December 31, 2008
A S Dulat is a retired intelligence officer better known for his extraordinary insight into the Kashmir issue acquired through years of handling of the state. As a senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau he has personally and professionally cultivated the entire leadership of Jammu and Kashmir [Images]. That makes him distinct because through his close contacts with Kashmiri leaders, and in some cases through their friendship, he is able to see Pakistan as seen by Kashmiris.
Dulat has this unique advantage and strength when it comes to analysing the Kashmir issue. When he was chief of the Research and Analysis Wing Dulat had a rare chance to understand the diplomatic and strategic side of both India and Pakistan vis-�-vis the Kashmir issue.
And now the winter of 2008 has brought in many changes in Kashmir. In an interview with Sheela Bhatt, Dulat discusses the entire range of issues connected with the Jammu and Kashmir elections and the bigger issue of resolving the Kashmir problem.
What is your broader view on the elections in Jammu and Kashmir?
It is a good result. It is a victory for democracy and victory for everybody who has participated in this election.
Actually, if you look closely, nobody has lost in this election except may be marginally the Congress lost. It was understandable. It was partly due to anti-incumbency and partly due to the Amarnath agitation. The Peoples Democratic Party and Bharatiya Janata Party gained because of the Amarnath agitation. If elections were held in May or June the National Conference would have got 7-8 seats more and the PDP would have got 7-8 seats less.
When you claim the PDP gained due to the Amarnath agitation, what are you implying?
During the Amarnath agitation the whole issue of Kashmir and Kashmiriyat came up. And, talk of Azadi was very much in the air. From the Kashmiris' point of view, at that point of time the National conference was dilly-dallying. Omar Abdullah [Images] was saying they will not consider an inch of land but Dr Farooq Abdullah [Images], on the other hand, was being reasonable. In fact, in the Valley Doctorsaab (Farooq Abdullah) got a lot of flak. The PDP came out aggressively for Kashmiris' rights and Kashamiriyat and what is now referred to as soft separatism. They gained because of it.
In the same way, the BJP gained in Jammu for speaking up for the people of Jammu. Hardliners on both sides have gained. Overall, I would say nobody has lost substantially. It has been a very good election. Lines are clearly drawn. Whether the people like it or not, there has to be a National Conference-Congress alliance. I wish there was an NC government without Congress support because for the sake of Kashmir it would have been better. Now, the obvious alliance is NC-Congress. The only thing wrong with the NC-Congress alliance is that it takes people's mind back to 1986-87.
People say that was when the problem started, because of this alliance. Therefore, if you are going to have a repeat of it, it will not help. We all hope that it will not be a repeat of it. My gut feeling was that Omar Abdullah will be chief minister.
Why?
I told you in last May also that Omar is set to become the CM. It is time for the younger generation to come forward. I still maintain that Doctorsaab is the tallest and the best of Kashmiri leaders we have right now. There is nobody of his stature. But, I think, Omar deserves a chance.
He is young and has in him that dynastic arrogance�
Yes, it's a fact that Doctorsaab understands Kashmir better. It will take a while for him to learn. But, some people feel that as an administrator Omar will be better.
A good thing about Doctorsaab is that he can manage three regions better. The NC is the only party which has done well in all three regions. The NC is the only pan-J&K party in the true sense.
One of the great challenges for the new government is how to manage Jammu.
Acute polarisation has taken place. Managing Jammu will be a problem. The opposition in the new assembly will be robust. When the NC was in the Opposition they were mild and reasonable but Mehbooba Mufti or the BJP will not be as reasonable towards the NC. They will be much more aggressive. Hardliners of both sides are together in the Opposition, which will make life difficult for the coalition government.
Do you agree with the view that there are traces of communal voting in J&K this time? After all, Kashmir is the land of Sufism so it is an extraordinary trend.
I won't call it communal, I won't use that word but yeah, it is polarised opinion, unfortunately. Because of that silly issue which should have never been raised, there has been polarisation. It is unfortunate. I think for some time to come we will have to suffer that.
But, what will be the long-term impact if this polarisation continues?
That is why I said that whichever government comes in they will have to carry Jammu along with them. In one sense, just for the sake of debate, ideally a coalition of the NC-BJP would be better in some ways but they don't match and Omar has said that he will not have an alliance with the BJP.
But that suggestion is doubtful because an NC-BJP combine can provoke separatism.
Why will it get provoked? Why? The NC represents the valley as much anybody else represents the valley. They still have one seat more than the PDP. Why should separatism come up?
Anyway, my point is that the new government will have to make an effort to carry Jammu along. Unfortunately, in Jammu, they are going to come up against a hardliner BJP. This time the management of Jammu has to be tactful.
Do you believe that in Kashmir, accommodation of soft separatism is to be desired?
Surely, in Kashmir soft separatism and separatism will have to be heard. Accommodation of all opinions is important. This election provides a great opportunity.
I know the point you are trying to make. There is some merit if you argue that the Congress-PDP alliance may be better than the NC-Congress alliance. There is some merit in the argument. But, this time, you cannot keep the NC out of power. They are the largest single party. Last time they stayed out of power because they thought they have lost the mandate of the people. Last time, Omar had lost the election. This time father and son both have won. There is no justification for the Congress or anybody to keep the NC out of power.
Also, independents who have won this time would largely go with the NC. Their number is much less this time but they won't support the PDP.
Therefore, a Congress-NC alliance is the logical one. While Delhi [Images] will have to keep in mind a larger Kashmir picture, a coalition of NC-Congress will have to take care of Jammu.
But, what about the sentiments raised by the PDP? How will it be addressed?
Just because we had a good election, if we think the Kashmir problem is over then we are taking things too much for granted. Somewhere or the other serious issues will start cropping up. It can be in the assembly, it can be by coalition partners, it can be by the Opposition parties and it can be raised by separatists or it can be by artificial insemination by Pakistan.
Kashmir always throws up new challenges. Some of it can be unpredictable. Kashmiris themselves are so complex and unpredictable, you can never know them.
So, you can't just wish away problems in Kashmir.
How will New Delhi handle the Kashmir issue in the post-election phase?
You can't have a better picture of Kashmir than this. You need to talk. You know, Doctorsaab is the last person who will talk about having a dialogue with the Hurriyat. He will just dismiss the proposal saying, 'Who are these people?' Now, even he is saying that the government should talk to the Hurriyat. He has also begun to realise the need to talk. Separatist thought needs accommodation in some form. I am not saying that should be the overriding thought. Kashmiris' alienation and grievance has to be addressed by the new leaders in power.
On Sunday, as the results came in, Farooq Abdullah thanked Pakistan for a peaceful election because militancy was absent and people could vote.
Absolutely right! I agree 100 per cent with him. If militancy came down it's not only because of Pakistan but also because our security forces are doing their job and they too deserve credit. But, we must acknowledge that Pakistan has brought down militancy considerably. Infiltration and militancy have come down. Even Geelanisaab (Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chairman of a Hurriyat faction) said similar things. I think Geelani did not know what he was saying, what he said was very right.
When somebody asked him why did your boycott of elections fail he said, 'Because there was not enough violence.' This means he is acknowledging that their politics is only based on the gun. Without the gun it is difficult for them to sustain it. This argument, if we take it further, is also an acknowledgment of what exactly General Pervez Musharraf [Images] had begun to indicate when he invited Omar Abdullah to Islamabad [Images], that as far as Pakistan goes, the mainstream parties of J&K were all right. If they are the ones who represent Kashmiris, then what is the harm? It is all right. They are quite happy with the mainstream parties and leaders.
But, India needs to talk to separatists because it's important to know the people's grievances.
What Farooq said also suggests that Pakistan remains pivotal in the game.
Pakistan is not "pivotal". New Delhi is pivotal. But, when New Delhi doesn't do anything then Pakistan becomes pivotal in Kashmir. We allow Pakistan to become pivotal. We should seize the initiative and keep it with us. It's our absence of action that makes Pakistan pivotal.
Even when Pakistan withdraws and you also don't do anything, then Pakistan will again come into play. Right now, as far as Pakistan is concerned, there are no issues. But, it doesn't take time for issues to be raked up. A testing time for Pakistan has always been summer when the snow melts, to know what new intentions Pakistanis have in Kashmir. We have to wait and watch.
Do you think there is any life left in the Hurriyat?
Pitaai to hui hai, lekin jaan abhi bachi hai (They have been beaten but there is still life in them). It all depends on what is New Delhi's vision for the next round of action. And, Pakistan intends to do in summer. Right now, Pakistan is not doing any mischief to encourage the Hurriyat so the boycott by Hurriyat almost failed.
I think 2009 is a huge opportunity for India to move forward on the issue of Kashmir.
What will happen eventually?
I am not sure if the thought of separatism is as deep and alive as it used to be. Surely, the Hurriyat represents a certain thought. I think that is dwindling. The more they keep themselves isolated, the more it will dwindle. It's time for them to come into the mainstream. In 2002 some separatist leaders were regretting that they didn't participate directly. This time their regret will be much greater. Sajjad Lone would be regretting because his party would have impacted more than 5-6 seats in Kupwara, North Kashmir. Now, they will have to wait for six years more and by then, they will be six years older. The Mirwaiz is a religious leader so he will have his standing otherwise also, but the Lone brothers could be forgotten. How long can you sustain yourself on artificial gas?
See, through this election what is the Kashmiris' message? It is something like this. Let me say that the Kashmiri understands that this movement has been a failure. The idea of Azadi has failed. The guns have failed. Nobody is going to get Azadi. But, Kashmiri leaders say at the end of the day don't rub our nose into the ground.
I too believe the Kashmiri people must get some accommodation. That is what they are looking for. That's where the matter stands. The main concern is to see that the peace process must go forward. Because they have suffered so much in the last 20 years. So many Kashmiris have died. They must be given some honourable settlement. They voted this time because, as Barrack Obama [Images] said, Americans should come out and make their vote count.
I think the Kashmiris voted to make themselves counted. What is the point of sitting at home and being irrelevant? Why has the peace process been halted? There lies their redemption. Kashmiris are worried that if India and Pakistan go to war they will be killed in the crossfire. That's why he wants a little more understanding and accommodation from India.
The new chief minister's agenda has to be good governance, dialogue with a variety of political spectrum, and development.
While commenting on the Mumbai [Images] terrorist attacks some Western commentators say that the unresolved issue of Kashmir is linked to terrorism within India. Some say in the last four years the issue has not moved an inch.
No, I don't want to connect the Kashmir issue to the Mumbai attacks. But, the point really is that the peace process should have moved forward much more. I do think India missed an opportunity when General Musharraf was firmly in control in early 2007. And, after that the peace process doesn't have much impetus. I don't see anything happening in the coming six months. The Kashmir issue will be in cold storage due to many factors for six months, at least.
But, there is no alternative to take this issue further. What we do in retaliation to the Mumbai attacks is another matter.
Custom Search
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
National Investigative Agency becomes a reality
December 31, 2008 15:59 IST
Last Updated: December 31, 2008 17:04 IST
The National Investigative Agency Bill and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill on Tuesday became a law as President Pratibha Patil [Images] gave her assent to those legislations which were passed in the last session of Parliament.
Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] told reporters that the presidential assent has been received today.
"The regulations have come into effect from today," Chidambaram said.
He said the NIA will get its Director General in a few days.
"NIA will be established to investigate terrorist offences. As and when any case is assigned to the NIA, it will take up investigation," he said.
Our MPs blocked the NIA 8 months ago
Chidambaram told mediapersons that the work is in progress to set up 20 counter insurgency and anti-terrorism schools in the country which will train personnel to tackle cases involving terrorists.
The Home Minister also announced that a round the clock information gathering and sharing centre on terrorism has come into effect from today.
He said the Ministry will soon bring before the Cabinet a note on establishing National Security Guards hubs in four main cities of the country and more such hubs will be set up in other cities as well.
Asked about the cooperation from Pakistan in investigation of Mumbai terror attacks [Images], Chidambaram said, "They are in a state of denial. Everything that we will give will be denied."
Attack on Mumbai
He said the father of Ajmal Kasab [Images], the lone surviving terrorist in the Mumbai attack, has appeared on the television saying that he (Kasab) is his son.
"Kasab himself has written to the Pakistan government seeking legal help. What more evidence does Pakistan need," he said.
To a question on the NIA, Chidambaram said the Director General of the new agency for investigating terror-related cases will be appointed in the next few days.
Chidambaram said new appointments will be made in paramilitary forces for the new NSG hubs coming up in the four cities.
On the execution of Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru, he said the ministry was examining the case.
"There are 27 persons on death row. Afzal Guru is one among them. We are examining it," he said.
Asked about the Home Ministry's course of action in the cash-for-vote scam case, which was referred to it by the Lok Sabha Speaker, he said the ministry will look into the report
nd decide on how to go about it.
He said he was 'not aware' whether the report has reached the Ministry.
Last Updated: December 31, 2008 17:04 IST
The National Investigative Agency Bill and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill on Tuesday became a law as President Pratibha Patil [Images] gave her assent to those legislations which were passed in the last session of Parliament.
Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] told reporters that the presidential assent has been received today.
"The regulations have come into effect from today," Chidambaram said.
He said the NIA will get its Director General in a few days.
"NIA will be established to investigate terrorist offences. As and when any case is assigned to the NIA, it will take up investigation," he said.
Our MPs blocked the NIA 8 months ago
Chidambaram told mediapersons that the work is in progress to set up 20 counter insurgency and anti-terrorism schools in the country which will train personnel to tackle cases involving terrorists.
The Home Minister also announced that a round the clock information gathering and sharing centre on terrorism has come into effect from today.
He said the Ministry will soon bring before the Cabinet a note on establishing National Security Guards hubs in four main cities of the country and more such hubs will be set up in other cities as well.
Asked about the cooperation from Pakistan in investigation of Mumbai terror attacks [Images], Chidambaram said, "They are in a state of denial. Everything that we will give will be denied."
Attack on Mumbai
He said the father of Ajmal Kasab [Images], the lone surviving terrorist in the Mumbai attack, has appeared on the television saying that he (Kasab) is his son.
"Kasab himself has written to the Pakistan government seeking legal help. What more evidence does Pakistan need," he said.
To a question on the NIA, Chidambaram said the Director General of the new agency for investigating terror-related cases will be appointed in the next few days.
Chidambaram said new appointments will be made in paramilitary forces for the new NSG hubs coming up in the four cities.
On the execution of Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru, he said the ministry was examining the case.
"There are 27 persons on death row. Afzal Guru is one among them. We are examining it," he said.
Asked about the Home Ministry's course of action in the cash-for-vote scam case, which was referred to it by the Lok Sabha Speaker, he said the ministry will look into the report
nd decide on how to go about it.
He said he was 'not aware' whether the report has reached the Ministry.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Lahore blasts: Pro-Taliban group claims responsibility
December 26, 2008 10:08 IST
A hitherto unknown pro-Taliban group called 'Ansar Wa Mohajir' has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's car bomb attack in Lahore [Images], for which four alleged Indian nationals have reportedly been arrested by Pakistani authorities.
A man identifying himself as Toofan Wazir, the commander and spokesman of the group, phoned The News daily from somewhere in North Waziristan to claim responsibility for the blast in Lahore and earlier rocket attacks on Dera Ismail Khan city.
Wazir threatened more attacks against security forces and government installations to avenge two recent US missile strikes in North Waziristan in which several militants from Punjab province were killed.
The report said it appeared "obvious that he (Wazir) and his men are pro-Taliban [Images] and part of the Pakistani Taliban".
Media reports have said that hours after Wednesday's car bomb attack, intelligence and security agencies in Lahore arrested an alleged Indian national identified as either Satish Anand Shukla or Satish Anand Sharma. The man, who purportedly worked in the Indian High Commission in London [Images], belonged to Kolkata, the reports said.
Geo News channel subsequently reported that intelligence agencies had yesterday arrested three more alleged Indian nationals on the basis of information provided by the first man who was nabbed. A camera and a pistol were reportedly found in their possession.
Police officials in Lahore have not confirmed the arrest of the alleged Indian nationals and there has been no official word on the matter. The Indian High Commission here has also not been informed about these arrests by Pakistani authorities.
Ansar Wa Mohajir spokesman Wazir said US drones fired missiles at Pakistani targets with the agreement and cooperation of the government of Pakistan. Revenge will be taken by striking at both the Americans and the Pakistan government, he said.
In Pakistan, suicide bombings will be carried out and bombs will be exploded at important government installations, he warned.
Wazir claimed his men were "Ansar" (fighters) who hosted "Mohajir" or refugees from different countries and people from places in Pakistan who came to find refuge in Waziristan.
A hitherto unknown pro-Taliban group called 'Ansar Wa Mohajir' has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's car bomb attack in Lahore [Images], for which four alleged Indian nationals have reportedly been arrested by Pakistani authorities.
A man identifying himself as Toofan Wazir, the commander and spokesman of the group, phoned The News daily from somewhere in North Waziristan to claim responsibility for the blast in Lahore and earlier rocket attacks on Dera Ismail Khan city.
Wazir threatened more attacks against security forces and government installations to avenge two recent US missile strikes in North Waziristan in which several militants from Punjab province were killed.
The report said it appeared "obvious that he (Wazir) and his men are pro-Taliban [Images] and part of the Pakistani Taliban".
Media reports have said that hours after Wednesday's car bomb attack, intelligence and security agencies in Lahore arrested an alleged Indian national identified as either Satish Anand Shukla or Satish Anand Sharma. The man, who purportedly worked in the Indian High Commission in London [Images], belonged to Kolkata, the reports said.
Geo News channel subsequently reported that intelligence agencies had yesterday arrested three more alleged Indian nationals on the basis of information provided by the first man who was nabbed. A camera and a pistol were reportedly found in their possession.
Police officials in Lahore have not confirmed the arrest of the alleged Indian nationals and there has been no official word on the matter. The Indian High Commission here has also not been informed about these arrests by Pakistani authorities.
Ansar Wa Mohajir spokesman Wazir said US drones fired missiles at Pakistani targets with the agreement and cooperation of the government of Pakistan. Revenge will be taken by striking at both the Americans and the Pakistan government, he said.
In Pakistan, suicide bombings will be carried out and bombs will be exploded at important government installations, he warned.
Wazir claimed his men were "Ansar" (fighters) who hosted "Mohajir" or refugees from different countries and people from places in Pakistan who came to find refuge in Waziristan.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Part III: Talk of war, surgical strikes is ill-advised: Naresh Chandra - - Sheela Bhatt - rediff.com Editorial Director, News
December 17, 2008
In this special series, rediff.com Editorial Director, News, Sheela Bhatt asks strategic thinkers about India's options on responding to the Mumbai terror attacks.
In the first segment, Brajesh Mishra, the former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, argued that India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part of the series, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Part II: The international community won't help us: Kanwal Sibal
In New Delhi [Images] there is hectic debate about India's options in responding to the Mumbai attacks. Two emerging views clearly show the divide within the diplomatic and strategic communities.
Many strategic thinkers fear that the United Progressive Alliance government may get bogged down by Western worries about Afghanistan and may agree that the war against the Taliban [Images] is 'India's war too'. The consequential logic will hold that it will not be prudent for India to disturb Pakistan's western border by creating tension on the eastern border.
Also, the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terror will eventually help its civilian government escape blame.
Pakistan is sure to try and prove to the international community that its democracy needs to be saved and that it will benefit the region. Its rulers will say India's emotions of 'revenge or retaliation' needs to be countered aggressively at a time when Pakistan is trying to send its powerful army to the barracks after many decades.
As a result, believe it or not, after all the diplomacy by India, Pakistan will end up as the net beneficiary of the Mumbai attacks, says a Pakistan expert based in New Delhi.
He explains that the Western powers will end up enriching Pakistan's military and to protect the fragile civil regime in Islamabad [Images], the world will ignore that nation's soft handling of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, the Jamaat-ud-Dawah and the Jaish-e-Mohammad over the course of time. The Western powers want to ensure that till the situation in Afghanistan is under control, Pakistan and Indian leaders should be kept busy in mere posturing and rhetoric.
But this view is strongly countered by some pragmatists and backers of globalisation.
People who take 8 percent growth as the best Indian weapon in diplomacy are using a different premise to argue the best strategic option for New Delhi.
The shoes that were hurled at President George W Bush [Images] in Baghdad on Sunday speak volumes of the Western powers's complete lack of credibility to deal with Islamic elements in the world.
If India teams up with the US, Israel and other Western powers it will face the same credibility crisis in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Arab world and China.
Naresh Chandra, India's former ambassador to Washington, a former Cabinet secretary, career bureaucrat and lucid thinker on strategic affairs, reviews the steps India has taken so far and also speaks of what could be our best strategy. He is a member of the National Security Advisory Board and heads the NSAB group on internal security.
These are his personal views and not those of the Government of India.
I believe India's diplomatic steps so far are quite okay. The government has done as well as they could. I don't see much to criticise. The point to ponder is that we can be more belligerent, but we should not alienate the people of Pakistan in the process. They have been themselves opposing the dominance of the army and the Inter Services Intelligence.
After the Mumbai attacks, they were expressing sympathy with the people affected in India. We have to be careful when we speak on this side of the border. I don't think that Pakistanis, in general, are interested in bombing the Taj and railway stations.
We should recognise one thing clearly: The people in Mumbai are really upset with the authorities in New Delhi and Mumbai. They sense that their anger should not be just shifted to the people in Pakistan. There is huge support for efforts to put up new structures and to strengthen the existing set-up for stronger internal security.
Pakistan comes under pressure because of its great dependence on US aid. While we should make diplomatic efforts to demonstrate the reality of the terrorist infrastructure thriving in Pakistan, we should keep in mind that acting in concert with the US and other powers enables the Pakistan army [Images] to persuade its people of a conspiracy to put down Pakistan. The unintended consequence is that lots of Pakistanis start rallying behind the army, and even the ISI.
The fact is that many sections in Pakistan have started to wonder whether the armed forces, the ISI and militant organisations have served their cause well. They feel that they have lost something precious over time. Spells of military rule, questionable operations by the ISI and its operational links with terrorist outfits has diminished the dignity and honour of Pakistan.
Most countries now think of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism and an international migraine. Our efforts should be to focus blame where it lies and not tar every one in Pakistan with the same brush. Our ultimate goal should be to strengthen people to people relations while taking the strongest possible action to confront and defeat the bad elements spreading terror all over the region.
The talk of war at this time is most ill-advised. People certainly do not wish it, but they want the government to take the strongest possible measures in every sphere. The priority at the moment should be to strengthen our internal security arrangements and improve coordination among the intelligence agencies, state governments and military authorities. Talk of surgical strikes is also somewhat misplaced as the possibility of counter strikes and further escalation cannot be ruled out.
Heightened tensions on Pakistan's eastern border would give the Pakistan army the alibi to reduce counter insurgency and counter terrorist operations along the western border, thereby causing problems for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, the Pakistan army has already sent a strong message in recent days by the attacks on US convoys of military hardware destined for Afghanistan.
In this special series, rediff.com Editorial Director, News, Sheela Bhatt asks strategic thinkers about India's options on responding to the Mumbai terror attacks.
In the first segment, Brajesh Mishra, the former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, argued that India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part of the series, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Part II: The international community won't help us: Kanwal Sibal
In New Delhi [Images] there is hectic debate about India's options in responding to the Mumbai attacks. Two emerging views clearly show the divide within the diplomatic and strategic communities.
Many strategic thinkers fear that the United Progressive Alliance government may get bogged down by Western worries about Afghanistan and may agree that the war against the Taliban [Images] is 'India's war too'. The consequential logic will hold that it will not be prudent for India to disturb Pakistan's western border by creating tension on the eastern border.
Also, the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terror will eventually help its civilian government escape blame.
Pakistan is sure to try and prove to the international community that its democracy needs to be saved and that it will benefit the region. Its rulers will say India's emotions of 'revenge or retaliation' needs to be countered aggressively at a time when Pakistan is trying to send its powerful army to the barracks after many decades.
As a result, believe it or not, after all the diplomacy by India, Pakistan will end up as the net beneficiary of the Mumbai attacks, says a Pakistan expert based in New Delhi.
He explains that the Western powers will end up enriching Pakistan's military and to protect the fragile civil regime in Islamabad [Images], the world will ignore that nation's soft handling of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, the Jamaat-ud-Dawah and the Jaish-e-Mohammad over the course of time. The Western powers want to ensure that till the situation in Afghanistan is under control, Pakistan and Indian leaders should be kept busy in mere posturing and rhetoric.
But this view is strongly countered by some pragmatists and backers of globalisation.
People who take 8 percent growth as the best Indian weapon in diplomacy are using a different premise to argue the best strategic option for New Delhi.
The shoes that were hurled at President George W Bush [Images] in Baghdad on Sunday speak volumes of the Western powers's complete lack of credibility to deal with Islamic elements in the world.
If India teams up with the US, Israel and other Western powers it will face the same credibility crisis in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Arab world and China.
Naresh Chandra, India's former ambassador to Washington, a former Cabinet secretary, career bureaucrat and lucid thinker on strategic affairs, reviews the steps India has taken so far and also speaks of what could be our best strategy. He is a member of the National Security Advisory Board and heads the NSAB group on internal security.
These are his personal views and not those of the Government of India.
I believe India's diplomatic steps so far are quite okay. The government has done as well as they could. I don't see much to criticise. The point to ponder is that we can be more belligerent, but we should not alienate the people of Pakistan in the process. They have been themselves opposing the dominance of the army and the Inter Services Intelligence.
After the Mumbai attacks, they were expressing sympathy with the people affected in India. We have to be careful when we speak on this side of the border. I don't think that Pakistanis, in general, are interested in bombing the Taj and railway stations.
We should recognise one thing clearly: The people in Mumbai are really upset with the authorities in New Delhi and Mumbai. They sense that their anger should not be just shifted to the people in Pakistan. There is huge support for efforts to put up new structures and to strengthen the existing set-up for stronger internal security.
Pakistan comes under pressure because of its great dependence on US aid. While we should make diplomatic efforts to demonstrate the reality of the terrorist infrastructure thriving in Pakistan, we should keep in mind that acting in concert with the US and other powers enables the Pakistan army [Images] to persuade its people of a conspiracy to put down Pakistan. The unintended consequence is that lots of Pakistanis start rallying behind the army, and even the ISI.
The fact is that many sections in Pakistan have started to wonder whether the armed forces, the ISI and militant organisations have served their cause well. They feel that they have lost something precious over time. Spells of military rule, questionable operations by the ISI and its operational links with terrorist outfits has diminished the dignity and honour of Pakistan.
Most countries now think of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism and an international migraine. Our efforts should be to focus blame where it lies and not tar every one in Pakistan with the same brush. Our ultimate goal should be to strengthen people to people relations while taking the strongest possible action to confront and defeat the bad elements spreading terror all over the region.
The talk of war at this time is most ill-advised. People certainly do not wish it, but they want the government to take the strongest possible measures in every sphere. The priority at the moment should be to strengthen our internal security arrangements and improve coordination among the intelligence agencies, state governments and military authorities. Talk of surgical strikes is also somewhat misplaced as the possibility of counter strikes and further escalation cannot be ruled out.
Heightened tensions on Pakistan's eastern border would give the Pakistan army the alibi to reduce counter insurgency and counter terrorist operations along the western border, thereby causing problems for the NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, the Pakistan army has already sent a strong message in recent days by the attacks on US convoys of military hardware destined for Afghanistan.
Part II: The international community won't help us: Kanwal Sibal - - Sheela Bhatt - rediff.com Editorial Director, News
December 16, 2008
In the first part of the series, where rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt asks strategic thinkers India's options on responding to the Mumbai terror attacks, former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Brajesh Mishra, said India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I of the series: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part of the series, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Sibal, an acclaimed expert on Russia [Images], had worked hard to draw world attention to danger of terrorism and nuclear proliferation in Pakistan, was also asked if the military option was still open.
First of all, our diplomatic steps are insufficient after the Mumbai terror attacks [Images]. I believe India has lost the diplomatic initiative. It is allowing outsiders to decide what we should do. The string of Western dignitaries visiting India are limiting our options.
Some countries are genuinely worried about terrorism, they are worried about terrorism emanating from Pakistan and its linkages with the Pakistani establishment.
India's options vis-a-vis Pakistan are limited because of nuclear weapons on both sides.
In this scenario, China is a factor too. It is an 'all weather friend' of Pakistan and has strong linkages to the military in Pakistan. As you have noticed in North Korea, the China factor is important for the Western powers to negotiate. The same is true vis-a-vis Pakistan. The Afghanistan issue has made us realise that India's options are limited. On Monday, John Kerry told India how the US is going to prop up Pakistan by giving it aid of $15 billion.
In this situation India's reliance on the international community is not going to solve its problems. I don't think the international community will help us achieve our diplomatic goals.
At the same time I think India does have options to respond appropriately to the attacks on Mumbai. I have a question to ask this United Progressive Alliance government: Even after more than a fortnight, why has the government not announced the suspension of the composite dialogue process? Why can't we stop the dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir? At least, exercise that option. Why can't we dismantle the joint terror mechanism or roll back some confidence building measures?
This argument that both are victims of terrorism is giving Pakistan an escape route.
I don't buy the argument that after 9/11, the US didn't suspend relations with Saudi Arabia even though the attackers were mostly Saudis. The US had many stakes in Saudi Arabia. The US is dependent on the Saudis for its energy needs.
India should act harshly by discontinuing the peace process. The Lashkar-e-Tayiba simply could not have the kind of capacity to train commandos. The Pakistani establishment's help has to be there to prepare people for such attacks.
Pakistan is in a denial mode and will never admit the linkages of its establishment with anti-India terrorist outfits within Pakistan. I believe nothing much is going to be achieved by India if we carry on with this kind of diplomacy. House arrests of certain characters have happened, but it means nothing. Do they have an American monitor? What is the state of law and order within Pakistan? What is the credibility of such arrests and bans?
I am not saying that America or Britain doesn't care about the Lashkar menace. They are engaged in Afghanistan against the Taliban [Images], but they do have concerns about the Lashkar, which is spreading to Chechnya, the Gulf and Afghanistan.
It is because of this concern the US is cooperating with India. There is a confluence of interests in curbing the Lashkar. China will play a careful game. They have gone along with the world view in the United Nations on banning the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, but it will try and protect Pakistan without making itself vulnerable. Russia will strengthen and support multilateral efforts in controlling these elements. I see that some efforts are on by friendly countries like the US and the UK and we should not antagonise them by creating misunderstandings.
On the balance, I feel India's bilateral political action, so far, has been incomprehensible.
We are not helpless and some firm steps won't accelerate military steps. By the way, I certainly believe that it is too late for military action. Just too late!
The Indian government doesn't have the courage, so far, even, to break the dialogue process, so a military strike is ruled out.
If I had been asked about it, I would advise against military action. But in any case, the moment to strike has been lost.
In the first part of the series, where rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt asks strategic thinkers India's options on responding to the Mumbai terror attacks, former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Brajesh Mishra, said India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I of the series: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part of the series, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Sibal, an acclaimed expert on Russia [Images], had worked hard to draw world attention to danger of terrorism and nuclear proliferation in Pakistan, was also asked if the military option was still open.
First of all, our diplomatic steps are insufficient after the Mumbai terror attacks [Images]. I believe India has lost the diplomatic initiative. It is allowing outsiders to decide what we should do. The string of Western dignitaries visiting India are limiting our options.
Some countries are genuinely worried about terrorism, they are worried about terrorism emanating from Pakistan and its linkages with the Pakistani establishment.
India's options vis-a-vis Pakistan are limited because of nuclear weapons on both sides.
In this scenario, China is a factor too. It is an 'all weather friend' of Pakistan and has strong linkages to the military in Pakistan. As you have noticed in North Korea, the China factor is important for the Western powers to negotiate. The same is true vis-a-vis Pakistan. The Afghanistan issue has made us realise that India's options are limited. On Monday, John Kerry told India how the US is going to prop up Pakistan by giving it aid of $15 billion.
In this situation India's reliance on the international community is not going to solve its problems. I don't think the international community will help us achieve our diplomatic goals.
At the same time I think India does have options to respond appropriately to the attacks on Mumbai. I have a question to ask this United Progressive Alliance government: Even after more than a fortnight, why has the government not announced the suspension of the composite dialogue process? Why can't we stop the dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir? At least, exercise that option. Why can't we dismantle the joint terror mechanism or roll back some confidence building measures?
This argument that both are victims of terrorism is giving Pakistan an escape route.
I don't buy the argument that after 9/11, the US didn't suspend relations with Saudi Arabia even though the attackers were mostly Saudis. The US had many stakes in Saudi Arabia. The US is dependent on the Saudis for its energy needs.
India should act harshly by discontinuing the peace process. The Lashkar-e-Tayiba simply could not have the kind of capacity to train commandos. The Pakistani establishment's help has to be there to prepare people for such attacks.
Pakistan is in a denial mode and will never admit the linkages of its establishment with anti-India terrorist outfits within Pakistan. I believe nothing much is going to be achieved by India if we carry on with this kind of diplomacy. House arrests of certain characters have happened, but it means nothing. Do they have an American monitor? What is the state of law and order within Pakistan? What is the credibility of such arrests and bans?
I am not saying that America or Britain doesn't care about the Lashkar menace. They are engaged in Afghanistan against the Taliban [Images], but they do have concerns about the Lashkar, which is spreading to Chechnya, the Gulf and Afghanistan.
It is because of this concern the US is cooperating with India. There is a confluence of interests in curbing the Lashkar. China will play a careful game. They have gone along with the world view in the United Nations on banning the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, but it will try and protect Pakistan without making itself vulnerable. Russia will strengthen and support multilateral efforts in controlling these elements. I see that some efforts are on by friendly countries like the US and the UK and we should not antagonise them by creating misunderstandings.
On the balance, I feel India's bilateral political action, so far, has been incomprehensible.
We are not helpless and some firm steps won't accelerate military steps. By the way, I certainly believe that it is too late for military action. Just too late!
The Indian government doesn't have the courage, so far, even, to break the dialogue process, so a military strike is ruled out.
If I had been asked about it, I would advise against military action. But in any case, the moment to strike has been lost.
Part I: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra - - Sheela Bhatt - rediff.com Editorial Director, News
December 15, 2008
On the geopolitical chess board that is South Asia, the Mumbai terror attacks have ensured that the big players have to make a few moves that will decide the direction in which the region will move in the coming months.
The attack on Mumbai came at a time when:
The Indian government has less than four months remaining in power.
The elected government in Pakistan has not yet stabilised.
The United States-led war in Afghanistan is about to undergo a new strategic shift under the leadership of incoming President Barack Obama [Images].
India's conventional capability and advantage against Pakistan is seriously challenged because of Islamabad's [Images] nuclear weapons, which form a potent part of Pakistan's propaganda to neutralise many of India's options.
No less important is the fact that the attacks have come at a time when the economic meltdown -- the real impact of which has just begun to unfold in South Asia -- is the biggest worry for India, China and the rest of the world.
Contemporary history shows that the international community's support to India is limited to words and is not likely to go beyond it. Then, in India as well as Pakistan there is a big and effective lobby that argues that 'terrorism' is merely an issue in a long list of things to do and relations between the two countries can't be limited to one subject.
Even though assembly elections are being held in Jammu and Kashmir with fair success, no one in New Delhi [Images] is ignoring the fact that when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] visited the Kashmir valley on Sunday, curfew had to be imposed in Srinagar [Images] and the Congress party had to ferry people to Khundroo, where he spoke.
As things stand, time does not favour any player except the terrorists. Everyone else in this game would like to buy time, kill time and defy time to come out as the winner. The main players in the given circumstances -- the Pakistan president, the Indian prime minister and the Pakistan army [Images] -- are likely to do everything to come out unscathed within their country and in the region.
What will the victory that India wants and what can Pakistan's democratic government do and how far it can go are the debating points.
In India at least, most critics -- be it right wing or left wing, radical or moderate -- and strategic thinkers believe war is not the answer for the Mumbai attacks.
Though it might come as a relief, the prime minister very well understands that by eschewing the military options his government cannot avoid the fundamental issue of dealing with terrorism emanating from Pakistan. He said clearly that India had always wanted to have good relations with that country, but 'our kind desire should not be treated as a weakness.'
The options confronting India are more difficult to implement and achieve than for Pakistan.
For India, one policy option could be as Oscar Wilde said, 'Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them so much.'
India could well concentrate on achieving eight per cent growth in these times of adversity, but for the fact that elections are around the corner. It is very important for the ruling party to be seen as doing something to give a fitting reply for the attacks. Otherwise, it can lose precious votes.
US Senator John Kerry is in New Delhi. Before him, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Senator John McCain and US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have come and gone. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble have also suggested that they want Pakistan to do more than just banning the Jamaat-ud-Dawa.
A former Indian ambassador to the US told rediff.com, "Khel khatam nahin, abhi shuroo hua hain (The game has not ended with the Mumbai attacks, it has just started).
Rediff.com presents a series where strategic thinkers like former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra, former ambassador to the US Naresh Chandra, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal and others discuss India's options.
Flagging off the series is former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Brajesh Mishra.
Mishra, a former member of the Indian Foreign Service, is a man of few words. But even before he begin listing India's diplomatic options, he asked this counter-question: "Can you tell me what steps has the United Progressive Alliance government taken so far?"
Mishra, who was the main strategist in setting the diplomatic tone in the aftermath of the Parliament attack on December 13, 2001, claims he is not angry. He says he is weighing his words and claims that he has thought out what India's strategy should be.
In 2001, the National Democratic Alliance government had moved the army to the border with Pakistan in a one-of-its-kind operation. But now, Mishra says he is not satisfied with the diplomatic steps taken so far by India:
In international relations, unless you have something to give you don't get anything.
If you have your hat in your hand the only thing you will get is sympathy. If you have your hands in your pocket, you may expect something substantial.
I heard the prime minister has said during his visit to Jammu and Kashmir [Images] that our relations with Pakistan will not improve until it curbs terrorism. But I think unless we are able to say that let Pakistan punish its people who are engaging in terrorism in India and control its army nothing means much.
My point is what is going on in New Delhi when the foreign dignitaries are arriving is mere 'sympathy'. These are just words and nothing more is attached to it. In spite of so many visits Pakistan has come out with the statement that they are not banning the Jamat-ul-Dawa. What are the US and Britain going to do about it? Are they going to cut off finances to the instrument (the Pakistan army) that is supporting the outfits carrying out terrorism in India? What are you getting so far? Words of sympathy only.
I don't believe neither the Indian people nor the government are against the people of Pakistan. But we are not talking about ordinary people here. I am talking about the Pakistan army and the Inter Services Intelligence, no one in India is talking about President Asif Ali Zaradari or the elected government. That's common sense.
If you argue that the NDA's Operation Parakram was at a huge cost then I would ask what is the cost we are paying now -- Humiliation of a billion people?
How has the US-led war in Afghanistan helped us? As far as I see, the American agenda in Afghanistan cannot succeed unless Pakistan agrees to support, wholeheartedly.
But Pakistan doesn't want to help the American war against the Taliban [Images]. Pakistan wants the Taliban to come to power in Kabul. It will give their military, as suggested by their military doctrine, a strategic depth. Do you think Pakistan is taking the war against the Taliban seriously?
India will have to fight in its own way. I disagree with the opinion that India doesn't have many options. We had options in 2001 and we have enough options today, but I can't violate the Official Secrets Act and elaborate to you what we did in 2001 and how.
I believe the composite dialogue with Pakistan is already off. But India definitely does have options to respond effectively against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. And no one is talking about war here.
Neither the prime minister nor the government of India is talking about war. The Bharatiya Janata Party has stopped talking about war. Just because one or two television anchors like Arnab Goswami or Rajdeep Sardesai [Images] talk of military options that can't be construed as the opinion of India.
On the geopolitical chess board that is South Asia, the Mumbai terror attacks have ensured that the big players have to make a few moves that will decide the direction in which the region will move in the coming months.
The attack on Mumbai came at a time when:
The Indian government has less than four months remaining in power.
The elected government in Pakistan has not yet stabilised.
The United States-led war in Afghanistan is about to undergo a new strategic shift under the leadership of incoming President Barack Obama [Images].
India's conventional capability and advantage against Pakistan is seriously challenged because of Islamabad's [Images] nuclear weapons, which form a potent part of Pakistan's propaganda to neutralise many of India's options.
No less important is the fact that the attacks have come at a time when the economic meltdown -- the real impact of which has just begun to unfold in South Asia -- is the biggest worry for India, China and the rest of the world.
Contemporary history shows that the international community's support to India is limited to words and is not likely to go beyond it. Then, in India as well as Pakistan there is a big and effective lobby that argues that 'terrorism' is merely an issue in a long list of things to do and relations between the two countries can't be limited to one subject.
Even though assembly elections are being held in Jammu and Kashmir with fair success, no one in New Delhi [Images] is ignoring the fact that when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] visited the Kashmir valley on Sunday, curfew had to be imposed in Srinagar [Images] and the Congress party had to ferry people to Khundroo, where he spoke.
As things stand, time does not favour any player except the terrorists. Everyone else in this game would like to buy time, kill time and defy time to come out as the winner. The main players in the given circumstances -- the Pakistan president, the Indian prime minister and the Pakistan army [Images] -- are likely to do everything to come out unscathed within their country and in the region.
What will the victory that India wants and what can Pakistan's democratic government do and how far it can go are the debating points.
In India at least, most critics -- be it right wing or left wing, radical or moderate -- and strategic thinkers believe war is not the answer for the Mumbai attacks.
Though it might come as a relief, the prime minister very well understands that by eschewing the military options his government cannot avoid the fundamental issue of dealing with terrorism emanating from Pakistan. He said clearly that India had always wanted to have good relations with that country, but 'our kind desire should not be treated as a weakness.'
The options confronting India are more difficult to implement and achieve than for Pakistan.
For India, one policy option could be as Oscar Wilde said, 'Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them so much.'
India could well concentrate on achieving eight per cent growth in these times of adversity, but for the fact that elections are around the corner. It is very important for the ruling party to be seen as doing something to give a fitting reply for the attacks. Otherwise, it can lose precious votes.
US Senator John Kerry is in New Delhi. Before him, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Senator John McCain and US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have come and gone. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble have also suggested that they want Pakistan to do more than just banning the Jamaat-ud-Dawa.
A former Indian ambassador to the US told rediff.com, "Khel khatam nahin, abhi shuroo hua hain (The game has not ended with the Mumbai attacks, it has just started).
Rediff.com presents a series where strategic thinkers like former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra, former ambassador to the US Naresh Chandra, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal and others discuss India's options.
Flagging off the series is former national security advisor and principal secretary to then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Brajesh Mishra.
Mishra, a former member of the Indian Foreign Service, is a man of few words. But even before he begin listing India's diplomatic options, he asked this counter-question: "Can you tell me what steps has the United Progressive Alliance government taken so far?"
Mishra, who was the main strategist in setting the diplomatic tone in the aftermath of the Parliament attack on December 13, 2001, claims he is not angry. He says he is weighing his words and claims that he has thought out what India's strategy should be.
In 2001, the National Democratic Alliance government had moved the army to the border with Pakistan in a one-of-its-kind operation. But now, Mishra says he is not satisfied with the diplomatic steps taken so far by India:
In international relations, unless you have something to give you don't get anything.
If you have your hat in your hand the only thing you will get is sympathy. If you have your hands in your pocket, you may expect something substantial.
I heard the prime minister has said during his visit to Jammu and Kashmir [Images] that our relations with Pakistan will not improve until it curbs terrorism. But I think unless we are able to say that let Pakistan punish its people who are engaging in terrorism in India and control its army nothing means much.
My point is what is going on in New Delhi when the foreign dignitaries are arriving is mere 'sympathy'. These are just words and nothing more is attached to it. In spite of so many visits Pakistan has come out with the statement that they are not banning the Jamat-ul-Dawa. What are the US and Britain going to do about it? Are they going to cut off finances to the instrument (the Pakistan army) that is supporting the outfits carrying out terrorism in India? What are you getting so far? Words of sympathy only.
I don't believe neither the Indian people nor the government are against the people of Pakistan. But we are not talking about ordinary people here. I am talking about the Pakistan army and the Inter Services Intelligence, no one in India is talking about President Asif Ali Zaradari or the elected government. That's common sense.
If you argue that the NDA's Operation Parakram was at a huge cost then I would ask what is the cost we are paying now -- Humiliation of a billion people?
How has the US-led war in Afghanistan helped us? As far as I see, the American agenda in Afghanistan cannot succeed unless Pakistan agrees to support, wholeheartedly.
But Pakistan doesn't want to help the American war against the Taliban [Images]. Pakistan wants the Taliban to come to power in Kabul. It will give their military, as suggested by their military doctrine, a strategic depth. Do you think Pakistan is taking the war against the Taliban seriously?
India will have to fight in its own way. I disagree with the opinion that India doesn't have many options. We had options in 2001 and we have enough options today, but I can't violate the Official Secrets Act and elaborate to you what we did in 2001 and how.
I believe the composite dialogue with Pakistan is already off. But India definitely does have options to respond effectively against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. And no one is talking about war here.
Neither the prime minister nor the government of India is talking about war. The Bharatiya Janata Party has stopped talking about war. Just because one or two television anchors like Arnab Goswami or Rajdeep Sardesai [Images] talk of military options that can't be construed as the opinion of India.
'The Mumbai attack is not an India-Pakistan issue' - Sheela Bhatt - rediff.com Editorial Director, News
December 23, 2008
In a special series on how India should respond to the Mumbai terror attacks, rediff.com Editorial Director, News, Sheela Bhatt has been speaking to a wide range of strategic thinkers about India's diplomatic options.
In the first part, Brajesh Mishra, the former national security advisor and principal secretary to the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, argued that India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Part II: The international community won't help us: Kanwal Sibal
In the third part, Naresh Chandra, India's former ambassador to Washington, said the priority at the moment should be to strengthen our internal security arrangements and improve coordination among the intelligence agencies, state governments and military authorities.
Part III: Talk of war, surgical strikes is ill-advised: Naresh Chandra
Strategic thinker and former bureaucrat, K Subrahmanyam, has been there and done it all.
He chaired the Kargil [Images] Review Committee; he has been the convenor of the National Security Council Advisory Board.
In the 1970s, his columns supported India's case for nuclear weapons. Old age has not taken away his zeal to speak his mind.
Subrahmanyam says that India is not doing enough, just yet, to respond to Mumbai attacks.
The Mumbai attack is not an India-Pakistan issue. Pakistanis have been preparing for a contingency plan to use against India at time of their choosing. These people were all trained commandos. They were released after training to be known as LeT members.
United States vice-president-elect Joe Biden had said that president-elect Barack Obama [Images] will have a crisis in his first 100 days. Pakistan wants to create a crisis even before he takes over the office.
Obama has asked US Commander of the Central Command General David Petraeus to prepare the plan for Afghanistan. Americans have made it clear that they are not going to leave Afghanistan. They are expanding the Bagram air base and bringing in more troops.
They are preparing themselves for a long haul.
Pakistan thinks that even if the Americans try to find alternate routes through Russia [Images] or Central Asian countries by making up with those countries they will not be able to fight the war without Pakistan's goodwill.
Pakistan wanted to provoke India into a confrontation. They want to tell the Americans that unless you control India and help get us concessions on Kashmir to reduce our security concerns, we will not be able to help in Afghanistan.
President George W Bush [Images] and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [Images] made sure that there was no hyphenation of India and Pakistan. They were choosing India over Pakistan. But, other segments of US in State Department, the intelligence and army were not always in agreement always but the duo overruled them.
Now, Bush and Rice will leave. These elements who are well-versed with Pakistan and biased towards them, will try to impose their views since Obama is still new and does not know the region well enough.
Jihadis want to defeat two superpowers. If they can defeat US in Afghanistan following their defeat of Russia, they can claim that Islam is on top of the world.
With Pakistan, an Islamic state with nuclear powers, having the strategic depth in Afghanistan and with the Taliban [Images] in power in Kabul, Pakistan can dominate the Islamic world in and around the region. That is the Pakistan Army's [Images] long-term plan.
India's top priority is to make sure that they do not hit us again. How do you stop them?
Will the Pakistan Army and the jihadis keep quiet in the coming days? We are unable to predict what they will do. It is quite likely that if you leave the initiative to them they may do things which would compel you to act.
I don't think America would succeed in helping India to put pressure on Pakistan. I don't think the Americans have even gauged the size of the problem. The Americans have not understood India's problem, as yet. I mean, they have not punished Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for what all they have done.
They have not seen the linkages between the two nations' theory and the clash of civilizations. They have not seen the linkage between gunning down of US Army convoys in Afghanistan and the Mumbai attack. The Americans do not have, what do I say� the mental equipment to help India. India will have to do it without external help.
Then, the question is how much do you have? We know for sure that so long as Pakistan believes in the two-nation theory and as long as the Pakistan Army thinks that it's a guardian of Pakistan's ideology, India will not get any cooperation from the Pakistan Army in dealing with jihadi terrorists.
Many Pakistanis argue that if Indian pressure increases, the civilian government will collapse but if the civilian government merely exists while it is the Pakistan Army that actually rules then is that any better?
One only hopes that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safer today than yesterday.
The Americans, we hope, are also making their own efforts to monitor the safety of Pakistan nuclear weapons. I recently came to know that a book is about to be published in America claiming that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are divided amongst various corps commands. But, the code to launch it is still with the centre. Physical safety should be a matter of concern for India if it is distributed as claimed in the book.
I am also sure that even China won't support any war in the region by Pakistan, nor they would do anything on behalf of Pakistan. They should be having concerns about what will happen to them in Xinjiang if they allow Pakistani jihadis to win.
I also don't think the Pakistan Army is likely to take over the civilian government within a year or so. Because, if that happens it would affect International Monetary Fund loans, which in turn can push them to bankruptcy.
With oil prices so low it is unlikely that the Saudis would help them in a big way.
Second, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari [Images] has proved that he is prepared to be a public relations officer for the army.
There won't be a major clash between the Zardari government and the army.
India already has the UNSC resolution that backs us. We should see to it that Pakistan follows it properly. Pakistan has squandered its case by refusing to accept that surviving terrorist Ajmal Kasab [Images] is a Pakistani. They have tripped on the issue.
Now, its time to inform Obama and his new team that they are unlikely to achieve success when their own vehicles are blown up near Kabul. Pakistanis are unlikely to cooperate with America as they wish. At the same time India should tell the new team in Washington that India will not give any concessions on Kashmir. India will not talk to the Americans on Kashmir. If there is a special envoy on Kashmir he or she will not get even an appointment in New Delhi [Images]. Even if Richard Holbrooke comes here he won't get an appointment.
Till elections are over, no Indian government can be even seen with any American who is trying to deal with or mediate on Kashmir.
The government of India should not give any evidence of the Mumbai attacks to Pakistan. When somebody commits murder you don't share the evidence with the murderer. The very fact that they do not own up to Kasab shows that we will be idiotic to give them any evidence.
I think the government has not yet done enough in response to Mumbai attacks. I think P Chidambaram [Images] should have been appointed as cabinet minister for internal security.
Out of some 18 joint secretaries that report to the home minister, only six deal with national security. Second, India needs a Director of National Intelligence in the line of Director of National Intelligence in US, who co-ordinates with some 16 intelligence agencies.
After the Kargil committee recommendations, a new outfit was created namely the National Technical Research Organisation and it coordination is with the National Security Advisor.
This kind of over-centralisation is not desired. Internal security requires full time attention. Intelligence coordination needs a full time director.
The NSA should not have any executive functions. He should be only a coordinator and monitor on behalf of the prime minister.
Unfortunately, I have been saying this since the time of Brajesh Mishra. Brajesh said: 'What can I do? Atalji (the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee) wants it this way. He trusts only me to hold the two posts."
NSA M K Narayanan works hard for 18 hours a day. But still, I would say he should not be doing all the things that he is doing. He should focus only on national security. India should give little more time to Pakistan, say a week or so. If they don't take firm action I will propose we should break the diplomatic relations. Call back the Indian high commissioner.
Instead of allowing Pakistan to create tension, you should seize the initiative from their hands. We should try to project the real Pakistan, which is supporting terrorists. It should be projected as the terrorist state if they don't take steps to rein in their terrorists.
In a special series on how India should respond to the Mumbai terror attacks, rediff.com Editorial Director, News, Sheela Bhatt has been speaking to a wide range of strategic thinkers about India's diplomatic options.
In the first part, Brajesh Mishra, the former national security advisor and principal secretary to the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, argued that India has many options before it, but it must fight its battles on its own.
Part I: India will have to fight in its own way: Brajesh Mishra
In the second part, Sheela Bhatt asked Kanwal Sibal, the former foreign secretary, if India has played its cards well and what India's best diplomatic options are.
Part II: The international community won't help us: Kanwal Sibal
In the third part, Naresh Chandra, India's former ambassador to Washington, said the priority at the moment should be to strengthen our internal security arrangements and improve coordination among the intelligence agencies, state governments and military authorities.
Part III: Talk of war, surgical strikes is ill-advised: Naresh Chandra
Strategic thinker and former bureaucrat, K Subrahmanyam, has been there and done it all.
He chaired the Kargil [Images] Review Committee; he has been the convenor of the National Security Council Advisory Board.
In the 1970s, his columns supported India's case for nuclear weapons. Old age has not taken away his zeal to speak his mind.
Subrahmanyam says that India is not doing enough, just yet, to respond to Mumbai attacks.
The Mumbai attack is not an India-Pakistan issue. Pakistanis have been preparing for a contingency plan to use against India at time of their choosing. These people were all trained commandos. They were released after training to be known as LeT members.
United States vice-president-elect Joe Biden had said that president-elect Barack Obama [Images] will have a crisis in his first 100 days. Pakistan wants to create a crisis even before he takes over the office.
Obama has asked US Commander of the Central Command General David Petraeus to prepare the plan for Afghanistan. Americans have made it clear that they are not going to leave Afghanistan. They are expanding the Bagram air base and bringing in more troops.
They are preparing themselves for a long haul.
Pakistan thinks that even if the Americans try to find alternate routes through Russia [Images] or Central Asian countries by making up with those countries they will not be able to fight the war without Pakistan's goodwill.
Pakistan wanted to provoke India into a confrontation. They want to tell the Americans that unless you control India and help get us concessions on Kashmir to reduce our security concerns, we will not be able to help in Afghanistan.
President George W Bush [Images] and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [Images] made sure that there was no hyphenation of India and Pakistan. They were choosing India over Pakistan. But, other segments of US in State Department, the intelligence and army were not always in agreement always but the duo overruled them.
Now, Bush and Rice will leave. These elements who are well-versed with Pakistan and biased towards them, will try to impose their views since Obama is still new and does not know the region well enough.
Jihadis want to defeat two superpowers. If they can defeat US in Afghanistan following their defeat of Russia, they can claim that Islam is on top of the world.
With Pakistan, an Islamic state with nuclear powers, having the strategic depth in Afghanistan and with the Taliban [Images] in power in Kabul, Pakistan can dominate the Islamic world in and around the region. That is the Pakistan Army's [Images] long-term plan.
India's top priority is to make sure that they do not hit us again. How do you stop them?
Will the Pakistan Army and the jihadis keep quiet in the coming days? We are unable to predict what they will do. It is quite likely that if you leave the initiative to them they may do things which would compel you to act.
I don't think America would succeed in helping India to put pressure on Pakistan. I don't think the Americans have even gauged the size of the problem. The Americans have not understood India's problem, as yet. I mean, they have not punished Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for what all they have done.
They have not seen the linkages between the two nations' theory and the clash of civilizations. They have not seen the linkage between gunning down of US Army convoys in Afghanistan and the Mumbai attack. The Americans do not have, what do I say� the mental equipment to help India. India will have to do it without external help.
Then, the question is how much do you have? We know for sure that so long as Pakistan believes in the two-nation theory and as long as the Pakistan Army thinks that it's a guardian of Pakistan's ideology, India will not get any cooperation from the Pakistan Army in dealing with jihadi terrorists.
Many Pakistanis argue that if Indian pressure increases, the civilian government will collapse but if the civilian government merely exists while it is the Pakistan Army that actually rules then is that any better?
One only hopes that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safer today than yesterday.
The Americans, we hope, are also making their own efforts to monitor the safety of Pakistan nuclear weapons. I recently came to know that a book is about to be published in America claiming that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are divided amongst various corps commands. But, the code to launch it is still with the centre. Physical safety should be a matter of concern for India if it is distributed as claimed in the book.
I am also sure that even China won't support any war in the region by Pakistan, nor they would do anything on behalf of Pakistan. They should be having concerns about what will happen to them in Xinjiang if they allow Pakistani jihadis to win.
I also don't think the Pakistan Army is likely to take over the civilian government within a year or so. Because, if that happens it would affect International Monetary Fund loans, which in turn can push them to bankruptcy.
With oil prices so low it is unlikely that the Saudis would help them in a big way.
Second, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari [Images] has proved that he is prepared to be a public relations officer for the army.
There won't be a major clash between the Zardari government and the army.
India already has the UNSC resolution that backs us. We should see to it that Pakistan follows it properly. Pakistan has squandered its case by refusing to accept that surviving terrorist Ajmal Kasab [Images] is a Pakistani. They have tripped on the issue.
Now, its time to inform Obama and his new team that they are unlikely to achieve success when their own vehicles are blown up near Kabul. Pakistanis are unlikely to cooperate with America as they wish. At the same time India should tell the new team in Washington that India will not give any concessions on Kashmir. India will not talk to the Americans on Kashmir. If there is a special envoy on Kashmir he or she will not get even an appointment in New Delhi [Images]. Even if Richard Holbrooke comes here he won't get an appointment.
Till elections are over, no Indian government can be even seen with any American who is trying to deal with or mediate on Kashmir.
The government of India should not give any evidence of the Mumbai attacks to Pakistan. When somebody commits murder you don't share the evidence with the murderer. The very fact that they do not own up to Kasab shows that we will be idiotic to give them any evidence.
I think the government has not yet done enough in response to Mumbai attacks. I think P Chidambaram [Images] should have been appointed as cabinet minister for internal security.
Out of some 18 joint secretaries that report to the home minister, only six deal with national security. Second, India needs a Director of National Intelligence in the line of Director of National Intelligence in US, who co-ordinates with some 16 intelligence agencies.
After the Kargil committee recommendations, a new outfit was created namely the National Technical Research Organisation and it coordination is with the National Security Advisor.
This kind of over-centralisation is not desired. Internal security requires full time attention. Intelligence coordination needs a full time director.
The NSA should not have any executive functions. He should be only a coordinator and monitor on behalf of the prime minister.
Unfortunately, I have been saying this since the time of Brajesh Mishra. Brajesh said: 'What can I do? Atalji (the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee) wants it this way. He trusts only me to hold the two posts."
NSA M K Narayanan works hard for 18 hours a day. But still, I would say he should not be doing all the things that he is doing. He should focus only on national security. India should give little more time to Pakistan, say a week or so. If they don't take firm action I will propose we should break the diplomatic relations. Call back the Indian high commissioner.
Instead of allowing Pakistan to create tension, you should seize the initiative from their hands. We should try to project the real Pakistan, which is supporting terrorists. It should be projected as the terrorist state if they don't take steps to rein in their terrorists.
'India can strike Lashkar camps' - Rediff News
'India can strike Lashkar camps'
December 24, 2008
Mumbai-born Dr Ashley J Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is perhaps America's foremost strategic affairs expert on South Asia and China.
Dr Tellis enjoyed three different stints with the administration during President George W Bush's two terms in office: First as senior advisor to then United States ambassador to India Robert D Blackwill; then as special assistant to the President and senior director for strategic planning and Southwest Asia; and finally as senior adviser to then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns.
More recently, Dr Tellis served as an informal strategic affairs adviser to Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. His strategic expertise had made him much sought-after in the wake of 26/11, sparking regular appearances across the electronic media.
Dr Tellis spoke to Rediff India Abroad Editor Aziz Haniffa.
Can India conduct a tactical, surgical strike against Lashkar-e-Tayiba camps in Muridke and other areas in Pakistan? Should it?
India has the technical capacity to conduct a tactical strike against Lashkar-e-Tayiba camps in Pakistan, but the problem with all these scenarios is not how you start the conflict, but how you terminate it. That's why the Government of India has been extremely cautious with respect to levying any threat on Pakistan. All that they have said is that we have through our intelligence and investigation discerned that there is a link between this attack and various forces that exist within Pakistan, and that they are hoping the Pakistanis will conduct their own investigations, reach the same conclusion and apprehend these guys or turn them over to the Indians for prosecution.
Assume India does launch a tactical strike against the terrorist camps, what form can it take -- lobbing targeted missiles or something bigger?
There are various ways. You can launch a strike with air power, or use a combination of air and land power. It all depends on your target, what it is you want to eliminate. For the sake of argument, if you assume that they go after some terrorist camps, I would imagine that you can do it either through air power alone, or air power with some land support.
If you are talking of a purely punitive strike designed not so much to eliminate the terrorist camps but to send a signal of Indian retribution, then you can also use naval forces. But then, these targets become more and more removed from the source of the threat.
Image: Indian soldiers near the Line of Control in Saraie, 150 km west of Srinagar. The peace process between the two countries have ground to a halt following the terrorist attack on Mumbai. Photograph: Danish Ismail/Reuters
December 24, 2008
Mumbai-born Dr Ashley J Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is perhaps America's foremost strategic affairs expert on South Asia and China.
Dr Tellis enjoyed three different stints with the administration during President George W Bush's two terms in office: First as senior advisor to then United States ambassador to India Robert D Blackwill; then as special assistant to the President and senior director for strategic planning and Southwest Asia; and finally as senior adviser to then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns.
More recently, Dr Tellis served as an informal strategic affairs adviser to Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. His strategic expertise had made him much sought-after in the wake of 26/11, sparking regular appearances across the electronic media.
Dr Tellis spoke to Rediff India Abroad Editor Aziz Haniffa.
Can India conduct a tactical, surgical strike against Lashkar-e-Tayiba camps in Muridke and other areas in Pakistan? Should it?
India has the technical capacity to conduct a tactical strike against Lashkar-e-Tayiba camps in Pakistan, but the problem with all these scenarios is not how you start the conflict, but how you terminate it. That's why the Government of India has been extremely cautious with respect to levying any threat on Pakistan. All that they have said is that we have through our intelligence and investigation discerned that there is a link between this attack and various forces that exist within Pakistan, and that they are hoping the Pakistanis will conduct their own investigations, reach the same conclusion and apprehend these guys or turn them over to the Indians for prosecution.
Assume India does launch a tactical strike against the terrorist camps, what form can it take -- lobbing targeted missiles or something bigger?
There are various ways. You can launch a strike with air power, or use a combination of air and land power. It all depends on your target, what it is you want to eliminate. For the sake of argument, if you assume that they go after some terrorist camps, I would imagine that you can do it either through air power alone, or air power with some land support.
If you are talking of a purely punitive strike designed not so much to eliminate the terrorist camps but to send a signal of Indian retribution, then you can also use naval forces. But then, these targets become more and more removed from the source of the threat.
Image: Indian soldiers near the Line of Control in Saraie, 150 km west of Srinagar. The peace process between the two countries have ground to a halt following the terrorist attack on Mumbai. Photograph: Danish Ismail/Reuters
Monday, December 22, 2008
'Antulay has maligned entire police force' - A Ganesh Nadar in Mumbai
December 22, 2008
Union Minister A R Antulay [Images] has cast aspersions on the entire police force of Mumbai, a senior police officer told rediff.com
The minority affairs minister in the Manmohan Singh [Images] government set off a political storm with his demand that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mumbai's Anti Terrorist Squad chief Hemant Karkare at the hands of terrorists on November 26 be probed.
ATS chief Karkare was killed along with Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte, Senior Inspector Vijay Salaskar and two police constables on the night of November 26 as they drove towards Cama hospital [Images] in south Mumbai after receiving information that the two terrorists, who had struck at Mumbai's Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus, were hiding there.
Antulay had raised doubts about the circumstances surrounding Karkare's death, suggesting that since the officer had been investigating the involvement of suspected Hindu terrorists in the Malegaon blasts, there could be more to his death than met the eye.
His statement has drawn sharp criticism while his Congress party has been mulling over how to handle the hot political potato the politician, who will turn 80 on February 9, has served up.
The Mumbai police officer, who spoke to rediff.com on condition of anonymity, said Antulay's statement has cast aspersions on the entire police force. "He is not talking of one mole in the organisation, but the whole police department," the officer said, for what Antulay really means is that the entire Mumbai police force is now trying up to cover up the truth about Karkare's death.
"The minister wanted his time under the sun with his allegations which will be proved wrong. But he won't regret it even when he is proved wrong. He has got publicity out of it. Politicians will go to any extent to get mileage out of anything," the police officer said.
If Karkare was killed by any other bullet than the ones that came from the terrorists's AK-47 rifles, we would have known, said this officer who added he has seen the post-mortem report of all the three police officers who died that night.
"We have recorded the FIR (First Information Report), we have the forensic reports and we have the post-mortem reports. I have seen all of them. They were killed by terrorists' bullets. That is the truth and you will see all the evidence when we present it in court," he told rediff.com
The officer was also appalled at reports that suggested the slain officers's blood samples will be tested for alcohol content. "Some doctor wants to act high-handed and some want to get cheap publicity out of martyrs," the police officer said.
Union Minister A R Antulay [Images] has cast aspersions on the entire police force of Mumbai, a senior police officer told rediff.com
The minority affairs minister in the Manmohan Singh [Images] government set off a political storm with his demand that the circumstances surrounding the death of Mumbai's Anti Terrorist Squad chief Hemant Karkare at the hands of terrorists on November 26 be probed.
ATS chief Karkare was killed along with Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte, Senior Inspector Vijay Salaskar and two police constables on the night of November 26 as they drove towards Cama hospital [Images] in south Mumbai after receiving information that the two terrorists, who had struck at Mumbai's Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus, were hiding there.
Antulay had raised doubts about the circumstances surrounding Karkare's death, suggesting that since the officer had been investigating the involvement of suspected Hindu terrorists in the Malegaon blasts, there could be more to his death than met the eye.
His statement has drawn sharp criticism while his Congress party has been mulling over how to handle the hot political potato the politician, who will turn 80 on February 9, has served up.
The Mumbai police officer, who spoke to rediff.com on condition of anonymity, said Antulay's statement has cast aspersions on the entire police force. "He is not talking of one mole in the organisation, but the whole police department," the officer said, for what Antulay really means is that the entire Mumbai police force is now trying up to cover up the truth about Karkare's death.
"The minister wanted his time under the sun with his allegations which will be proved wrong. But he won't regret it even when he is proved wrong. He has got publicity out of it. Politicians will go to any extent to get mileage out of anything," the police officer said.
If Karkare was killed by any other bullet than the ones that came from the terrorists's AK-47 rifles, we would have known, said this officer who added he has seen the post-mortem report of all the three police officers who died that night.
"We have recorded the FIR (First Information Report), we have the forensic reports and we have the post-mortem reports. I have seen all of them. They were killed by terrorists' bullets. That is the truth and you will see all the evidence when we present it in court," he told rediff.com
The officer was also appalled at reports that suggested the slain officers's blood samples will be tested for alcohol content. "Some doctor wants to act high-handed and some want to get cheap publicity out of martyrs," the police officer said.
Why the CIA does not want Dawood in Indian hands - Jeremy R Hammond
December 22, 2008
The role Dawood Ibrahim [Images], the underworld kingpin who heads the D-Company and has known ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and even the Central Intelligence Agency, is apparently being whitewashed. His capture and handover to India might prove inconvenient for either the ISI or the CIA, or both.
It was Ibrahim who was initially characterised by press reports as being the mastermind behind the attacks. Now, that title is being given to Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi by numerous media accounts reporting that Pakistan security forces have raided a training camp of the group Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images], which evidence has indicated was behind the attacks. Lakhvi was reportedly captured in the raid and is now in custody.
At the same time Ibrahim's role is being downplayed, Lakhvi's known role is being exaggerated. Initial reports described him as the training specialist for LeT, but the major media outlets like the New York Times and the London [Images] Times, citing government sources, have since promoted his status to that of commander of operations for the group.
The only terrorist from the Mumbai attacks to be captured alive, Ajmal Amir Kasab [Images], characterised Ibrahim, not Lakhvi, as the mastermind of those attacks, according to earlier press accounts.
Kasab reportedly told his interrogators that he and his fellow terrorists were trained under Lakhvi, also known as Chacha (uncle), at a camp in Pakistan. Indian officials also traced calls from a satellite phone used by the terrorists to Lakhvi.
But the phone had also been used to call Yusuf Muzammil, also known as Abu Yusuf, Abu Hurrera, and "Yahah". And it has been Muzammil, not Lakhvi, who has previously been described as the military commander of the LeT. It was an intercepted call to Muzammil on November 18 that put the Indian Navy and Coast Guard on high alert to be on the lookout for any foreign vessels from Pakistan entering Indian waters.
Kasab told his interrogators that his team had set out from Karachi, Pakistan, on a ship belonging to Dawood Ibrahim, the MV Alpha. They then hijacked an Indian fishing trawler, the Kuber, to pass through Indian territorial waters to elude the Navy and Coast Guard that were boarding and searching suspect ships.
Although the MV Alpha was subsequently found and seized by the Indian Navy, there have been few, if any, developments about this aspect of the investigation in press accounts, such as whether it has been confirmed or not that the ship was owned by Ibrahim.
Upon arriving off the coast near the city, they were received by inflatable rubber dinghies that had been arranged by an associate of Ibrahim's in Mumbai.
The planning and execution of the attacks are indicative of the mastermind role not of either Lakhvi or Muzammil, but of Ibrahim, an Indian who is intimately familiar with the city. It was in Mumbai that Ibrahim rose through the ranks of the underworld to become a major organised crime boss.
At least two other Indians were also connected to the attacks, Mukhtar Ahmed and Tausef Rahman. They were arrested for their role in obtaining SIM cards used in the cell phones of the terrorists. Ahmed, according to Indian officials, had in fact been recruited by a special counter-insurgency police task force as an undercover operative. His exact role is still being investigated.
One of the SIM cards used was possibly purchased from New Jersey. Investigators are looking into this potential link to the US, as well.
Dawood Ibrahim went from underworld kingpin to terrorist in 1993, when he was connected to a series of bombings in Mumbai that resulted in 250 deaths. He is wanted by Interpol and was designated by the US as a global terrorist in 2003.
It Is believed Ibrahim has been residing in Karachi, and Indian officials have accused Pakistan's ISI of protecting him.
Ibrahim is known to be a major drug trafficker responsible for shipping narcotics into the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, most Afghan opium (or its derivative, heroin, which is increasingly being produced in the country before export) is smuggled through Iran and Turkey en route by land to Europe; but the percentage that goes to Pakistan seems to mostly find its way directly to the UK, either by plane or by ship.
Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium, a trend that developed during the CIA-backed mujahedeen effort to oust the Soviet Union from the country, with the drug trade serving to help finance the war.
A known drug trafficker, Dawood Ibrahim is naturally also involved in money laundering, which is perhaps where the role of gambling operations in Nepal comes into the picture.
Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan [Images] Times, wrote last month after the Mumbai attacks that Ibrahim had worked with the US to help finance the mujahedeen during the 1980s and that because he knows too much about the US's 'darker secrets' in the region, he could never be allowed to be turned over to India.
The recent promotion of Lakhvi to 'mastermind' of the attacks while Ibrahim's name disappears from media reports would seem to lend credence to Shimatsu's assertion.
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen similarly reported that according to intelligence sources, Ibrahim is a CIA asset, both as a veteran of the mujahedeen war and in a continuing connection with his casino and drug trade operations in Kathmandu, Nepal. A deal had been made earlier this year to have Pakistan hand Ibrahim over to India, but the CIA was fearful that this would lead to too many of its dirty secrets coming to light, including the criminal activities of high level personnel within the agency.
One theory on the Mumbai attacks is that it was backlash for this double-cross that was among other things intended to serve as a warning that any such arrangement could have further serious consequences.
Although designated as a major international terrorist by the US, media reports in India have characterised the US's past interest in seeing Ibrahim handed over as less than enthusiastic. Former Indian deputy prime minister L K Advani [Images] wrote in his memoir, My Country, My Life, that he made a great effort to get Pakistan to hand over Ibrahim, and met with then US secretary of state Colin Powell and then national security advisor Condoleezza Rice [Images] (now secretary of state) to pressure Pakistan to do so. But he was informed by Powell that Pakistan would hand over Ibrahim only "with some strings attached" and that then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf [Images] would need more time before doing so.
The handover, needless to say, never occurred. The Pakistan government has also publicly denied that Ibrahim is even in the country; a denial that was repeated following the recent Mumbai attacks.
Others suspected of involvement in the attacks and named among the 20 individuals India wants Pakistan to turn over also have possible connections to the CIA, including Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the founder of LeT, and Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Maulana Masood Azhar, both veterans of the CIA-backed mujahedeen effort.
Azhar had been captured in 1994 and imprisoned in India for his role as leader of the Pakistani-based terrorist group Harkut-ul-Mujahideen. He was released, however, in 1999 in exchange for hostages from the takeover of Indian Airlines Flight 814, which was hijacked during its flight from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi [Images], India and redirected to Afghanistan. After Azhar's release, he formed JeM, which was responsible for an attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001 that led Pakistan and India to the brink of war. LeT was also blamed for the attack alongside JeM.
Both LeT and JeM have links to the ISI, which has used the groups as proxies in the conflict with India over the territory of Kashmir.
Saeed travelled to Peshawar to join the mujahedeen cause during the Soviet-Afghan war. Peshawar served as the base of operations for the CIA, which worked closely with the ISI to finance, arm, and train the mujahedeen. It was in Peshawar that Saeed became the protege of Abdullah Azzam, who founded an organization called Maktab al-Khidamat along with a Saudi individual named Osama bin Laden [Images].
MaK worked alongside the CIA-ISI operations to recruit Arabs to the ranks of the mujahedeen. The ISI, acting as proxy for the CIA, chose mainly to channel its support to Afghans, such as warlord Gulbaddin Hekmatyar. The US claims the CIA had no relationship with MaK, but bin Laden's operation, which later evolved into Al Qaeda [Images], must certainly have been known to, and approved by, the CIA.
But there are indications that the CIA's relationship with MaK and Al Qaeda go well beyond having shared a common enemy and mutual interests in the Soviet-Afghan war. A number of Al Qaeda associates appear to have been protected individuals.
Another former head of the ISI is now being privately accused by the US of involvement with the group responsible for the Mumbai attacks, according to reports citing a document listing former ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and four other former heads of Pakistan's intelligence agency as being involved in supporting terrorist networks. The individuals named have been recommended to the UN Security Council to be named as international terrorists, according to Pakistan's The News.
The document has been provided to the Pakistan government and also accuses Gul, who was head of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, of providing assistance to criminal groups in Kabul, as well as to groups responsible for recruiting and training militants to attack US-led forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban [Images].
Hamid Gul responded to the reports by calling the allegations hilarious. The US denied that it had made any such recommendations to the UN.
But the US has similarly accused the ISI of involvement in the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul last July. This was unusual not because of the allegation of an ISI connection to terrorism but because it was in such stark contrast with US attempts to publicly portray Pakistan as a staunch ally in its 'war on terrorism' when the country was under the dictatorship of Musharraf.
The US attitude toward Pakistan shifted once an elected government came to power that has been more willing to side with the overwhelming belief among the public that it is the 'war on terrorism' itself that has exacerbated the problem of extremist militant groups and led to further terrorist attacks within the country, such as the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto [Images] last year or the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in September. While the world's attention has been focused on the attacks in Mumbai, a bomb blast in Peshawar killed 21 and injured 90.
While the purported US document names Gul and others as terrorist supporters, another report, from Indian intelligence, indicates that the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Mumbai were among 500 trained by instructors from the Pakistan military, according to The Times. This training of the 10 known Mumbai terrorists would have taken place prior to their recent preparation for these specific attacks by the LeT training specialist Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi.
But while Lakhvi, Muzammil, and Hafiz Saeed [Images] have continued to be named in connection with last month's attacks in Mumbai, the name of Dawood Ibrahim seems to be either disappearing altogether or his originally designated role as the accused mastermind of the attacks being credited now instead to Lakhvi in media accounts.
Whether this is a deliberate effort to downplay Ibrahim's role in the attacks so as not to have to force Pakistan to turn him over because of embarrassing revelations pertaining to the CIA's involvement with known terrorists and drug traffickers that development could possibly produce isn't certain.
But what is certain is that the CIA has had a long history of involvement with such characters and that the US has a track record of attempting to keep information about the nature of such involvement in the dark or to cover it up once it reaches the light of public scrutiny.
Jeremy R Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal. Reproduced with kind courtesy of Foreign Policy Journal.
The role Dawood Ibrahim [Images], the underworld kingpin who heads the D-Company and has known ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and even the Central Intelligence Agency, is apparently being whitewashed. His capture and handover to India might prove inconvenient for either the ISI or the CIA, or both.
It was Ibrahim who was initially characterised by press reports as being the mastermind behind the attacks. Now, that title is being given to Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi by numerous media accounts reporting that Pakistan security forces have raided a training camp of the group Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images], which evidence has indicated was behind the attacks. Lakhvi was reportedly captured in the raid and is now in custody.
At the same time Ibrahim's role is being downplayed, Lakhvi's known role is being exaggerated. Initial reports described him as the training specialist for LeT, but the major media outlets like the New York Times and the London [Images] Times, citing government sources, have since promoted his status to that of commander of operations for the group.
The only terrorist from the Mumbai attacks to be captured alive, Ajmal Amir Kasab [Images], characterised Ibrahim, not Lakhvi, as the mastermind of those attacks, according to earlier press accounts.
Kasab reportedly told his interrogators that he and his fellow terrorists were trained under Lakhvi, also known as Chacha (uncle), at a camp in Pakistan. Indian officials also traced calls from a satellite phone used by the terrorists to Lakhvi.
But the phone had also been used to call Yusuf Muzammil, also known as Abu Yusuf, Abu Hurrera, and "Yahah". And it has been Muzammil, not Lakhvi, who has previously been described as the military commander of the LeT. It was an intercepted call to Muzammil on November 18 that put the Indian Navy and Coast Guard on high alert to be on the lookout for any foreign vessels from Pakistan entering Indian waters.
Kasab told his interrogators that his team had set out from Karachi, Pakistan, on a ship belonging to Dawood Ibrahim, the MV Alpha. They then hijacked an Indian fishing trawler, the Kuber, to pass through Indian territorial waters to elude the Navy and Coast Guard that were boarding and searching suspect ships.
Although the MV Alpha was subsequently found and seized by the Indian Navy, there have been few, if any, developments about this aspect of the investigation in press accounts, such as whether it has been confirmed or not that the ship was owned by Ibrahim.
Upon arriving off the coast near the city, they were received by inflatable rubber dinghies that had been arranged by an associate of Ibrahim's in Mumbai.
The planning and execution of the attacks are indicative of the mastermind role not of either Lakhvi or Muzammil, but of Ibrahim, an Indian who is intimately familiar with the city. It was in Mumbai that Ibrahim rose through the ranks of the underworld to become a major organised crime boss.
At least two other Indians were also connected to the attacks, Mukhtar Ahmed and Tausef Rahman. They were arrested for their role in obtaining SIM cards used in the cell phones of the terrorists. Ahmed, according to Indian officials, had in fact been recruited by a special counter-insurgency police task force as an undercover operative. His exact role is still being investigated.
One of the SIM cards used was possibly purchased from New Jersey. Investigators are looking into this potential link to the US, as well.
Dawood Ibrahim went from underworld kingpin to terrorist in 1993, when he was connected to a series of bombings in Mumbai that resulted in 250 deaths. He is wanted by Interpol and was designated by the US as a global terrorist in 2003.
It Is believed Ibrahim has been residing in Karachi, and Indian officials have accused Pakistan's ISI of protecting him.
Ibrahim is known to be a major drug trafficker responsible for shipping narcotics into the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, most Afghan opium (or its derivative, heroin, which is increasingly being produced in the country before export) is smuggled through Iran and Turkey en route by land to Europe; but the percentage that goes to Pakistan seems to mostly find its way directly to the UK, either by plane or by ship.
Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium, a trend that developed during the CIA-backed mujahedeen effort to oust the Soviet Union from the country, with the drug trade serving to help finance the war.
A known drug trafficker, Dawood Ibrahim is naturally also involved in money laundering, which is perhaps where the role of gambling operations in Nepal comes into the picture.
Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan [Images] Times, wrote last month after the Mumbai attacks that Ibrahim had worked with the US to help finance the mujahedeen during the 1980s and that because he knows too much about the US's 'darker secrets' in the region, he could never be allowed to be turned over to India.
The recent promotion of Lakhvi to 'mastermind' of the attacks while Ibrahim's name disappears from media reports would seem to lend credence to Shimatsu's assertion.
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen similarly reported that according to intelligence sources, Ibrahim is a CIA asset, both as a veteran of the mujahedeen war and in a continuing connection with his casino and drug trade operations in Kathmandu, Nepal. A deal had been made earlier this year to have Pakistan hand Ibrahim over to India, but the CIA was fearful that this would lead to too many of its dirty secrets coming to light, including the criminal activities of high level personnel within the agency.
One theory on the Mumbai attacks is that it was backlash for this double-cross that was among other things intended to serve as a warning that any such arrangement could have further serious consequences.
Although designated as a major international terrorist by the US, media reports in India have characterised the US's past interest in seeing Ibrahim handed over as less than enthusiastic. Former Indian deputy prime minister L K Advani [Images] wrote in his memoir, My Country, My Life, that he made a great effort to get Pakistan to hand over Ibrahim, and met with then US secretary of state Colin Powell and then national security advisor Condoleezza Rice [Images] (now secretary of state) to pressure Pakistan to do so. But he was informed by Powell that Pakistan would hand over Ibrahim only "with some strings attached" and that then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf [Images] would need more time before doing so.
The handover, needless to say, never occurred. The Pakistan government has also publicly denied that Ibrahim is even in the country; a denial that was repeated following the recent Mumbai attacks.
Others suspected of involvement in the attacks and named among the 20 individuals India wants Pakistan to turn over also have possible connections to the CIA, including Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the founder of LeT, and Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Maulana Masood Azhar, both veterans of the CIA-backed mujahedeen effort.
Azhar had been captured in 1994 and imprisoned in India for his role as leader of the Pakistani-based terrorist group Harkut-ul-Mujahideen. He was released, however, in 1999 in exchange for hostages from the takeover of Indian Airlines Flight 814, which was hijacked during its flight from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi [Images], India and redirected to Afghanistan. After Azhar's release, he formed JeM, which was responsible for an attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001 that led Pakistan and India to the brink of war. LeT was also blamed for the attack alongside JeM.
Both LeT and JeM have links to the ISI, which has used the groups as proxies in the conflict with India over the territory of Kashmir.
Saeed travelled to Peshawar to join the mujahedeen cause during the Soviet-Afghan war. Peshawar served as the base of operations for the CIA, which worked closely with the ISI to finance, arm, and train the mujahedeen. It was in Peshawar that Saeed became the protege of Abdullah Azzam, who founded an organization called Maktab al-Khidamat along with a Saudi individual named Osama bin Laden [Images].
MaK worked alongside the CIA-ISI operations to recruit Arabs to the ranks of the mujahedeen. The ISI, acting as proxy for the CIA, chose mainly to channel its support to Afghans, such as warlord Gulbaddin Hekmatyar. The US claims the CIA had no relationship with MaK, but bin Laden's operation, which later evolved into Al Qaeda [Images], must certainly have been known to, and approved by, the CIA.
But there are indications that the CIA's relationship with MaK and Al Qaeda go well beyond having shared a common enemy and mutual interests in the Soviet-Afghan war. A number of Al Qaeda associates appear to have been protected individuals.
Another former head of the ISI is now being privately accused by the US of involvement with the group responsible for the Mumbai attacks, according to reports citing a document listing former ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and four other former heads of Pakistan's intelligence agency as being involved in supporting terrorist networks. The individuals named have been recommended to the UN Security Council to be named as international terrorists, according to Pakistan's The News.
The document has been provided to the Pakistan government and also accuses Gul, who was head of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, of providing assistance to criminal groups in Kabul, as well as to groups responsible for recruiting and training militants to attack US-led forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban [Images].
Hamid Gul responded to the reports by calling the allegations hilarious. The US denied that it had made any such recommendations to the UN.
But the US has similarly accused the ISI of involvement in the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul last July. This was unusual not because of the allegation of an ISI connection to terrorism but because it was in such stark contrast with US attempts to publicly portray Pakistan as a staunch ally in its 'war on terrorism' when the country was under the dictatorship of Musharraf.
The US attitude toward Pakistan shifted once an elected government came to power that has been more willing to side with the overwhelming belief among the public that it is the 'war on terrorism' itself that has exacerbated the problem of extremist militant groups and led to further terrorist attacks within the country, such as the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto [Images] last year or the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in September. While the world's attention has been focused on the attacks in Mumbai, a bomb blast in Peshawar killed 21 and injured 90.
While the purported US document names Gul and others as terrorist supporters, another report, from Indian intelligence, indicates that the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Mumbai were among 500 trained by instructors from the Pakistan military, according to The Times. This training of the 10 known Mumbai terrorists would have taken place prior to their recent preparation for these specific attacks by the LeT training specialist Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi.
But while Lakhvi, Muzammil, and Hafiz Saeed [Images] have continued to be named in connection with last month's attacks in Mumbai, the name of Dawood Ibrahim seems to be either disappearing altogether or his originally designated role as the accused mastermind of the attacks being credited now instead to Lakhvi in media accounts.
Whether this is a deliberate effort to downplay Ibrahim's role in the attacks so as not to have to force Pakistan to turn him over because of embarrassing revelations pertaining to the CIA's involvement with known terrorists and drug traffickers that development could possibly produce isn't certain.
But what is certain is that the CIA has had a long history of involvement with such characters and that the US has a track record of attempting to keep information about the nature of such involvement in the dark or to cover it up once it reaches the light of public scrutiny.
Jeremy R Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal. Reproduced with kind courtesy of Foreign Policy Journal.
'Bush shoe': New orders for 300,000 pairs! - Rediff News
December 22, 2008 15:49 IST
The world's most notorious pair of black leather shoes, that made history, has even generated 100 jobs in Turkey.
The footwear that robbed George W. Bush of his dignity and landed its owner Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi - who hurled them at the US President at a press meet in Baghdad -- in prison, has yielded an unexpected bonanza for its maker.
Ever since the incident, Ramazan Baydan, the owner of the Istanbul-based Baydan Shoe Company, has been swamped with orders from across the world.
In fact, Baydan has recruited an additional 100 staff to meet orders for 300,000 pairs of Model 271, more than four times the shoe's normal annual sale, following an outpouring of support for Zaidi's act, The Guardian reported.
Orders have come mainly from the US and Britain, and from neighbouring Muslim countries, he said.
Around 120,000 pairs have been ordered from Iraq, while a US company has placed a request for 18,000. A British firm is said to have offered to serve as European distributor for the shoes, which have been on the market since 1999 and sell at around 28 pounds in Turkey.
A sharp rise in orders has been recorded in Syria, Egypt and Iran, where the shoemaker's federation has offered to provide Zaidi and family with a lifetime's supply of shoes.
And, to meet the mood of the marketplace, Baydan is planning to rename the model "Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush".
"We've been selling these shoes for years but, thanks to Bush, orders are flying in like crazy. We've even hired an agency to look at television advertising," he was quoted by the British newspaper as saying.
The world's most notorious pair of black leather shoes, that made history, has even generated 100 jobs in Turkey.
The footwear that robbed George W. Bush of his dignity and landed its owner Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi - who hurled them at the US President at a press meet in Baghdad -- in prison, has yielded an unexpected bonanza for its maker.
Ever since the incident, Ramazan Baydan, the owner of the Istanbul-based Baydan Shoe Company, has been swamped with orders from across the world.
In fact, Baydan has recruited an additional 100 staff to meet orders for 300,000 pairs of Model 271, more than four times the shoe's normal annual sale, following an outpouring of support for Zaidi's act, The Guardian reported.
Orders have come mainly from the US and Britain, and from neighbouring Muslim countries, he said.
Around 120,000 pairs have been ordered from Iraq, while a US company has placed a request for 18,000. A British firm is said to have offered to serve as European distributor for the shoes, which have been on the market since 1999 and sell at around 28 pounds in Turkey.
A sharp rise in orders has been recorded in Syria, Egypt and Iran, where the shoemaker's federation has offered to provide Zaidi and family with a lifetime's supply of shoes.
And, to meet the mood of the marketplace, Baydan is planning to rename the model "Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush".
"We've been selling these shoes for years but, thanks to Bush, orders are flying in like crazy. We've even hired an agency to look at television advertising," he was quoted by the British newspaper as saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)