Angry Indians back war talk

There is no doubt that Indian anger has been building steadily.

The attack on Delhi's parliament in December sparked outrage, bringing sharply into focus the long-running dispute over Kashmir and India's bitter accusations that Pakistan supports and harbours Islamic militants operating there.

Many here also felt such a blatant assault on India's sovereignty had parallels with the World Trade Centre attacks - in type if clearly not in the loss of life - and saw international attempts to cool India's wrath as Western double standards.

When President Pervez Musharraf, under pressure from the West, subsequently set out key anti-terrorist measures, many in India were sceptical.

They wanted actions, not words, they said - proof not promises.

Last week's bloody attack on an army base in Indian Kashmir was the final straw and evidence to many in Delhi that the terrorist threat certainly had not been successfully curbed.

Anti-Muslim violence

To many here, this sequence of events justifies Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's belligerent stance.

But the timing is also politically expedient. Mr Vajpayee's party, the BJP, has been under growing domestic pressure in recent months, performing poorly in a series of state elections and, most recently, criticised at home and overseas for its handling of the recent widespread killings and destruction in Gujarat.

Many independent reports have accused the BJP state government of supporting the anti-Muslim violence, in which, according to some of those reports, more than 2,000 people died.

The central BJP leadership stood staunchly by its party members, refusing to condemn their role in the violence. Mr Vajpayee has held together a fragile coalition government by presenting a moderate, liberal face of the right-wing Hindu agenda his party represents.

But to many, horror about Gujarat seemed to lift the mask, revealing ugly and dangerous fundamentalism beneath.

Now the threat of war with Pakistan has succeeded in knocking Gujarat off the front pages.

International challenge

When applied to Pakistan, the BJP's hawkish rhetoric becomes politically acceptable, sounding less like vitriol directed against India's Muslim minority and more a desirable display of national patriotism.

Not even the political opposition, which took the BJP so much to task on Gujarat, dare criticise. The dispute over Kashmir - and Pakistan-sponsored terrorism - is perhaps the one deeply emotive rallying cry which unites all politicians and indeed almost all Indians.

The challenge facing the international community is distinguishing between the tough threats on Pakistan - enhanced to woo an Indian audience - and the likelihood of those threats materialising into actual conflict.

Some of the posturing can be factored out as political bluster. But even so, it is a dangerous game to play. Tension this high may be hard to dissipate without either bloodshed or the risk of lost political face.

And many would support their prime minister in insisting on India's right to eliminate a perceived terrorist threat - the same right already afforded the US-led action in Afghanistan.

If a Western war on terrorism is legitimate, they would argue, how can anyone deny that ours is too?