys. They mediated the crisis, bringing the Indian authorities into contact with the hijackers. These negotiations thus accomplished two things. First, they forced the Indian government to give legitimacy to the actions of terrorists and encourage others to hijack airplanes in the future. Second, it brought positive attention to the Taliban, allowing the world to forget about its barbaric behavior and inexcusable treatment of Afghans. While the latter is merely a regrettable consequence of this situation, the former holds dangerous ramifications for the war on terrorism.

The hijackers' goal in taking over the plane and bargaining with 150 lives was the release of three terrorists from Indian prisons. What was the result of the hijacking? One Indian was killed, the hijackers remained free, and the three terrorists were released from prison. Seems pretty successful, doesn't it? In the future, if anyone else wants some of their terrorist friends released from prison in India, it's obvious that all they have to do is hijack an Indian airliner. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't plan on flying Indian Airlines anytime soon.

Though it's difficult for a democratic government to accept, the best approach to terrorism necessitates risking the lives of the hostages. There are no two ways around it—bargaining with the hijackers may free the hostages today, but it guarantees that there will be hundreds more in years to come. The Indian government should have taken immediate action and stormed the plane in a lightning commando action. The French and Israelis, among others, have successfully accomplished this in the past with minimal hostage casualties. The result? A strong disincentive to attempt any more hijackings.

If the hijacked airplane had been stormed, the best possible scenario would have resulted in the hijackers getting arrested and all of the passengers being freed. The worst case involves heavy casualties among the hostages and the commandos. Either way, the terrorists wouldn't have gotten what they wanted, and future terrorists would not have been encouraged.

These particular hijackers were not suicidal. If their goal had been to simply kill people and make a statement, they would have bombed the plane in the air—a scenario clearly possible considering that they smuggled a crate of grenades aboard in Nepal. They wanted to release the militants, not kill the civilians. However, the Indian government should not tolerate even this sort of agenda. Instead of appeasing the hijackers, the government should have simply stormed the airplane and attempted to capture the terrorists and free the hostages. Even a poor rescue attempt would have been better than the future string of hijackings India has bought itself.

Back to Opinion...