In praise of conspiracy theories
By Jawed Naqvi
CONSPIRACY theories abound in the absence of transparent explanations of events big or small. But a conspiracy theory is also often dubbed so by people or sources it wittingly or unwittingly targets. In other words a fairly logical explanation for a political assassination, for example, can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, say by the CIA, if the reasoning gets too popular or convincing for the comfort of the spy agency.
Sometimes a seemingly reckless conspiracy theory could nevertheless contain a grain of truth. A rumour used to circulate among the followers of Jamaat-i-Islami in India in the 1980s who thought that Indira Gandhi’s murder was of a piece with the deaths of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Mujibur Rehman. All three were one way or another responsible for the creation of Bangladesh. It was left unclear, however, whether the victims were sent to their maker by divine intervention or by the CIA, as is disturbingly popular to believe.
The Thakkar Commission investigated the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi by her bodyguards in October 1984 and the Jain Commission probed the murder of Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. Justice Thakkar pointed an accusing finger at Mrs. Gandhi’s personal secretary and wondered whether he had a CIA link. Justice Jain was even less inhibited in naming names. He advised a further probe into the possible role of Mossad and the CIA, along with the LTTE, into Rajiv’s murder by a woman suicide bomber.
There were strong critics of both the commissions in the Indian media. But we don’t have the space here to discuss the conspiracy theory about the ownership of the media that targeted the commissions that blamed the CIA. Nor is it the purpose here to look at other circulating theories like holding the CIA responsible for the mysterious death of Gen Zia-ul-Haq. The questions that the much reviled conspiracy theorist poses are often too hot for everyone’s comfort. Did the Americans have a hand in throwing out Natwar Singh from the foreign minister’s post before President Bush’s visit to India, as Natwar Singh alleges?
Did the Americans use their proxies to similarly deal with Mani Shankar Aiyar, who was unceremoniously removed from India’s oil ministry that was negotiating a deal with Iran? Was Manmohan Singh foisted as a prime minister by a certain free-markets lobby that manipulated the Bombay Stock Exchange in May 2004 to deny Sonia Gandhi a chance at power? It is strange that the stock market went up after the devastating Mumbai blasts but came crashing down when Sonia merely flashed a victory smile. Is there some thing wrong with our values or does the flaw lie with the way we interpret the straws in the wind?
Sometimes the most obvious explanation for major events is blurred by screaming headlines and TV anchors who seem eager to give their pre-digested conclusions often too swiftly, hoping that their unsuspecting consumers would happily lap them up. Take the latest round of airplanes bombing conspiracy in London that has snowballed into a fresh war on terror, as it were. Simply put the story is a reheated version of one that has been circulating on the internet for close to a decade.
What exactly happened in London on August 10 that has become such a major issue for everyone? As The New York Times reported it, the story seems simple enough. “The British authorities said on Thursday that they had thwarted an advanced terrorist plot to blow up airplanes flying from Britain to the United States using liquid explosives that would have escaped airport security. The officials said they had arrested 24 men, all British-born Muslims, who planned to carry the liquids in drink bottles and combine them into explosive cocktails to commit mass murder aboard as many as 10 flights high over the Atlantic.”
Now check out the following website — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka. For those who do not have access to internet, what was Oplan Bojinka anyway? It was exactly the same as the operation that was allegedly scuttled in London this past week with the help of Pakistan intelligence and who knows who else. The basic difference is that Oplan Bojinka, which was unearthed in 1995 in Manila, aimed to blow up US-bound planes over the Pacific Ocean. This new plan aimed to do likewise over the Atlantic. Both plans were to use ordinarily undetectable liquids as explosives and wrist watch batteries as the charge. So why on earth did we not have an anti-dote to Oplan Bojinka after it was discovered, to use the intelligence calendar, millions of years ago? There is a seemingly deliberate confusion about when the conspiracy involving the Muslim men in Britain was first discovered. Some reports say sleuths had been chasing the leads for at least six or seven months. That’s enough time to have a drill in place for people not to carry any liquids in their carry on bags. There was enough time to simply change the rules and stop hand bags without causing any panic among the world’s already frightened travellers. Let’s try to see the entire episode through the allegedly convoluted mind of the much reviled conspiracy theorist. Or as some of the readers would agree, let’s see it all from a more logical angle. There are four dramatis personae involved in the latest round of fear mongering. They are US President Bush, British Premier Blair, President Musharraf and Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert.
Just two days before the latest terror alert was sounded Ned Lamont, a Connecticut millionaire whose candidacy for the United States Senate soared from nowhere on a fierce antiwar message, won a narrow victory in the Democratic primary over the incumbent, Joseph I. Lieberman. While Senator Lieberman, Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, conceded defeat he also gave a combative speech to his supporters. The senator declared that he was not dropping out of the race, but would instead run for re-election as an independent this fall. The anti-war hero Lamont could not be allowed to become a mascot for America. The London terror would be a handy tool for President Bush as depicted by Michael Moore in the celebrated documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
On the Israeli front, the day before the London alert, Ehud Olmert’s ratings had dropped drastically. A Haaretz survey carried by Reuters on August 10/11, showed 48 per cent of Israelis were satisfied with their prime minister’s performance compared with popularity ratings of more than 75 per cent in polls taken in the early stages of fighting against the Hezbollah. Public support for Defence Minister Amir Peretz fell from 65 per cent to 37 per cent. The poll found only 39 per cent of Israelis supported a decision by Olmert’s security cabinet to send troops deeper into southern Lebanon to battle Hezbollah. Another report said only 20 per cent believed Israel was winning the war.
The London terror alert also came within four days after Israeli opposition leader argued in London, on BBC, that if England had reduced Nazi Germany to rubble why was Israel not being allowed to do likewise with Lebanon. Pat came the endorsement from Bush. America was fighting Islamic fascists, he said, equating Lebanon, and Iran no doubt with Nazi rule.
As for Tony Blair, also known as America’s European poodle, he has been in the doghouse with his own cabinet for too long. He needed a terror alert to heave a sigh of relief. That leaves us with President Musharraf’s role in the unfolding of the London terror trail. How much it will help him in the promised electoral makeover of Pakistan next year we will know only next year. In the meantime, as conspiracy theories go, it all may yet help him get the international community, euphemism for the United States, to mount pressure on India to come back to the discussion table to talk Kashmir.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com

