January 22, 2009 14:33 IST
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Thursday said that Pakistan had given a 'blank cheque' to China, authorising it to negotiate with India on its behalf to deal with the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
Speaking at a reception at the Chinese embassy in Islamabad on Wednesday night, Qureshi said he had told Chinese special envoy He Yafei to "go to Delhi and you have a blank cheque from us".
The minister said he had told the envoy that Pakistan would endorse whatever China, an all-weather friend of Pakistan, would tell India.
The Chinese envoy visited Pakistan on December 29 and during his meetings with the country's leaders, had indicated that Beijing [Images] would remain engaged with Islamabad to promote peace and stability in the region.
Soon after Yafei's visit, Pakistan made two proposals for defusing tension in the region. It asked India to 'de-activate' forward airbases and relocate troops to peace-time positions.
The Chinese envoy traveled to New Delhi on January 5 and urged India to resume its dialogue with Pakistan.
Qureshi also said that Pakistan regarded its ties with China as the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
"We have complete trust, mutual understanding and convergence of views on bilateral, regional and international issues," he said.
The bilateral relations, "which have withstood regional and global changes, would flourish in the days ahead," Qureshi said.
Custom Search
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Pakistan indirectly supported 26/11 attackers, says Navy chief
The Mumbai [Images] carnage could not have been carried out without indirect support from 'professional organisations' in Pakistan, Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta said in Mumbai on Thursday.
"Of course there is indirect support.....some professional organisations could be involved," he said when asked if the terrorists had received assistance from Pakistani state agencies.
"How do you learn to do what you are doing? How do you get the infrastructure you need for this kind of thing," the admiral asked.
"Those are all issues where some professional organisations could be involved," he said after commissioning the navy's first helicopter base, INS Shikra, in the city.
Even if the terrorists who participated in the attacks were non-state actors, as claimed by Pakistan, they were still the responsibility of that state, he said.
"Pakistanis have been saying...that there is no state agency that is involved. These are non-state actors who have got the job done. Whatever that be, the fact of the matter remains that non-state actors emanating from a state become the responsibility of the state," he said.
Mehta also said that there had been no additional deployment of forces by the Navy in the western sector following the terror strikes.
"The level of alertness is always high and our forces are always ready," he said, adding there were ships on duty on the western seafront of the country but no orders increasing the state of alert had been given.
Following the terror attacks, there were multiple organisational issues being discussed in order to improve co-ordination among the country's various security agencies, Mehta said.
Image: Admiral Sureesh Mehta (centre) after commissioning the navy's first helicopter base INS Shikra in Mumbai.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
US moves to suspend Guantanamo Bay war crime trials- The Rediff News Bureau
January 21, 2009 14:11 IST
United States President Barack Obama's [Images] administration has filed a motion for suspending the Guantanamo Bay war crimes trial for 120 days, reports The Independent, UK.
The motion, made at the instance of Obama and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is expected to be considered early on Wednesday local time by the military judge hearing into the case against five men charged in 9/11 terror attacks and against Omar Khadr, a Canadian who is accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan in 2002, the newspaper reports.
The 120-day suspension was being sought to enable the administration to complete a review of the system in place for prosecuting the suspected terrorists.
In the suspension motion, military prosecutor Clay Trivett has said a suspension was necessary in all pending cases since the review underway may result in major changes in the system.
In his motion, Trivett wrote, 'The interests of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interests of both the public and the accused in a prompt trial,' adding that the motion was being written at the direction of the president and the defence secretary.
Closing down Guantanamo Bay, where the US holds around 245 men, was high on the agenda of the new president, but relatives of the victims of 9/11, who were also at the base to observe the hearings, have opposed any delay in the trials.
On Tuesday, just before Obama's swearing-in, a military judge adjourned the war crimes court and noted that the future of the court was in doubt.
War crimes are pending against 21 men, and if the motion goes through judges will be required to suspend the other cases as well.
The war crimes trial was created by former president George Bush [Images] and US Congress in 2006.
United States President Barack Obama's [Images] administration has filed a motion for suspending the Guantanamo Bay war crimes trial for 120 days, reports The Independent, UK.
The motion, made at the instance of Obama and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is expected to be considered early on Wednesday local time by the military judge hearing into the case against five men charged in 9/11 terror attacks and against Omar Khadr, a Canadian who is accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan in 2002, the newspaper reports.
The 120-day suspension was being sought to enable the administration to complete a review of the system in place for prosecuting the suspected terrorists.
In the suspension motion, military prosecutor Clay Trivett has said a suspension was necessary in all pending cases since the review underway may result in major changes in the system.
In his motion, Trivett wrote, 'The interests of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interests of both the public and the accused in a prompt trial,' adding that the motion was being written at the direction of the president and the defence secretary.
Closing down Guantanamo Bay, where the US holds around 245 men, was high on the agenda of the new president, but relatives of the victims of 9/11, who were also at the base to observe the hearings, have opposed any delay in the trials.
On Tuesday, just before Obama's swearing-in, a military judge adjourned the war crimes court and noted that the future of the court was in doubt.
War crimes are pending against 21 men, and if the motion goes through judges will be required to suspend the other cases as well.
The war crimes trial was created by former president George Bush [Images] and US Congress in 2006.
Barack Obama, the new Ronald Reagan - Paul Maidment, Forbes
January 21, 2009
At his inauguration in 1981, Ronald Reagan said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
The wheel has turned. Barack Obama assumes office with the U.S. government having more direct control over business and the economy than at any time since Reagan started his far-reaching crusade to shrink the federal government.
In that sense, the advent of Obama marks an end to the Reagan era.In reality, it will mark a new phase. Ever since it became clear that the financial system was going to require substantial government intervention, it has been fashionable to say that America has privatized reward but socialised risk.
Jack Bogle, the founder and former CEO of mutual fund giant The Vanguard Group, told Forbes recently that what America now has is "not free enterprise, it is fettered enterprise."
What most Americans believe their government should give them, however, is enterprise that is fettered only to the greater degree necessary to stop it from running wild. Though more Americans now work in government than manufacturing, hardly any of them--and certainly no one who remembers or experienced the shortages and hardships of the Soviet era that Reagan was instrumental in ending--seriously proposes that the US should be a centrally planned economy.
Nor do many Americans see much merit in the government owing and operating what Lenin once called the "commanding heights of the economy"--energy, iron and steel, transport, utilities and communications. They have stood in enough lines at the post office.
Like Reagan ("it's not my intention to do away with government"), Americans on the whole don't believe in zero government. There are many areas in which government is seen as having a natural role as the provider of a public good--defense, education and transportation being three of the most obvious.
Reagan talked about making government work; working with Americans not over them; standing by their side not riding on their back. The Reagan promise was a government that provides opportunity, not smothers it.
Similarly, what Americans want from their government in regard to business is that it keeps it honest. They want the federal government to be the referee, not a player.
There are all sorts of lesson about prudential regulation to be drawn from the current financial crisis; there were failures of government policy and administration, as well as failures of the market. Fragmented agencies need to be brought together, better assessments of risk taken; special interests curtailed, perhaps even a financial equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration to vet the more exotic new products that Wall Street's financial engineers produce.
But government's proper roll was well defined before the crisis. There were laws against predatory lending on the books that were just not enforced. There were dubious financial practices that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not have the staff--or perhaps the will--to investigate. There were asleep-at-the-switch corporate directors who did not hold up their fiduciary responsibilities.
These are the modern-day equivalent of adulterating food or fixing the scales in the market to defraud the shopper. Americans expect government to have weights and measures inspectors. But they don't want the government to run the produce stall.
Economically, the Obama presidency will be judged on how well it delivers jobs and prosperity. The new president has said his reforms will be measured "by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world."
He has acknowledged that it will be private enterprise that will have to deliver most of that. Government has a role to play in making that happen, through such measures as diverse as a hefty stimulus package to kick-start growth to creating public-private business incubators that can grow sustainable new businesses nationwide for the longer-term.
Government has neither the resources, creativity or drive to do it alone. Few Americans expect it to. They fundamentally believe in the extraordinary dynamism and creativity of a capitalist system that prizes and encourages people who, in Abraham Lincoln's words, try to improve their lot in life--and thereby the lot of us all.
Here are some words that could come out of the mouth of President Obama on inauguration day: "This administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work ...
All must share in the productive work of this "new beginning," and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play, which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world."
They were said by Ronald Reagan on inauguration day 1981.
At his inauguration in 1981, Ronald Reagan said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
The wheel has turned. Barack Obama assumes office with the U.S. government having more direct control over business and the economy than at any time since Reagan started his far-reaching crusade to shrink the federal government.
In that sense, the advent of Obama marks an end to the Reagan era.In reality, it will mark a new phase. Ever since it became clear that the financial system was going to require substantial government intervention, it has been fashionable to say that America has privatized reward but socialised risk.
Jack Bogle, the founder and former CEO of mutual fund giant The Vanguard Group, told Forbes recently that what America now has is "not free enterprise, it is fettered enterprise."
What most Americans believe their government should give them, however, is enterprise that is fettered only to the greater degree necessary to stop it from running wild. Though more Americans now work in government than manufacturing, hardly any of them--and certainly no one who remembers or experienced the shortages and hardships of the Soviet era that Reagan was instrumental in ending--seriously proposes that the US should be a centrally planned economy.
Nor do many Americans see much merit in the government owing and operating what Lenin once called the "commanding heights of the economy"--energy, iron and steel, transport, utilities and communications. They have stood in enough lines at the post office.
Like Reagan ("it's not my intention to do away with government"), Americans on the whole don't believe in zero government. There are many areas in which government is seen as having a natural role as the provider of a public good--defense, education and transportation being three of the most obvious.
Reagan talked about making government work; working with Americans not over them; standing by their side not riding on their back. The Reagan promise was a government that provides opportunity, not smothers it.
Similarly, what Americans want from their government in regard to business is that it keeps it honest. They want the federal government to be the referee, not a player.
There are all sorts of lesson about prudential regulation to be drawn from the current financial crisis; there were failures of government policy and administration, as well as failures of the market. Fragmented agencies need to be brought together, better assessments of risk taken; special interests curtailed, perhaps even a financial equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration to vet the more exotic new products that Wall Street's financial engineers produce.
But government's proper roll was well defined before the crisis. There were laws against predatory lending on the books that were just not enforced. There were dubious financial practices that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not have the staff--or perhaps the will--to investigate. There were asleep-at-the-switch corporate directors who did not hold up their fiduciary responsibilities.
These are the modern-day equivalent of adulterating food or fixing the scales in the market to defraud the shopper. Americans expect government to have weights and measures inspectors. But they don't want the government to run the produce stall.
Economically, the Obama presidency will be judged on how well it delivers jobs and prosperity. The new president has said his reforms will be measured "by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world."
He has acknowledged that it will be private enterprise that will have to deliver most of that. Government has a role to play in making that happen, through such measures as diverse as a hefty stimulus package to kick-start growth to creating public-private business incubators that can grow sustainable new businesses nationwide for the longer-term.
Government has neither the resources, creativity or drive to do it alone. Few Americans expect it to. They fundamentally believe in the extraordinary dynamism and creativity of a capitalist system that prizes and encourages people who, in Abraham Lincoln's words, try to improve their lot in life--and thereby the lot of us all.
Here are some words that could come out of the mouth of President Obama on inauguration day: "This administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work ...
All must share in the productive work of this "new beginning," and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play, which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world."
They were said by Ronald Reagan on inauguration day 1981.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
British kite-flying on Kashmir - Colonel Anil Athale (retired)
January 20, 2009
By a coincidence, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was in India during the annual kite-flying festival and he did indeed do some of his own on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir [Images]. He proffered unsolicited advice that in order to deal with terrorism India must 'solve' the Kashmir problem. It is easy to dismiss this as utterances of a new entrant to foreign office. But that would be a huge mistake. In all possibility, Miliband was testing waters to see the reactions in India on behalf of the incoming Barack Obama [Images] administration in the United States.
Obama is on record as having said that he will accord priority to solving the Kashmir issue and there were plenty of 'leaks' to the effect that former US President Bill Clinton [Images] may be appointed special envoy for Kashmir. The American logic is unassailable, from their point of view. With the war in Afghanistan going badly for NATO and it allies and further danger of the whole of Pakistan's northwest falling to the Taliban [Images], America needs Pakistani support more than ever. As a quid pro quo Pakistan is demanding that in order to make the anti-Taliban fight a success, it needs to show some gains -- obviously at the cost of India. As far as Pakistan is concerned; a 'solution' to the Kashmir problem at the minimum means that India must surrender the Kashmir valley and Doda-Kistwar area to Pakistan. This is the so-called 'Chenab solution' that has been bandied about for the last 60 years.
It is interesting that every time India is subjected to a terror strike, international pressure mounts on us to solve the Kashmir problem. The world is oblivious to the fact that today in the light of peaceful polls (with over 60 percent voting) in Kashmir, the greatest support to and agitation for 'Kashmir', is being conducted in Lahore [Images] and other parts of Pakistan, while Kashmir is largely peaceful.
But it is futile to blame the world for our follies, specially that pernicious breed called 'pseudo-liberals'. We began on the wrong foot when we meekly accepted the typical Western formulation of equating 'Muslim Pakistan' and 'Hindu India'. Even 60 years after the event we fail to hammer the point that India is a 'secular' State with more Muslims citizens than Pakistan. We also failed to tell the world that while Pakistan where Hindus and Sikhs accounted for close to 12-14 percent of the population in 1947, today it is less than 2 percent. While in India the population of Muslims has grown from 12 percent in 1947 to close to 18 percent now.
Even in the case of Kashmir, the Pandit community that numbered close to 200,000 has been hounded out. India has failed to bring this immense tragedy to the world's notice for the fear of backlash against Indian Muslims. Fair enough, but how does that square up with the media support to Kashmir separatism? Let us make no mistake, the Kashmiris in the valley have masked their demand for secession as movement for 'freedom'. We have also been guilty of ignoring the rest of the state and focussing excessively on the urban areas of the valley. It is the Indian media that has lionised petty valley politicians with a support base of less than a few thousand, into leaders who loftily claim the intent to do good to the whole subcontinent.
In my frequent visits to Kashmir, I have often posed a question to Kashmiris. What is his definition of 'aazadi'? Does it mean freedom of religion, speech, movement or economic activity? And which of these freedoms were not available to him in India? There was really no coherent answer. The constant theme was that 'Kashmir was separate from both India and Pakistan'. Having been studying the Kashmir issue for over two decades now, I pointed out that Kashmir was linked to India ethnically, historically and economically. Kashmir was always a part of the Indian subcontinent, never separate. The growth of the separatist sentiment is the legacy of last 60 years when the indulgent media legitimised the issue of the creation of a 'unique' Kashmiri identity.
How do we deal with this likely storm to be unleashed by the new regime in the US? There ought to be a two-pronged approach -- one, we must show readiness to deal with disgruntled elements in Kashmir strictly within the bounds of our Constitution. Secession is out and that must be told clearly. Two, as for Pakistan, it is time that we tell that country that it has no locus standi as far as Kashmir is concerned. Till such time as we do not take a clear-cut stand on the issue, we keep alive the hope of Lahore-based jihadis and invite terror attacks.
Barack Hussein Obama, who claims the Abraham Lincoln legacy, needs to be reminded that above all Lincoln fought a bloody civil war to keep the union together. Why does he wish to deny that to India?
Colonel Athale is the Chhattrapati Shivaji Fellow at the United Services Institute, New Delhi [Images], working on a project on internal security. He is also coordinator of the Pune-based think tank Inpad.
By a coincidence, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was in India during the annual kite-flying festival and he did indeed do some of his own on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir [Images]. He proffered unsolicited advice that in order to deal with terrorism India must 'solve' the Kashmir problem. It is easy to dismiss this as utterances of a new entrant to foreign office. But that would be a huge mistake. In all possibility, Miliband was testing waters to see the reactions in India on behalf of the incoming Barack Obama [Images] administration in the United States.
Obama is on record as having said that he will accord priority to solving the Kashmir issue and there were plenty of 'leaks' to the effect that former US President Bill Clinton [Images] may be appointed special envoy for Kashmir. The American logic is unassailable, from their point of view. With the war in Afghanistan going badly for NATO and it allies and further danger of the whole of Pakistan's northwest falling to the Taliban [Images], America needs Pakistani support more than ever. As a quid pro quo Pakistan is demanding that in order to make the anti-Taliban fight a success, it needs to show some gains -- obviously at the cost of India. As far as Pakistan is concerned; a 'solution' to the Kashmir problem at the minimum means that India must surrender the Kashmir valley and Doda-Kistwar area to Pakistan. This is the so-called 'Chenab solution' that has been bandied about for the last 60 years.
It is interesting that every time India is subjected to a terror strike, international pressure mounts on us to solve the Kashmir problem. The world is oblivious to the fact that today in the light of peaceful polls (with over 60 percent voting) in Kashmir, the greatest support to and agitation for 'Kashmir', is being conducted in Lahore [Images] and other parts of Pakistan, while Kashmir is largely peaceful.
But it is futile to blame the world for our follies, specially that pernicious breed called 'pseudo-liberals'. We began on the wrong foot when we meekly accepted the typical Western formulation of equating 'Muslim Pakistan' and 'Hindu India'. Even 60 years after the event we fail to hammer the point that India is a 'secular' State with more Muslims citizens than Pakistan. We also failed to tell the world that while Pakistan where Hindus and Sikhs accounted for close to 12-14 percent of the population in 1947, today it is less than 2 percent. While in India the population of Muslims has grown from 12 percent in 1947 to close to 18 percent now.
Even in the case of Kashmir, the Pandit community that numbered close to 200,000 has been hounded out. India has failed to bring this immense tragedy to the world's notice for the fear of backlash against Indian Muslims. Fair enough, but how does that square up with the media support to Kashmir separatism? Let us make no mistake, the Kashmiris in the valley have masked their demand for secession as movement for 'freedom'. We have also been guilty of ignoring the rest of the state and focussing excessively on the urban areas of the valley. It is the Indian media that has lionised petty valley politicians with a support base of less than a few thousand, into leaders who loftily claim the intent to do good to the whole subcontinent.
In my frequent visits to Kashmir, I have often posed a question to Kashmiris. What is his definition of 'aazadi'? Does it mean freedom of religion, speech, movement or economic activity? And which of these freedoms were not available to him in India? There was really no coherent answer. The constant theme was that 'Kashmir was separate from both India and Pakistan'. Having been studying the Kashmir issue for over two decades now, I pointed out that Kashmir was linked to India ethnically, historically and economically. Kashmir was always a part of the Indian subcontinent, never separate. The growth of the separatist sentiment is the legacy of last 60 years when the indulgent media legitimised the issue of the creation of a 'unique' Kashmiri identity.
How do we deal with this likely storm to be unleashed by the new regime in the US? There ought to be a two-pronged approach -- one, we must show readiness to deal with disgruntled elements in Kashmir strictly within the bounds of our Constitution. Secession is out and that must be told clearly. Two, as for Pakistan, it is time that we tell that country that it has no locus standi as far as Kashmir is concerned. Till such time as we do not take a clear-cut stand on the issue, we keep alive the hope of Lahore-based jihadis and invite terror attacks.
Barack Hussein Obama, who claims the Abraham Lincoln legacy, needs to be reminded that above all Lincoln fought a bloody civil war to keep the union together. Why does he wish to deny that to India?
Colonel Athale is the Chhattrapati Shivaji Fellow at the United Services Institute, New Delhi [Images], working on a project on internal security. He is also coordinator of the Pune-based think tank Inpad.
Former UP CM Kalyan Singh leaves BJP
January 20, 2009 14:26 IST
Former Uttar Pradesh [Images] chief minister Kalyan Singh on Tuesday announced that he has resigned from the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Singh is reportedly unhappy with the party top brass for sidelining him. His resignation comes in the wake of rumours that he might join the Samajwadi Party, after he met SP supremo Mulayam Singh a few days ago.
Former Uttar Pradesh [Images] chief minister Kalyan Singh on Tuesday announced that he has resigned from the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Singh is reportedly unhappy with the party top brass for sidelining him. His resignation comes in the wake of rumours that he might join the Samajwadi Party, after he met SP supremo Mulayam Singh a few days ago.
Monday, January 19, 2009
What Team Obama will do on Day One - Lalit K Jha in Washington, DC
January 19, 2009 13:39 IST
Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, a small team of key aides will move into the White House to give a jump start to the administration's agenda.
Vans will take about 20 senior officials of the incoming Obama Administration to the White House even before the inauguration ceeremony ends on Tuesday afternoon.
On Wednesday, the first full working day of the new President, Obama has convened meetings for his top two challenges - the economy and foreign policy, specially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama will meet his key economic advisors and top economic officials to give a final shape to the mega economic stimulus package so that the process of recovery and reinvestment of American economy begins at the earliest. Obama believes this is very important to generate confidence among the investors, people and the business class.
The same day, Obama will meet his key military commanders to discuss the options available in Afghanistan and Iraq. A key aide told a news channel on Sunday that Obama will ask his commanders to come up with a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. He will seek a new plan from them so that the war in Afghanistan is won and it does not become a haven for terrorists again.
The Middle East will also be on the priorities list.
'Well, I think that the events around the world demand that he act quickly, and I think you'll see him act quickly,' David Axelrod, senior advisor to Obama told CNN in an interview. 'The president- elect has said repeatedly that he intends to engage early and aggressively with diplomacy all over the world and using the men and women, the professionals who are in place, who are great, and, where appropriate, special envoys,' he said.
Media reports said Team Obama has prepared a series of executive orders for Obama to sign so that the administration kicks off running soon thereafter.
These orders are expected to vary from routine ones regarding the continuity of the government to one on Guantanamo Bay, closing it down.
Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, a small team of key aides will move into the White House to give a jump start to the administration's agenda.
Vans will take about 20 senior officials of the incoming Obama Administration to the White House even before the inauguration ceeremony ends on Tuesday afternoon.
On Wednesday, the first full working day of the new President, Obama has convened meetings for his top two challenges - the economy and foreign policy, specially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama will meet his key economic advisors and top economic officials to give a final shape to the mega economic stimulus package so that the process of recovery and reinvestment of American economy begins at the earliest. Obama believes this is very important to generate confidence among the investors, people and the business class.
The same day, Obama will meet his key military commanders to discuss the options available in Afghanistan and Iraq. A key aide told a news channel on Sunday that Obama will ask his commanders to come up with a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. He will seek a new plan from them so that the war in Afghanistan is won and it does not become a haven for terrorists again.
The Middle East will also be on the priorities list.
'Well, I think that the events around the world demand that he act quickly, and I think you'll see him act quickly,' David Axelrod, senior advisor to Obama told CNN in an interview. 'The president- elect has said repeatedly that he intends to engage early and aggressively with diplomacy all over the world and using the men and women, the professionals who are in place, who are great, and, where appropriate, special envoys,' he said.
Media reports said Team Obama has prepared a series of executive orders for Obama to sign so that the administration kicks off running soon thereafter.
These orders are expected to vary from routine ones regarding the continuity of the government to one on Guantanamo Bay, closing it down.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
JK vigilance chief appointed NIA head
January 15, 2009 13:49 IST
Radha Vinod Raju, Special Director General of Police in Jammu and Kashmir [Images], was today appointed as Director General of the newly established National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A 1975-batch IPS officer, 59-year-old Raju, who heads the vigilance department in the militancy-hit state, will be the head of the NIA till January 21, 2010, an official spokesperson said.
He was selected for the coveted post considering his wide knowledge and experiences in investigating high-profile cases, including assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Union Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] recommended Raju's name which was signed by Appointments Committee of Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah [Images] has issued orders relieving Raju so as to enable his deputation to the Centre. He was to retire on July 31, this year.
Raju, who has served in various capacities in CBI and returned to his parent cadre after being promoted as Additional Director in the investigating agency, also had a stint in the vigilance department.
Serving as head of the Vigilance Bureau in Jammu and Kashmir earlier, Raju streamlined the department which was in shackles due to the ongoing militancy.
The government had also sought views on it from various investigating and intelligence agencies, including the CBI, Intelligence Bureau and newly constituted National Technical Research Organisation.
Radha Vinod Raju, Special Director General of Police in Jammu and Kashmir [Images], was today appointed as Director General of the newly established National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A 1975-batch IPS officer, 59-year-old Raju, who heads the vigilance department in the militancy-hit state, will be the head of the NIA till January 21, 2010, an official spokesperson said.
He was selected for the coveted post considering his wide knowledge and experiences in investigating high-profile cases, including assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Union Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] recommended Raju's name which was signed by Appointments Committee of Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah [Images] has issued orders relieving Raju so as to enable his deputation to the Centre. He was to retire on July 31, this year.
Raju, who has served in various capacities in CBI and returned to his parent cadre after being promoted as Additional Director in the investigating agency, also had a stint in the vigilance department.
Serving as head of the Vigilance Bureau in Jammu and Kashmir earlier, Raju streamlined the department which was in shackles due to the ongoing militancy.
The government had also sought views on it from various investigating and intelligence agencies, including the CBI, Intelligence Bureau and newly constituted National Technical Research Organisation.
NIA will not investigate Mumbai attacks
January 15, 2009 15:15 IST
Last Updated: January 15, 2009 15:20 IST
The National Investigation Agency, set up in the wake of Mumbai terror attacks, will have members handpicked by its first chief Radha Vinod Raju, who was appointed on Thursday.
"He has been requested to join immediately and quickly begin recruitment," Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images], who recommended Raju, said.
Chidambaram said Raju will handpick his core group. Asked how long it would take for the NIA to be functional, he said, "We will now recruit identified officers who have got a good track record in investigation."
Raju has been tasked with recruiting people and putting the infrastructure and logistics in place so that the NIA can take up cases for investigation should a situation arise.
He said the NIA did not have any case to investigate right now. On the Mumbai attacks case, he said: "The Mumbai investigation is well on track. It has made considerable progress. There is no need for transferring it to NIA."
Chidambaram said Raju had vast experience in the Central Bureau of Investigation. A 1975-batch Indian Police Service officer, Raju will head the NIA till January 31, 2010, a home ministry order said.
Raju is now a special director general of police in Jammu and Kashmir
Last Updated: January 15, 2009 15:20 IST
The National Investigation Agency, set up in the wake of Mumbai terror attacks, will have members handpicked by its first chief Radha Vinod Raju, who was appointed on Thursday.
"He has been requested to join immediately and quickly begin recruitment," Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images], who recommended Raju, said.
Chidambaram said Raju will handpick his core group. Asked how long it would take for the NIA to be functional, he said, "We will now recruit identified officers who have got a good track record in investigation."
Raju has been tasked with recruiting people and putting the infrastructure and logistics in place so that the NIA can take up cases for investigation should a situation arise.
He said the NIA did not have any case to investigate right now. On the Mumbai attacks case, he said: "The Mumbai investigation is well on track. It has made considerable progress. There is no need for transferring it to NIA."
Chidambaram said Raju had vast experience in the Central Bureau of Investigation. A 1975-batch Indian Police Service officer, Raju will head the NIA till January 31, 2010, a home ministry order said.
Raju is now a special director general of police in Jammu and Kashmir
Brickbats made me richer, says Mayawati
January 15, 2009 13:33 IST
Last Updated: January 15, 2009 15:37 IST
Visibly peeved at widespread criticism about her partymen's indulgence in blatant extortion to prepare gift packets for her birthday today, Uttar Pradesh [Images] chief minister Mayawati [Images] sought to claim that far from causing any harm to her, the tirade had made her richer.
"Thanks to the venomous campaign launched by the Opposition to defame me and my party by terming the party fund-raising on my birthday as extortion , I have received double the amount of what was gifted to me on January 15 last year," Mayawati declared at an unusually low-key celebration at her official residence Thursday.
She claimed, "My partymen and supporters were provoked by the false and baseless allegations leveled by the entire opposition but because I do not allow them to indulge in cheap and dirty mudslinging , they got down to doubling their contributions on my birthday."
Draped in a bright pink 'zari 'shalvar-kurta' and a brown-check long coat with a fresh hairdo and a stylish gold � ruby - diamond set in place of her usual strings of multiple dazzling solitaires , she was flanked on the dais by her party's Brahmin mascot and state advisory council chief Satish Chandra Misra and chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta.
Unlike the past , there was neither a cake-cutting ritual nor the usual scramble by sycophant politicians , bureaucrats and top cops to offer a piece to the birthday girl. Other than the 25-minute-long speech read out from a written text, the brief 35-minute programme included launch of a large number of development schemes , release of the 1500- page fourth part of her autobiography followed by a vote of thanks by chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta.
As if to make it loud and clear to all and sundry that this was a clear deviation from the past, she also rolled out a long list of development projects as well as a number of schemes for the economic upliftment and well being of the poor. As many as 33 granite plaques were unveiled for the new roads and bridges to be built in different parts of the state.
Making no bones about raising funds for the party, Mayawati said, "It is no secret that my birthday as well as that of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) founder Kanshi Ram is traditionally observed as fund-raising day for the party simply because ours is not a party like others who get their millions from industrialists and big business houses."
In the same vein she went about reiterating her clarification on the alleged extortion bid by her party MLA Shekhar Tiwari that culminated on the brutal murder of PWD executive engineer Manoj Kumar Gupta in Auraiya earlier last month.
"The entire exercise of associating Gupta's murder with some kind of extortion by my party leader was a pack of lies, unleashed by the opposition with the sole intent of defaming me and my party," she said.
As if to giving herself a clean-shit, she went on to add, "And let me tell you that the investigation carried out so far had made it amply evident that the incident did not have anything even remotely connected to my birthday."
With a view to substantiating her argument, Mayawati sought to point out, "We have taken the severest action against each of the culprits involved in the murder; even the victim's family was so convinced with it that they had withdrawn their earlier request for a CBI probe into the matter."
She said, "Gupta's family had met me only two days ago and expressed their satisfaction with the investigation."
Terming the opposition tirade against her as a blessing in disguise, she quipped, "I must express my gratitude to SP, BJP as well as the Congress for staging such melodrama against me that incited my supporters to make huge contributions on my birthday to the extent that the overall receipts had doubled in comparison to last year, the on-going recession notwithstanding."
And added a sarcastic note , "I wish the opposition continues with such protests and demonstrations in the future years too on my birthday � that will only make me richer."
While proclaiming, "All the collection would come in handy for use by her party at the next Lok Sabha elections", Mayawati cleverly avoided any mention of the amount she had received in the form of her "double" birthday hamper."
"Whenever the opposition has resorted to playing dirty politics against me, our party has only gained in the bargain", she claimed.
She said, "Take the case of the murderous attack on me by Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav [Images] and his goons on June 2, 1996 - Mulayam had planned to get be killed, but it only resulted in his own political death as he was unseated from the chief minister's chair within the next 24 hours of that attack."
Last Updated: January 15, 2009 15:37 IST
Visibly peeved at widespread criticism about her partymen's indulgence in blatant extortion to prepare gift packets for her birthday today, Uttar Pradesh [Images] chief minister Mayawati [Images] sought to claim that far from causing any harm to her, the tirade had made her richer.
"Thanks to the venomous campaign launched by the Opposition to defame me and my party by terming the party fund-raising on my birthday as extortion , I have received double the amount of what was gifted to me on January 15 last year," Mayawati declared at an unusually low-key celebration at her official residence Thursday.
She claimed, "My partymen and supporters were provoked by the false and baseless allegations leveled by the entire opposition but because I do not allow them to indulge in cheap and dirty mudslinging , they got down to doubling their contributions on my birthday."
Draped in a bright pink 'zari 'shalvar-kurta' and a brown-check long coat with a fresh hairdo and a stylish gold � ruby - diamond set in place of her usual strings of multiple dazzling solitaires , she was flanked on the dais by her party's Brahmin mascot and state advisory council chief Satish Chandra Misra and chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta.
Unlike the past , there was neither a cake-cutting ritual nor the usual scramble by sycophant politicians , bureaucrats and top cops to offer a piece to the birthday girl. Other than the 25-minute-long speech read out from a written text, the brief 35-minute programme included launch of a large number of development schemes , release of the 1500- page fourth part of her autobiography followed by a vote of thanks by chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta.
As if to make it loud and clear to all and sundry that this was a clear deviation from the past, she also rolled out a long list of development projects as well as a number of schemes for the economic upliftment and well being of the poor. As many as 33 granite plaques were unveiled for the new roads and bridges to be built in different parts of the state.
Making no bones about raising funds for the party, Mayawati said, "It is no secret that my birthday as well as that of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) founder Kanshi Ram is traditionally observed as fund-raising day for the party simply because ours is not a party like others who get their millions from industrialists and big business houses."
In the same vein she went about reiterating her clarification on the alleged extortion bid by her party MLA Shekhar Tiwari that culminated on the brutal murder of PWD executive engineer Manoj Kumar Gupta in Auraiya earlier last month.
"The entire exercise of associating Gupta's murder with some kind of extortion by my party leader was a pack of lies, unleashed by the opposition with the sole intent of defaming me and my party," she said.
As if to giving herself a clean-shit, she went on to add, "And let me tell you that the investigation carried out so far had made it amply evident that the incident did not have anything even remotely connected to my birthday."
With a view to substantiating her argument, Mayawati sought to point out, "We have taken the severest action against each of the culprits involved in the murder; even the victim's family was so convinced with it that they had withdrawn their earlier request for a CBI probe into the matter."
She said, "Gupta's family had met me only two days ago and expressed their satisfaction with the investigation."
Terming the opposition tirade against her as a blessing in disguise, she quipped, "I must express my gratitude to SP, BJP as well as the Congress for staging such melodrama against me that incited my supporters to make huge contributions on my birthday to the extent that the overall receipts had doubled in comparison to last year, the on-going recession notwithstanding."
And added a sarcastic note , "I wish the opposition continues with such protests and demonstrations in the future years too on my birthday � that will only make me richer."
While proclaiming, "All the collection would come in handy for use by her party at the next Lok Sabha elections", Mayawati cleverly avoided any mention of the amount she had received in the form of her "double" birthday hamper."
"Whenever the opposition has resorted to playing dirty politics against me, our party has only gained in the bargain", she claimed.
She said, "Take the case of the murderous attack on me by Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav [Images] and his goons on June 2, 1996 - Mulayam had planned to get be killed, but it only resulted in his own political death as he was unseated from the chief minister's chair within the next 24 hours of that attack."
Mumbai attack was a test on India's patience: Army
January 15, 2009 14:43 IST
The terror attacks on Mumbai was a test of India's patience and the Army is ready to face any challenge posed by terrorism, Army chief General Deepak Kapoor said today.
"The attack on Mumbai [Images] was a test of our patience...the only and biggest challenge before us is terrorism and we are ready to face this challenge," Kapoor said at the 61st Army Day parade in New Delhi [Images].
Stating that all options to tackle the terror menace were open, he said India wanted to resolve its issues through peaceful means.
"However, to ensure the security of its people and territory, we can use all possible available options," Kapoor said.
He said the army was always ready and capable of carrying out whatever task it is assigned by the government.
Mentioning the global economic meltdown as the second biggest challenge faced by the world, he said the government didn't want the financial proposals of armed forces to be impacted by recession and asked his officers to ensure full value for money spent on the armed forces.
"We want our officers to ensure that the money in armed forces is wisely in view of the economic meltdown," Kapoor said.
He said all neighbours of India were facing challenges, which could pose threat to the security of the country. "We have to remain vigilant against these threats if we have to progress and prosper," the army chief said.
Mentioning the various internal security threats faced by the country, the army chief said, "There are various elements in the country which still want to disintegrate the nation and the biggest threat comes from the insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir [Images], Northeast and Naxalism."
He said all organisations of the government were working against these threats. Talking about the achievements of the army in containing the insurgencies in the country, Kapoor said, "Elections in J&K could be held peacefully because of the security shield provided by the Army and we have also eliminated the capabilities of militants to carry out sensational strikes in the state."
"In Assam, we have been able to establish peace and marginalised ULFA there. In Manipur, the Assam Rifles and Army have managed to bring down the violence levels and in Nagaland, we have cut down the violence between the two factions of the NSCN," he added.
On Naxalism, he said though the army was not directly involved in operations against the Naxals, it was helping other forces by providing them training and other logistic support. He said during natural calamities such as the massive floods in Bihar, the army had played a big role in providing relief and succour to the affected people and saved many lives there.
The terror attacks on Mumbai was a test of India's patience and the Army is ready to face any challenge posed by terrorism, Army chief General Deepak Kapoor said today.
"The attack on Mumbai [Images] was a test of our patience...the only and biggest challenge before us is terrorism and we are ready to face this challenge," Kapoor said at the 61st Army Day parade in New Delhi [Images].
Stating that all options to tackle the terror menace were open, he said India wanted to resolve its issues through peaceful means.
"However, to ensure the security of its people and territory, we can use all possible available options," Kapoor said.
He said the army was always ready and capable of carrying out whatever task it is assigned by the government.
Mentioning the global economic meltdown as the second biggest challenge faced by the world, he said the government didn't want the financial proposals of armed forces to be impacted by recession and asked his officers to ensure full value for money spent on the armed forces.
"We want our officers to ensure that the money in armed forces is wisely in view of the economic meltdown," Kapoor said.
He said all neighbours of India were facing challenges, which could pose threat to the security of the country. "We have to remain vigilant against these threats if we have to progress and prosper," the army chief said.
Mentioning the various internal security threats faced by the country, the army chief said, "There are various elements in the country which still want to disintegrate the nation and the biggest threat comes from the insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir [Images], Northeast and Naxalism."
He said all organisations of the government were working against these threats. Talking about the achievements of the army in containing the insurgencies in the country, Kapoor said, "Elections in J&K could be held peacefully because of the security shield provided by the Army and we have also eliminated the capabilities of militants to carry out sensational strikes in the state."
"In Assam, we have been able to establish peace and marginalised ULFA there. In Manipur, the Assam Rifles and Army have managed to bring down the violence levels and in Nagaland, we have cut down the violence between the two factions of the NSCN," he added.
On Naxalism, he said though the army was not directly involved in operations against the Naxals, it was helping other forces by providing them training and other logistic support. He said during natural calamities such as the massive floods in Bihar, the army had played a big role in providing relief and succour to the affected people and saved many lives there.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pak to respond to Indian dossier in a week
January 15, 2009 11:48 IST
Pakistan will formally respond within a week to India's dossier on the Mumbai attacks by describing the information provided in it as "scanty and insufficient" and by renewing its offer for a joint probe into the terrorist strike, a media report said today.
"The Pakistani response is almost prepared after prolonged consultations here among the Foreign Office, interior ministry and other security agencies and it is being given a finishing touch," a senior official who did not want to be named told the pro-establishment The Nation daily.
The response will be handed over to India in a week after it is approved by the President and Prime Minister, he said.
The dossier had been thoroughly examined and the Pakistani response could be summarised by saying that "the Indians would be told to extend concrete evidence to Islamabad and not information", the official said.
The response will also describe "the so-called Indian evidence as scanty and insufficient," the daily said.
Pakistan would repeat its offer for a joint probe into the Mumbai [Images] attacks with "a plea that it was the only workable solution" to the standoff between the two countries, he said.
The official declined to share details of the Pakistani response but said that it described the "Indian information (as) not something that could be produced as admissible before the court as a piece of evidence".
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in his address to parliament on Tuesday, had said material provided by India constituted information and not evidence.
Pakistan will formally respond within a week to India's dossier on the Mumbai attacks by describing the information provided in it as "scanty and insufficient" and by renewing its offer for a joint probe into the terrorist strike, a media report said today.
"The Pakistani response is almost prepared after prolonged consultations here among the Foreign Office, interior ministry and other security agencies and it is being given a finishing touch," a senior official who did not want to be named told the pro-establishment The Nation daily.
The response will be handed over to India in a week after it is approved by the President and Prime Minister, he said.
The dossier had been thoroughly examined and the Pakistani response could be summarised by saying that "the Indians would be told to extend concrete evidence to Islamabad and not information", the official said.
The response will also describe "the so-called Indian evidence as scanty and insufficient," the daily said.
Pakistan would repeat its offer for a joint probe into the Mumbai [Images] attacks with "a plea that it was the only workable solution" to the standoff between the two countries, he said.
The official declined to share details of the Pakistani response but said that it described the "Indian information (as) not something that could be produced as admissible before the court as a piece of evidence".
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in his address to parliament on Tuesday, had said material provided by India constituted information and not evidence.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
'Unless you sacrifice, you can't fight terror'
December 12, 2008
Colonel R Hariharan [Images] is a specialist on South Asia military intelligence. He served as the head of intelligence for the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka [Images] between 1987 and 1990.
He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies.
Colonel Hariharan spoke to rediff.com's Shobha Warrier about what needs to be done to avoid terror attacks like the one in Mumbai terror attacks.
Media reports say that the Indian intelligence agencies had prior information about the Mumbai terror attacks [Images]. After every terror attack, we hear reports that intelligence agencies had prior information about it. Where is it going wrong then? Do you call this an intelligence failure?
I have no hesitation in saying that it was intelligence failure that led to the attacks. Today's terrorists are more tech savvy than the establishment.
Intelligence failure is not only the failure of intelligence agencies. They have to process the information and make an assessment.
There are more than 12 agencies like the Customs, the Enforcement Directorate etc which collect intelligence information, and this excludes the state police.
Firstly, the quality of intelligence collected has to be validated. No agency shares the information with everybody because they want to score brownie points.
What we need is a central control room where intelligence information is shared and immediate action is taken. We don't have a culture of centralised control rooms. I know the Intelligence Bureau has enough intelligent officers, but they don't process intelligence information properly because they are in a hurry to push it so that the responsibility does not fall on them.
How important is processing the information?
It is the most important part of intelligence gathering. You may say, a terror strike is coming from the coast. But from where? Which coast? From whom? When? These questions are never answered. In military intelligence, we don't accept this kind of nonsense.
The Americans failed in processing the information before the 9/11 attacks. We told them a year earlier that Islamic militant guys are being trained in flying. We had told Australia [Images] that they are being trained in Australian flying schools. They passed it on to the Americans but nobody took action because they had too much information.
We have to have management in our information systems. Technology is rudimentary in India. We are a lazy nation as far as the governing system is concerned. So, why blame the intelligence agencies alone? You should blame the government, the various departments and ourselves.
Do you think the current attacks will ring alarm bells and something concrete will happen?
I am not an optimist. I expect some more strikes to come. Will just changing the Union home minister solve the problem?
I am not seeing any action now. There will be more strikes. Something like what is happening in Bangkok has to happen in India too. Everything has to be stopped to make the government act. People have to take to the streets. Only that works.
The ordinary people of India feel that after the 9/11 attacks, the US could stop any further attack while in India, every month, there is a terror strike...
Are we prepared to sacrifice some of our fundamental rights? That is the bottom line. The US has sacrificed part of their fundamental rights. US laws are very stringent. We didn't want POTA which guarantees witness protection.
Where should the overhaul start?
It has to be there everywhere; from the grass-roots to the middle level to the structural level.
Three things are important. At the state level, they must read and process the information themselves. The central agencies and state agencies should share information all the time. Today, they don't do that. The culture of sharing of information should come. In Assam, I have seen only army guys in the meetings; the state guys won't even turn up. Some sort of commitment has to come within the states.
Two, the country must learn to sacrifice some rights to fight terror. While fighting terror, you cannot have the same freedom. Unless you sacrifice, you can't fight terror.
Three, our laws will not hold today's times. You catch two out of 15 terrorists, but you cannot prosecute them. Human rights fellows will make a noise; courts will give them bail even if they are murderers. That is why so many Maoists are not being prosecuted. So, you require a special law.
The coast of India is controlled by many departments, and do you feel it is high time the coast comes under one agency, say the Coast Guard?
There are 12 agencies involved in the coastal security of India. In this country, nobody will give up power. Port security is under the ministry of shipping! What does it know of security?
In the US, when a ship comes to the sea, it comes under the Coast Guard. It is responsible for the coast. Here, it is not. The land is under police, the coastal police have become a big joke. The policemen do not know how to swim. They don't have a sea orientation. Why should you have the same policemen doing the coastal job? You require marine police who should look after coastal and port security.
The Coast Guard has got huge deficiencies like the armed forces. They must make up the deficiency right now. Marine security must come under central authority and the Coast Guard is the best arm. It comes under the navy both in the US and here.
Create internal security separately as a ministry. The time has come.
There is a kind of fear and insecurity in the mind of the people of India.
It can happen in Chennai too. Are you sure it will not happen in the other coasts? In Maharashtra, it will change now just like it changed in Gujarat. Gujarat has a dynamic chief minister and he knows his job. He wanted a law which is similar to what Mumbai is having, but he is not being allowed based on party politics. The Centre also won't bring the law and he also won't be allowed to have a law, and he is asked to control terrorism. What are we afraid of?
When you were gathering intelligence as a military intelligence officer, what were the difficulties you faced?
The major problem is of access to other intelligence agencies. There is no sharing of information. That is the biggest hurdle.
In Sri Lanka, that was what happened. The Research and Analysis Wing was involved in training the LTTE [Images] (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) but it is so compartmentalised that when we went in, the guy from R&AW who was helping us did not have the figures because it was under some other department. So, we must take some hard decisions on sharing information.
Every month there is a terror strike. Will Indians have to learn to live with terror attacks?
Do you know such attacks are happening regularly in the north-east? This is the 8th terror attack this year. I am sure it will continue.
Unless we must have a transparent policy that will guide the structural framework.
Unless the media acts conscientiously. You give more prominence to Arundhati Roy for defending a guy who attacked our Parliament.
Unless the structural mechanism involves states and becomes federal in character.
Unless decision making is done by experts and not politicians.
Unless you make up the deficiencies of all the counter-terror mechanisms with modern technology.
Unless policy making, intelligence and execution work in tandem.
There are politicians in the US and the UK too, but they could manage to stop terror attacks.
Because they are Americans, and we are Indians, I am sorry to say. We have no commitment. Did people react the same way when the Mumbai local trains were attacked? They did not because the rich and VIPs were not involved. Because five star hotels were not involved. Only poor guys, who travelled by train suffered. Did you see the same candles then?
Colonel R Hariharan [Images] is a specialist on South Asia military intelligence. He served as the head of intelligence for the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka [Images] between 1987 and 1990.
He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies.
Colonel Hariharan spoke to rediff.com's Shobha Warrier about what needs to be done to avoid terror attacks like the one in Mumbai terror attacks.
Media reports say that the Indian intelligence agencies had prior information about the Mumbai terror attacks [Images]. After every terror attack, we hear reports that intelligence agencies had prior information about it. Where is it going wrong then? Do you call this an intelligence failure?
I have no hesitation in saying that it was intelligence failure that led to the attacks. Today's terrorists are more tech savvy than the establishment.
Intelligence failure is not only the failure of intelligence agencies. They have to process the information and make an assessment.
There are more than 12 agencies like the Customs, the Enforcement Directorate etc which collect intelligence information, and this excludes the state police.
Firstly, the quality of intelligence collected has to be validated. No agency shares the information with everybody because they want to score brownie points.
What we need is a central control room where intelligence information is shared and immediate action is taken. We don't have a culture of centralised control rooms. I know the Intelligence Bureau has enough intelligent officers, but they don't process intelligence information properly because they are in a hurry to push it so that the responsibility does not fall on them.
How important is processing the information?
It is the most important part of intelligence gathering. You may say, a terror strike is coming from the coast. But from where? Which coast? From whom? When? These questions are never answered. In military intelligence, we don't accept this kind of nonsense.
The Americans failed in processing the information before the 9/11 attacks. We told them a year earlier that Islamic militant guys are being trained in flying. We had told Australia [Images] that they are being trained in Australian flying schools. They passed it on to the Americans but nobody took action because they had too much information.
We have to have management in our information systems. Technology is rudimentary in India. We are a lazy nation as far as the governing system is concerned. So, why blame the intelligence agencies alone? You should blame the government, the various departments and ourselves.
Do you think the current attacks will ring alarm bells and something concrete will happen?
I am not an optimist. I expect some more strikes to come. Will just changing the Union home minister solve the problem?
I am not seeing any action now. There will be more strikes. Something like what is happening in Bangkok has to happen in India too. Everything has to be stopped to make the government act. People have to take to the streets. Only that works.
The ordinary people of India feel that after the 9/11 attacks, the US could stop any further attack while in India, every month, there is a terror strike...
Are we prepared to sacrifice some of our fundamental rights? That is the bottom line. The US has sacrificed part of their fundamental rights. US laws are very stringent. We didn't want POTA which guarantees witness protection.
Where should the overhaul start?
It has to be there everywhere; from the grass-roots to the middle level to the structural level.
Three things are important. At the state level, they must read and process the information themselves. The central agencies and state agencies should share information all the time. Today, they don't do that. The culture of sharing of information should come. In Assam, I have seen only army guys in the meetings; the state guys won't even turn up. Some sort of commitment has to come within the states.
Two, the country must learn to sacrifice some rights to fight terror. While fighting terror, you cannot have the same freedom. Unless you sacrifice, you can't fight terror.
Three, our laws will not hold today's times. You catch two out of 15 terrorists, but you cannot prosecute them. Human rights fellows will make a noise; courts will give them bail even if they are murderers. That is why so many Maoists are not being prosecuted. So, you require a special law.
The coast of India is controlled by many departments, and do you feel it is high time the coast comes under one agency, say the Coast Guard?
There are 12 agencies involved in the coastal security of India. In this country, nobody will give up power. Port security is under the ministry of shipping! What does it know of security?
In the US, when a ship comes to the sea, it comes under the Coast Guard. It is responsible for the coast. Here, it is not. The land is under police, the coastal police have become a big joke. The policemen do not know how to swim. They don't have a sea orientation. Why should you have the same policemen doing the coastal job? You require marine police who should look after coastal and port security.
The Coast Guard has got huge deficiencies like the armed forces. They must make up the deficiency right now. Marine security must come under central authority and the Coast Guard is the best arm. It comes under the navy both in the US and here.
Create internal security separately as a ministry. The time has come.
There is a kind of fear and insecurity in the mind of the people of India.
It can happen in Chennai too. Are you sure it will not happen in the other coasts? In Maharashtra, it will change now just like it changed in Gujarat. Gujarat has a dynamic chief minister and he knows his job. He wanted a law which is similar to what Mumbai is having, but he is not being allowed based on party politics. The Centre also won't bring the law and he also won't be allowed to have a law, and he is asked to control terrorism. What are we afraid of?
When you were gathering intelligence as a military intelligence officer, what were the difficulties you faced?
The major problem is of access to other intelligence agencies. There is no sharing of information. That is the biggest hurdle.
In Sri Lanka, that was what happened. The Research and Analysis Wing was involved in training the LTTE [Images] (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) but it is so compartmentalised that when we went in, the guy from R&AW who was helping us did not have the figures because it was under some other department. So, we must take some hard decisions on sharing information.
Every month there is a terror strike. Will Indians have to learn to live with terror attacks?
Do you know such attacks are happening regularly in the north-east? This is the 8th terror attack this year. I am sure it will continue.
Unless we must have a transparent policy that will guide the structural framework.
Unless the media acts conscientiously. You give more prominence to Arundhati Roy for defending a guy who attacked our Parliament.
Unless the structural mechanism involves states and becomes federal in character.
Unless decision making is done by experts and not politicians.
Unless you make up the deficiencies of all the counter-terror mechanisms with modern technology.
Unless policy making, intelligence and execution work in tandem.
There are politicians in the US and the UK too, but they could manage to stop terror attacks.
Because they are Americans, and we are Indians, I am sorry to say. We have no commitment. Did people react the same way when the Mumbai local trains were attacked? They did not because the rich and VIPs were not involved. Because five star hotels were not involved. Only poor guys, who travelled by train suffered. Did you see the same candles then?
Odds not in favour of India-Pak war, says expert
January 12, 2009
Stephen P Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy and head of the South Asia Program at the prestigious Washington, DC-based think-tank, the Brookings Institution, visited India last month to attend the pan-Indian Institute of Technology 2008, the fifth annual global IIT alumni conference in Chennai.
While there, the author of books on the armies of India and Pakistan, and noted authority on the security policies of both countries, caught up with the developing situation in the wake of the 26/11 terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
Cohen spoke to rediff India Abroad's Suman Guha Mozumder:
What is your reading of the government of India's response to the 26/11 terror attacks? Will India be able to get Pakistan to cooperate in prosecuting those involved?
While I was in India I sensed anger, frustration, and a bit of fear -- the Mumbai attacks affected Indians pretty much the same way as 9/11 affected Americans. This, of course, was part of the objective of the terrorists -- to strike terror and fear.
However, the official Indian response has been suitably cautious. Despite some very bad police work, bad intelligence and also the revelation that the Indian security apparatus was not prepared for this kind of event, the government's response has been prudent.
There were unwise statements by some ministers, but we know that in crisis such as this, there will be a very high degree of misinformation and people say things that they may want to take back after the fact. The ground truth is that the Indian government understands that retaliatory escalation may make people feel good, which is not an inconsiderable factor in a democracy, but the problem cannot be addressed by India alone, and any military escalation puts India back where it was in 2001-2002, facing a prepared, competent, nuclear-armed rival.
This is an intolerable situation for any Indian government, but as Kishore Mahbubani (Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore, and former Singaporea ambassador to the United Nations) said during one of our sessions, India needs to think about what kind of Pakistan it wants as a neighbour 20 years from now. So far, it is fundamentally undecided as to whether it wants to befriend Pakistan, co-opt it, see it destroyed, or ignore it.
'India is wise to pursue a diplomatic strategy'
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's repeated statement that India is keeping all options open is widely interpreted to mean that India has not ruled out war. With Pakistan moving its troops to the eastern frontier and India presumably being under domestic pressure to act firmly against Islamabad, do you see the situation deteriorating into a war in the near future?
Right now the odds are not in favour of a fourth war, or even a fifth crisis, but these things can change very quickly. In the book I recently co-authored with P R Chari and Pervaiz I Cheema, (Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia), we observed that every major India-Pakistan crisis featured one or more serious intelligence errors, one or more strategic miscalculations by either India or Pakistan or the United States, or all three.
India is wise to pursue a diplomatic strategy, and especially to talk to China, Saudi Arabia, the US and other countries, all of which have an interest in a stable and peaceful Pakistan and are concerned about terrorist movements based in that country.
India's task was somewhat easier since nationals from 22 countries were killed in Mumbai, and even the United Nations has responded. Pakistanis dismiss any approach from India out of hand, but they cannot ignore the combined weight of these and other countries and international institutions. So I don't see a war, but there is a slow-growing crisis, and I would not rule out 'war by other means' in the future, and of course, another terrorist attack could precipitate a serious conflict as happened in 2001-2002.
Senator John McCain said the other day that 'The Indians are on the verge of some kind of attack on Pakistan.' How seriously one should take such comments?
I have no idea where he got his information, but it is in India's interest to make it appear that such an attack may be imminent, precisely to get the US and other countries to put more pressure on Pakistan. This is the pattern that India followed in the Kargil and during the 2001-2002 crisis, but of course it is a tactic that Pakistan has also used in the past.
'Pakistanis will not, and cannot, respond to Indian demands'
You have recently said that 'We are in a period of touch-and-go.' Could you elaborate?
Yes, another terrorist attack and evidence that it originated in Pakistan -- or, conceivably, an incident in Pakistan that seemed to originate in India -- could tip the two countries into some kind of escalation. There is also the possibility that an intelligence mistake, or even another hoax, could lead one or the other country to move; it must also be remembered that in the earlier crisis there were examples of subordinate officers exceeding their authority and nearly triggering a larger crisis. We cite several such examples in Four Crises and a Peace Process.
I am reassured by the fact that the only people who really want escalation, and who would benefit from another India-Pakistan crisis or a war, are the radical Islamists who hate the governments now in power in Islamabad and New Delhi. All parties must resist the temptation to strike out, as only the radicals would benefit, but they must also think strategically as to how the present flammable stalemate can be transformed into a more normal relationship that would benefit both countries.
Short of war, what option does New Delhi have to get Islamabad to dismantle the terrorist structures within that country and hand over the named terrorists to India?
The situation now resembles, in many ways, the 1990 crisis, when there were weak governments in both India and Pakistan, and it was difficult for either side to back down. India's best strategy would be to get other countries to front for it. Pakistanis will not, and cannot, respond to 'Indian demands', just as India cannot and will not respond to Pakistani ones. There have to be intermediaries, but not just an American operation, and China is probably the most important country in this regard.
However, this will all mean nothing if Indians still have no serious vision about the kind of Pakistan they would like to see 20 years from now: a smouldering nuclear ruin, ten mini-States at war with each other, or a prosperous and peaceful trading power with which India can cooperate in stabilising the entire Indian Ocean region. This should be a matter of debate in India -- there is, for the first time, a genuine elected government, so how can it be strengthened against those in Pakistan who are the irreconcilables regarding India?
'Pakistan has tremendous leverage over the US and the West'
Do you think India's diplomatic efforts aimed at getting the international community to put pressure on Islamabad will work?
'Work' has to be seen in terms of years and decades, not days and weeks. India has some tremendous assets vis a vis Pakistan, notably the possibility of economic cooperation, movement on outstanding issues, and even its enormous cultural power. But Indians seem paralyzed as to Pakistan, and most either demonize it or pretend it does not exist.
In what way, if at all, can the US help resolve the crisis? If Pakistan is a US ally in the war against terror, it has to be a partner on both on its western and eastern sides, right?
My answer is "yes, but" and the "but" is very important. Pakistan has tremendous leverage over the US and the West, and even China, because while it has either tolerated or encouraged extremist groups, it has also cooperated with other states in managing them. It also controls much of the access to Afghanistan, and while there is talk now of other routes for resupplying US and NATO forces there, this will take some time to develop, and Iran is the easiest route into that country, as India has discovered.
'Pakistan has become America's biggest foreign policy problem'
Experts say the civilian government in Pakistan has little control over the military or the ISI, and that it is helpless to act against terrorists, many of whom are said to have been patronized/created by the ISI. Do you subscribe to this view?
I have no doubt whatsoever that this act was not sanctioned by any member of the Pakistan government, nor did they know about it beforehand -- but I also have no doubt that they do not control all events that take place in Pakistan. This is the 'sovereignty' issue, as Bob (Cohen's Brookings colleague Robert) Kagan has called it -- what do you do when a government is unable to exercise control over actions that take place on its territory and which affect other States?
Clearly Pakistan is culpable as a State, but there is no question that the Zardari government wants to cooperate with India and other States -- it just does not have the power to do so.
With all this in the balance, what do you see as the future of Indo-Pak relations, and what is the future of Pakistan as a nation state?
I'm tempted to say read my book -- in this case, The Idea of Pakistan, which was entirely about the prospect of a failed Pakistan and the implications for other States. As I wrote, Pakistan has not failed comprehensively, but it has failed in every sector, and the indicators are all blinking red.
If Pakistan were an obscure country this would be unfortunate, but it is on the bleeding edge of the Islamic civil war, it has nuclear weapons, and it has allowed its territory to be used to destabilise most of its neighbours.
Pakistan has become America's biggest foreign policy problem, as I predicted, but unless India is willing to think strategically and long-term, it will continue to be India's major problem as well.
Stephen P Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy and head of the South Asia Program at the prestigious Washington, DC-based think-tank, the Brookings Institution, visited India last month to attend the pan-Indian Institute of Technology 2008, the fifth annual global IIT alumni conference in Chennai.
While there, the author of books on the armies of India and Pakistan, and noted authority on the security policies of both countries, caught up with the developing situation in the wake of the 26/11 terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
Cohen spoke to rediff India Abroad's Suman Guha Mozumder:
What is your reading of the government of India's response to the 26/11 terror attacks? Will India be able to get Pakistan to cooperate in prosecuting those involved?
While I was in India I sensed anger, frustration, and a bit of fear -- the Mumbai attacks affected Indians pretty much the same way as 9/11 affected Americans. This, of course, was part of the objective of the terrorists -- to strike terror and fear.
However, the official Indian response has been suitably cautious. Despite some very bad police work, bad intelligence and also the revelation that the Indian security apparatus was not prepared for this kind of event, the government's response has been prudent.
There were unwise statements by some ministers, but we know that in crisis such as this, there will be a very high degree of misinformation and people say things that they may want to take back after the fact. The ground truth is that the Indian government understands that retaliatory escalation may make people feel good, which is not an inconsiderable factor in a democracy, but the problem cannot be addressed by India alone, and any military escalation puts India back where it was in 2001-2002, facing a prepared, competent, nuclear-armed rival.
This is an intolerable situation for any Indian government, but as Kishore Mahbubani (Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore, and former Singaporea ambassador to the United Nations) said during one of our sessions, India needs to think about what kind of Pakistan it wants as a neighbour 20 years from now. So far, it is fundamentally undecided as to whether it wants to befriend Pakistan, co-opt it, see it destroyed, or ignore it.
'India is wise to pursue a diplomatic strategy'
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's repeated statement that India is keeping all options open is widely interpreted to mean that India has not ruled out war. With Pakistan moving its troops to the eastern frontier and India presumably being under domestic pressure to act firmly against Islamabad, do you see the situation deteriorating into a war in the near future?
Right now the odds are not in favour of a fourth war, or even a fifth crisis, but these things can change very quickly. In the book I recently co-authored with P R Chari and Pervaiz I Cheema, (Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia), we observed that every major India-Pakistan crisis featured one or more serious intelligence errors, one or more strategic miscalculations by either India or Pakistan or the United States, or all three.
India is wise to pursue a diplomatic strategy, and especially to talk to China, Saudi Arabia, the US and other countries, all of which have an interest in a stable and peaceful Pakistan and are concerned about terrorist movements based in that country.
India's task was somewhat easier since nationals from 22 countries were killed in Mumbai, and even the United Nations has responded. Pakistanis dismiss any approach from India out of hand, but they cannot ignore the combined weight of these and other countries and international institutions. So I don't see a war, but there is a slow-growing crisis, and I would not rule out 'war by other means' in the future, and of course, another terrorist attack could precipitate a serious conflict as happened in 2001-2002.
Senator John McCain said the other day that 'The Indians are on the verge of some kind of attack on Pakistan.' How seriously one should take such comments?
I have no idea where he got his information, but it is in India's interest to make it appear that such an attack may be imminent, precisely to get the US and other countries to put more pressure on Pakistan. This is the pattern that India followed in the Kargil and during the 2001-2002 crisis, but of course it is a tactic that Pakistan has also used in the past.
'Pakistanis will not, and cannot, respond to Indian demands'
You have recently said that 'We are in a period of touch-and-go.' Could you elaborate?
Yes, another terrorist attack and evidence that it originated in Pakistan -- or, conceivably, an incident in Pakistan that seemed to originate in India -- could tip the two countries into some kind of escalation. There is also the possibility that an intelligence mistake, or even another hoax, could lead one or the other country to move; it must also be remembered that in the earlier crisis there were examples of subordinate officers exceeding their authority and nearly triggering a larger crisis. We cite several such examples in Four Crises and a Peace Process.
I am reassured by the fact that the only people who really want escalation, and who would benefit from another India-Pakistan crisis or a war, are the radical Islamists who hate the governments now in power in Islamabad and New Delhi. All parties must resist the temptation to strike out, as only the radicals would benefit, but they must also think strategically as to how the present flammable stalemate can be transformed into a more normal relationship that would benefit both countries.
Short of war, what option does New Delhi have to get Islamabad to dismantle the terrorist structures within that country and hand over the named terrorists to India?
The situation now resembles, in many ways, the 1990 crisis, when there were weak governments in both India and Pakistan, and it was difficult for either side to back down. India's best strategy would be to get other countries to front for it. Pakistanis will not, and cannot, respond to 'Indian demands', just as India cannot and will not respond to Pakistani ones. There have to be intermediaries, but not just an American operation, and China is probably the most important country in this regard.
However, this will all mean nothing if Indians still have no serious vision about the kind of Pakistan they would like to see 20 years from now: a smouldering nuclear ruin, ten mini-States at war with each other, or a prosperous and peaceful trading power with which India can cooperate in stabilising the entire Indian Ocean region. This should be a matter of debate in India -- there is, for the first time, a genuine elected government, so how can it be strengthened against those in Pakistan who are the irreconcilables regarding India?
'Pakistan has tremendous leverage over the US and the West'
Do you think India's diplomatic efforts aimed at getting the international community to put pressure on Islamabad will work?
'Work' has to be seen in terms of years and decades, not days and weeks. India has some tremendous assets vis a vis Pakistan, notably the possibility of economic cooperation, movement on outstanding issues, and even its enormous cultural power. But Indians seem paralyzed as to Pakistan, and most either demonize it or pretend it does not exist.
In what way, if at all, can the US help resolve the crisis? If Pakistan is a US ally in the war against terror, it has to be a partner on both on its western and eastern sides, right?
My answer is "yes, but" and the "but" is very important. Pakistan has tremendous leverage over the US and the West, and even China, because while it has either tolerated or encouraged extremist groups, it has also cooperated with other states in managing them. It also controls much of the access to Afghanistan, and while there is talk now of other routes for resupplying US and NATO forces there, this will take some time to develop, and Iran is the easiest route into that country, as India has discovered.
'Pakistan has become America's biggest foreign policy problem'
Experts say the civilian government in Pakistan has little control over the military or the ISI, and that it is helpless to act against terrorists, many of whom are said to have been patronized/created by the ISI. Do you subscribe to this view?
I have no doubt whatsoever that this act was not sanctioned by any member of the Pakistan government, nor did they know about it beforehand -- but I also have no doubt that they do not control all events that take place in Pakistan. This is the 'sovereignty' issue, as Bob (Cohen's Brookings colleague Robert) Kagan has called it -- what do you do when a government is unable to exercise control over actions that take place on its territory and which affect other States?
Clearly Pakistan is culpable as a State, but there is no question that the Zardari government wants to cooperate with India and other States -- it just does not have the power to do so.
With all this in the balance, what do you see as the future of Indo-Pak relations, and what is the future of Pakistan as a nation state?
I'm tempted to say read my book -- in this case, The Idea of Pakistan, which was entirely about the prospect of a failed Pakistan and the implications for other States. As I wrote, Pakistan has not failed comprehensively, but it has failed in every sector, and the indicators are all blinking red.
If Pakistan were an obscure country this would be unfortunate, but it is on the bleeding edge of the Islamic civil war, it has nuclear weapons, and it has allowed its territory to be used to destabilise most of its neighbours.
Pakistan has become America's biggest foreign policy problem, as I predicted, but unless India is willing to think strategically and long-term, it will continue to be India's major problem as well.
'The so-called surgical strikes are not easy' - Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi
January 12, 2009
"We see Pakistan as an irresponsible country. It was not advisable to resort to any kind of military retaliation after the attacks on Mumbai [Images]. India is a responsible country and we take care of our people's lives more than anything else," says a senior advisor who is an integral part of the policy-making machinery in the Government of India.
He was responding to rediff.com's question about the government's thinking immediately after the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
He said, "As the events unfolded in Mumbai we were very unhappy. It was unfortunate. Initially we were told that it could be gang war but soon we came to know that it's a terrorist attack. Within two-three hours we came to know about the Pakistani connection because some of the terrorists were talking on their cellphones to Pakistan."
As the attack in Mumbai went on for 60 hours New Delhi [Images] had as many hours to decide its response. Asked about the government's initial reaction the source, who did not want to be named, said, "We had an option of a "selected" target to respond against the attack in Mumbai but Pakistan could select at random in retaliation to out strikes. Their missile strikes could hit a densely populated area. We had to make a judgement of the collateral damage of the surgical strike and decide if it is worth it. We are not talking of a full-fledged war here. That could have been another matter."
He reminded one of the fact that the terrorist attack on CST in Mumbai had many more casualties since it was crowded, and said population density was a very important factor with the government.
He said as Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] had already stated, any further attacks will not be taken lightly by India. "War was not an option now, but any further event will be costly for Pakistan."
The source went on to explain that the "cost" of any kind of surgical strike cannot be bigger than the damage we intend to inflict on the enemy. He said, "When you go to war you should be 100 per cent sure of victory. If something unexpected happens then people will not forgive you. If things go out of hand the same critics (who are asking for surgical strikes against Pakistan) would ask why you went in for the strikes."
He said, "If, for some reason, the military reaction was not successful, then it would have been a greater humiliation than Mumbai. These so-called surgical strikes are not easy."
He also said diplomatically speaking, the surgical strikes could have possibly blurred the Mumbai attacks into the background and the issue of military action by India would have come up in sharp international focus. By employing the current strategy, the Mumbai attack has remained in focus.
He dismisses any comparison to Israel's action with India's action or lack of action against terrorism. He said, "The Palestine people are being attacked by Israel but the Palestine people don't even have proper pistols. They have nothing but their people to offer! Pakistan has a proper army. We care for our people's lives. There are many options to win the game. War is not the only option."
However, without elaborating further, he said after the Mumbai attacks India has conducted reasonably good -- but not "excellent" -- diplomacy. He conceded that Pakistan has been able to differentiate between terrorism and war. Pakistan's idea behind its current diplomacy is to bring in a third party, some credible interlocutor, to settle the issues between the two countries. But, the senior source in government cynically dismissed the idea of any interlocutor on the issue of Kashmir. He said with confidence that India is not bothered about such issues and can manage it.
The source, while continuing the conversations about the diplomatic and other options before New Delhi, said the PMO must have some gameplan to manage the diplomatic response to the Mumbai attacks but that he is not privy to it.
He said, "Pakistan is rattled to hear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [Images] remarks. Dr Singh, who weighs his words carefully, for the first time said that "official agencies" of Pakistan are behind the Mumbai attacks."
While inaugurating the CMs' conference on January 6 Dr Singh had said, "During the past year, we faced a severe challenge from terrorist groups operating from outside our country. Many of them act in association with hostile intelligence agencies in these countries. The attempt has been to exploit our vulnerabilities, and at times they do succeed as is evident from the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Our problems are compounded by the fact that we have a highly unpredictable and uncertain security environment in our immediate neighbourhood. The governments in some of our neighbouring countries are very fragile in nature. The more fragile a government, the more it tends to act in an irresponsible fashion. Pakistan's response to our various demarches on terrorist attacks is an obvious example."
The senior officer told rediff.com, "We have no doubt that the Pakistan army [Images] is in control of important issues as they have always been. There is a tussle going on between President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and the latter seems to be weaker because, technically speaking, the PM doesn't have as much power as the president."
The issue of the sacking of NSA Mahmud Ali Durrani was Gilani's attempt to assert himself but, Durrani had already lost his weight before he was sacked. He was no longer a key player when he was sacked.
Interestingly, the source said, Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar seems to be a threat to Gilani. "In the coming 3-4 months a major tussle may be witnessed in the civil government but the army's grip on important issues will remain firm. The Pakistan army calls the shot," he added firmly.
He further elaborated that in Pakistan the issues of Afghanistan, nuclear arsenals, Kashmir, India (separate since the last few years from Kashmir) and arms purchases have always been exclusively with the army, and that India doesn't see a change in that policy. The current tensions in Islamabad [Images] have some similarities between the 1971 and 1989 political situation when the Pakistan army had turned quite unpopular. They retreated from the scene when their image was bad, only to come back. The Mumbai attacks are seen in New Delhi as the Pakistan army's attempt to "unite the public" behind a so-called national crisis so that the army can resurrect its "usefulness" for the nation.
A senior officer also discussed America and the talk of pressures on India to maintain restraint in in its response to the Mumbai attacks. He says, "India understands well that nobody would fight your battle. You have to fight your own battle."
He said, "I can tell you that nobody has told India to maintain restraint. You can go through the statements of dignitaries who have visited New Delhi."
He said Operation Parakram, held during the NDA regime in response to the attack on Parliament, didn't serve the purpose except that India could hold assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir [Images] in 2002.
He said, "You can't move the army to the border and ask them to play basketball to keep fit." He thought this could be very demoralising. He said India is quite aware of the US designs in the region.
"America's focus is on the nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda [Images], Afghanistan and, third, they are scared of Pakistan. India also can't be comfortable with such a disturbed neighbourhood. In some respects, seen from the US presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan is also a neighbour for America."
When asked if General Pervez Kiyani is amenable to the American agenda for the region, a source with deep understanding of Pakistan said, "I understand that the Pakistan army is not in tune with the US on Afghanistan. At the same time, Americans will make noises but will not be able to cut substantially the economic aid to Pakistan."
Talking about American President-elect Barack Obama [Images], the source said, "India is not worried about Kashmir. What we think is that on CTBT, FMCT, WTO and on climate change, many times greater pressure would come. We expect Obama to be on the fast track on these issues. Obama's Iran policy would change only on paper. Terms like 'Axis of Evil' will go away but the pressures from Jewish and other lobbies will remain."
"We see Pakistan as an irresponsible country. It was not advisable to resort to any kind of military retaliation after the attacks on Mumbai [Images]. India is a responsible country and we take care of our people's lives more than anything else," says a senior advisor who is an integral part of the policy-making machinery in the Government of India.
He was responding to rediff.com's question about the government's thinking immediately after the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
He said, "As the events unfolded in Mumbai we were very unhappy. It was unfortunate. Initially we were told that it could be gang war but soon we came to know that it's a terrorist attack. Within two-three hours we came to know about the Pakistani connection because some of the terrorists were talking on their cellphones to Pakistan."
As the attack in Mumbai went on for 60 hours New Delhi [Images] had as many hours to decide its response. Asked about the government's initial reaction the source, who did not want to be named, said, "We had an option of a "selected" target to respond against the attack in Mumbai but Pakistan could select at random in retaliation to out strikes. Their missile strikes could hit a densely populated area. We had to make a judgement of the collateral damage of the surgical strike and decide if it is worth it. We are not talking of a full-fledged war here. That could have been another matter."
He reminded one of the fact that the terrorist attack on CST in Mumbai had many more casualties since it was crowded, and said population density was a very important factor with the government.
He said as Home Minister P Chidambaram [Images] had already stated, any further attacks will not be taken lightly by India. "War was not an option now, but any further event will be costly for Pakistan."
The source went on to explain that the "cost" of any kind of surgical strike cannot be bigger than the damage we intend to inflict on the enemy. He said, "When you go to war you should be 100 per cent sure of victory. If something unexpected happens then people will not forgive you. If things go out of hand the same critics (who are asking for surgical strikes against Pakistan) would ask why you went in for the strikes."
He said, "If, for some reason, the military reaction was not successful, then it would have been a greater humiliation than Mumbai. These so-called surgical strikes are not easy."
He also said diplomatically speaking, the surgical strikes could have possibly blurred the Mumbai attacks into the background and the issue of military action by India would have come up in sharp international focus. By employing the current strategy, the Mumbai attack has remained in focus.
He dismisses any comparison to Israel's action with India's action or lack of action against terrorism. He said, "The Palestine people are being attacked by Israel but the Palestine people don't even have proper pistols. They have nothing but their people to offer! Pakistan has a proper army. We care for our people's lives. There are many options to win the game. War is not the only option."
However, without elaborating further, he said after the Mumbai attacks India has conducted reasonably good -- but not "excellent" -- diplomacy. He conceded that Pakistan has been able to differentiate between terrorism and war. Pakistan's idea behind its current diplomacy is to bring in a third party, some credible interlocutor, to settle the issues between the two countries. But, the senior source in government cynically dismissed the idea of any interlocutor on the issue of Kashmir. He said with confidence that India is not bothered about such issues and can manage it.
The source, while continuing the conversations about the diplomatic and other options before New Delhi, said the PMO must have some gameplan to manage the diplomatic response to the Mumbai attacks but that he is not privy to it.
He said, "Pakistan is rattled to hear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [Images] remarks. Dr Singh, who weighs his words carefully, for the first time said that "official agencies" of Pakistan are behind the Mumbai attacks."
While inaugurating the CMs' conference on January 6 Dr Singh had said, "During the past year, we faced a severe challenge from terrorist groups operating from outside our country. Many of them act in association with hostile intelligence agencies in these countries. The attempt has been to exploit our vulnerabilities, and at times they do succeed as is evident from the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Our problems are compounded by the fact that we have a highly unpredictable and uncertain security environment in our immediate neighbourhood. The governments in some of our neighbouring countries are very fragile in nature. The more fragile a government, the more it tends to act in an irresponsible fashion. Pakistan's response to our various demarches on terrorist attacks is an obvious example."
The senior officer told rediff.com, "We have no doubt that the Pakistan army [Images] is in control of important issues as they have always been. There is a tussle going on between President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and the latter seems to be weaker because, technically speaking, the PM doesn't have as much power as the president."
The issue of the sacking of NSA Mahmud Ali Durrani was Gilani's attempt to assert himself but, Durrani had already lost his weight before he was sacked. He was no longer a key player when he was sacked.
Interestingly, the source said, Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar seems to be a threat to Gilani. "In the coming 3-4 months a major tussle may be witnessed in the civil government but the army's grip on important issues will remain firm. The Pakistan army calls the shot," he added firmly.
He further elaborated that in Pakistan the issues of Afghanistan, nuclear arsenals, Kashmir, India (separate since the last few years from Kashmir) and arms purchases have always been exclusively with the army, and that India doesn't see a change in that policy. The current tensions in Islamabad [Images] have some similarities between the 1971 and 1989 political situation when the Pakistan army had turned quite unpopular. They retreated from the scene when their image was bad, only to come back. The Mumbai attacks are seen in New Delhi as the Pakistan army's attempt to "unite the public" behind a so-called national crisis so that the army can resurrect its "usefulness" for the nation.
A senior officer also discussed America and the talk of pressures on India to maintain restraint in in its response to the Mumbai attacks. He says, "India understands well that nobody would fight your battle. You have to fight your own battle."
He said, "I can tell you that nobody has told India to maintain restraint. You can go through the statements of dignitaries who have visited New Delhi."
He said Operation Parakram, held during the NDA regime in response to the attack on Parliament, didn't serve the purpose except that India could hold assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir [Images] in 2002.
He said, "You can't move the army to the border and ask them to play basketball to keep fit." He thought this could be very demoralising. He said India is quite aware of the US designs in the region.
"America's focus is on the nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda [Images], Afghanistan and, third, they are scared of Pakistan. India also can't be comfortable with such a disturbed neighbourhood. In some respects, seen from the US presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan is also a neighbour for America."
When asked if General Pervez Kiyani is amenable to the American agenda for the region, a source with deep understanding of Pakistan said, "I understand that the Pakistan army is not in tune with the US on Afghanistan. At the same time, Americans will make noises but will not be able to cut substantially the economic aid to Pakistan."
Talking about American President-elect Barack Obama [Images], the source said, "India is not worried about Kashmir. What we think is that on CTBT, FMCT, WTO and on climate change, many times greater pressure would come. We expect Obama to be on the fast track on these issues. Obama's Iran policy would change only on paper. Terms like 'Axis of Evil' will go away but the pressures from Jewish and other lobbies will remain."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Congress may be repeating BJP's error of 2003 - T V R Shenoy
January 06, 2009
The year 2008 has withered away. Shall the Congress party follow suit?
The year has ended with two sets of elections, full-fledged assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir [Images] and a set of eight by-elections in Karnataka. Neither should give the Congress any cheer.
This may seem a harsh judgment, particularly so in Jammu & Kashmir where the Congress has returned to power as part of a coalition. The minor difference is that the Congress is now in bed with the Abdullah clan's National Conference rather than the Muftis' fiefdom of the People's Democratic Party.
The major difference is that the Congress has three fewer seats and is down by about 6 per cent in terms of actual vote-share. (Its current partner, the National Conference, lost almost 8 per cent in terms of votes but retained its old strength of 28 seats.)
The truth is that the only parties to have gained from the Jammu & Kashmir assembly election are the BJP and the People's Democratic Party, the former increasing its tally by 10 seats and the latter by as many as five. Between them, these two now have 32 MLAs in the assembly, a significant figure in a House with a total strength of just 87. In other words, the stage is all set for trouble in Jammu & Kashmir.
The People's Democratic Party used 'soft secessionism' as its plank during the polls. This has been the bane of the state, the theory that Jammu & Kashmir is somehow different from the rest of India, something that was at the root of Jawaharlal Nehru's Kashmir policy. Yet at no point did either Pandit Nehru [Images] or any of his camp ever condescend to explain how and why the state is 'unique.'
Truth be told, I would agree to an extent -- but only because every Indian state is unique. Kerala [Images] is not Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is unlike Andhra Pradesh even if plenty of North Indians club them all together as 'Madrasis.' But when was the last time that you heard any serious politicians from these states speculate about 'autonomy,' or 'separate currency,' or even a 'separate Constitution for our state?'
This is exactly the level of discussion fostered by sixty years of Nehruvian policy, where it is acceptable -- even fashionable -- in Kashmir to speak of 'Kashmiris' and 'Indians' as distinct people.
The truth is that Jammu & Kashmir is 'unique' only in having a Muslim majority, a fact that you are not supposed to mention in 'secular' circles. If anything, I believe the secessionist leaders are more honest than the 'secular' hypocrites elsewhere.
Here is what Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of the Hurriyat Conference, said back in August 2008. His aim, he said, was 'to impose an Islamic nizam in Kashmir. Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought, socioeconomic plans, culture, or the ongoing movement.'
He helpfully added that 'the creed of socialism and secularism should not touch our lives.' And for good measure, 'The question of imposing an Islamic rule is different. Why do people object to it? If America and India can have democratic rule, others can have Communism, why object to Islamic rule?'
Appalling to say, almost everyone in the media ignored this vile rubbish, choosing to berate the people of Jammu instead during the Amarnath controversy. Syed Ali Shah Geelani actually openly admitted in the same interview that the 'transfer of land is not the core issue for us;' the secularists in Delhi [Images] could not bring themselves to be equally honest.
In a nutshell, the roots of secessionism do not lie in some imaginary 'Kashmiriyat', this is the same uncompromising philosophy espoused by the Muslim League before 1947. And if anyone is asinine enough to believe that a National Conference-Congress coalition can douse these fires, well, think again.
The National Conference came to power in Jammu & Kashmir in 1987 and then again in 1996. Both occasions only served to strengthen the secessionist forces, and that could happen again if history is a guide.
The People's Democratic Party was prepared to float ideas like 'dual currency' to attract votes. The party may not have won power but you cannot ignore the fact that it increased its tally of seats and votes alike, cutting the ground under the National Conference in its former strongholds in southern Kashmir. Out of power, the People's Democratic Party will feel ever bolder in raising such demands.
The difference between the situation today and those of 1987 and 2002 is that the people of Jammu are now almost as upset as those in Kashmir. Anger at the Congress's perceived pampering of Kashmiri secessionism led to voters turning to the sole alternative, the BJP, in Jammu. That could happen elsewhere too.
If the politics of Kashmir are the most hospitable to secessionist elements, Karnataka probably takes the prize for being the most nationalistic. All five of its neighbouring states -- Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Goa [Images] -- are home to strong regional parties; Karnataka has practically none. The Janata Dal (Secular) may now be confined to Karnataka alone for all practical purposes but it still boasts a pan-Indian history and is led by a former prime minister of India, H D Deve Gowda.
So it should give the Congress some pause for thought when the party lost all the eight by-elections in Karnataka, five seats falling to the BJP and three to the Janata Dal (Secular). This, please remember, was the state where Indira Gandhi [Images] once found refuge after she lost power in 1977, and from where the likes of C M Stephen and Sonia Gandhi [Images] herself were once elected though neither was a Kannadiga.
Amazingly, the Congress has succeeded in alienating almost every major voting group in the state. The largest group, the Lingayats, were rather insulted when the entire weight of the Mumbai [Images] tragedy was placed on the shoulders of former Union home minister Shivraj Patil [Images], whom they consider one of their own. The Vokkaligas, the second largest group, were offended by the Congress high command's demeaning treatment to their senior leader, the former chief minister S M Krishna. And the former Congress deputy chief minister Siddaramaiah, of the third largest group, the Kurubas, did not even bother to campaign during the by-elections.
The Congress used to revel in its electoral management in the old days. It takes a special kind of ability to offend all of the three numerically most significant groups in Karnataka -- and simultaneously fall afoul of voters both in the Kashmir valley and in Jammu.
Five years ago, in December 2003, the BJP was cock-a-hoop after its electoral sweep in Madhya Pradesh [Images], Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan. At that point I wrote: 'I suspect that rejoicing over the results in the larger states shall mean a loss of introspection in the Bharatiya Janata Party over the loss in Delhi. And this could be a mistake.' (I got a lot of angry responses!)
Five years later, the Congress may be repeating the BJP error of 2003 -- allowing successes in Delhi, Rajasthan, and (to an extent) Jammu & Kashmir to blind it to a larger national alienation as seen in Karnataka.
T V R Shenoy
The year 2008 has withered away. Shall the Congress party follow suit?
The year has ended with two sets of elections, full-fledged assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir [Images] and a set of eight by-elections in Karnataka. Neither should give the Congress any cheer.
This may seem a harsh judgment, particularly so in Jammu & Kashmir where the Congress has returned to power as part of a coalition. The minor difference is that the Congress is now in bed with the Abdullah clan's National Conference rather than the Muftis' fiefdom of the People's Democratic Party.
The major difference is that the Congress has three fewer seats and is down by about 6 per cent in terms of actual vote-share. (Its current partner, the National Conference, lost almost 8 per cent in terms of votes but retained its old strength of 28 seats.)
The truth is that the only parties to have gained from the Jammu & Kashmir assembly election are the BJP and the People's Democratic Party, the former increasing its tally by 10 seats and the latter by as many as five. Between them, these two now have 32 MLAs in the assembly, a significant figure in a House with a total strength of just 87. In other words, the stage is all set for trouble in Jammu & Kashmir.
The People's Democratic Party used 'soft secessionism' as its plank during the polls. This has been the bane of the state, the theory that Jammu & Kashmir is somehow different from the rest of India, something that was at the root of Jawaharlal Nehru's Kashmir policy. Yet at no point did either Pandit Nehru [Images] or any of his camp ever condescend to explain how and why the state is 'unique.'
Truth be told, I would agree to an extent -- but only because every Indian state is unique. Kerala [Images] is not Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is unlike Andhra Pradesh even if plenty of North Indians club them all together as 'Madrasis.' But when was the last time that you heard any serious politicians from these states speculate about 'autonomy,' or 'separate currency,' or even a 'separate Constitution for our state?'
This is exactly the level of discussion fostered by sixty years of Nehruvian policy, where it is acceptable -- even fashionable -- in Kashmir to speak of 'Kashmiris' and 'Indians' as distinct people.
The truth is that Jammu & Kashmir is 'unique' only in having a Muslim majority, a fact that you are not supposed to mention in 'secular' circles. If anything, I believe the secessionist leaders are more honest than the 'secular' hypocrites elsewhere.
Here is what Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of the Hurriyat Conference, said back in August 2008. His aim, he said, was 'to impose an Islamic nizam in Kashmir. Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought, socioeconomic plans, culture, or the ongoing movement.'
He helpfully added that 'the creed of socialism and secularism should not touch our lives.' And for good measure, 'The question of imposing an Islamic rule is different. Why do people object to it? If America and India can have democratic rule, others can have Communism, why object to Islamic rule?'
Appalling to say, almost everyone in the media ignored this vile rubbish, choosing to berate the people of Jammu instead during the Amarnath controversy. Syed Ali Shah Geelani actually openly admitted in the same interview that the 'transfer of land is not the core issue for us;' the secularists in Delhi [Images] could not bring themselves to be equally honest.
In a nutshell, the roots of secessionism do not lie in some imaginary 'Kashmiriyat', this is the same uncompromising philosophy espoused by the Muslim League before 1947. And if anyone is asinine enough to believe that a National Conference-Congress coalition can douse these fires, well, think again.
The National Conference came to power in Jammu & Kashmir in 1987 and then again in 1996. Both occasions only served to strengthen the secessionist forces, and that could happen again if history is a guide.
The People's Democratic Party was prepared to float ideas like 'dual currency' to attract votes. The party may not have won power but you cannot ignore the fact that it increased its tally of seats and votes alike, cutting the ground under the National Conference in its former strongholds in southern Kashmir. Out of power, the People's Democratic Party will feel ever bolder in raising such demands.
The difference between the situation today and those of 1987 and 2002 is that the people of Jammu are now almost as upset as those in Kashmir. Anger at the Congress's perceived pampering of Kashmiri secessionism led to voters turning to the sole alternative, the BJP, in Jammu. That could happen elsewhere too.
If the politics of Kashmir are the most hospitable to secessionist elements, Karnataka probably takes the prize for being the most nationalistic. All five of its neighbouring states -- Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Goa [Images] -- are home to strong regional parties; Karnataka has practically none. The Janata Dal (Secular) may now be confined to Karnataka alone for all practical purposes but it still boasts a pan-Indian history and is led by a former prime minister of India, H D Deve Gowda.
So it should give the Congress some pause for thought when the party lost all the eight by-elections in Karnataka, five seats falling to the BJP and three to the Janata Dal (Secular). This, please remember, was the state where Indira Gandhi [Images] once found refuge after she lost power in 1977, and from where the likes of C M Stephen and Sonia Gandhi [Images] herself were once elected though neither was a Kannadiga.
Amazingly, the Congress has succeeded in alienating almost every major voting group in the state. The largest group, the Lingayats, were rather insulted when the entire weight of the Mumbai [Images] tragedy was placed on the shoulders of former Union home minister Shivraj Patil [Images], whom they consider one of their own. The Vokkaligas, the second largest group, were offended by the Congress high command's demeaning treatment to their senior leader, the former chief minister S M Krishna. And the former Congress deputy chief minister Siddaramaiah, of the third largest group, the Kurubas, did not even bother to campaign during the by-elections.
The Congress used to revel in its electoral management in the old days. It takes a special kind of ability to offend all of the three numerically most significant groups in Karnataka -- and simultaneously fall afoul of voters both in the Kashmir valley and in Jammu.
Five years ago, in December 2003, the BJP was cock-a-hoop after its electoral sweep in Madhya Pradesh [Images], Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan. At that point I wrote: 'I suspect that rejoicing over the results in the larger states shall mean a loss of introspection in the Bharatiya Janata Party over the loss in Delhi. And this could be a mistake.' (I got a lot of angry responses!)
Five years later, the Congress may be repeating the BJP error of 2003 -- allowing successes in Delhi, Rajasthan, and (to an extent) Jammu & Kashmir to blind it to a larger national alienation as seen in Karnataka.
T V R Shenoy
Mumbai attackers have links in Pakistan, says Boucher - Lalit K Jha in Washington
January 07, 2009 09:46 IST
Last Updated: January 07, 2009 10:42 IST
Supporting India's views on involvement of Pakistan-based terror outfits in Mumbai attacks, the US has said those involved in the strikes have links in Islamabad [Images].
US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, has said those involved in the
Mumbai terror attacks have links in Pakistan. "I would say it's clear that they had links in Pakistan, that the attackers had links that lead to Pakistani soil," Boucher said in Islamabad on Monday, according to transcripts released by State Department in Washington on Tuesday.
"And as far as exactly what those links were and who they were attached to and how they did this, I think that's a
matter that's still under investigation," Boucher told reporters in response to a question.
Boucher, who talked with the Pakistani leadership on this issue at length, reiterated that whoever was involved in this, needs to be held responsible. "But I also wouldn't jump to any particular conclusions," he said.
"It's important that anybody who was involved in this, in the planning and execution of this act, be brought to justice
and held accountable. I think leaders in Pakistan are determined to do that. They're determined to pursue the investigation. And we'll have to watch as it unfolds to see where it leads," he said.
When asked about the evidence given by India to Pakistan on the Mumbai attacks, Boucher refrained from passing any judgment at this stage as the investigations were still on.
"I think we're at the stage where people need to share information, follow up leads, and determine everything they
can about what happened," Boucher said.
When asked about Pakistan's role in the investigation related to the Mumbai attacks in which several US nationals were
killed, Boucher said: "I think there's a determination here to follow up, find those who are responsible, make sure that we know all we can about how they did it, and even better than that, making sure that they can't ever do it again."
Referring to his meetings with the Pakistani leadership, Boucher said: "We talked about how to ensure that, particularly how to ensure the flow of information back and forth so that the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Indian side can be known to the rest of us that are interested, and the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Pakistani side can be known to the Indians who want to get to the bottom of this."
Boucher said the US has tried to encourage sharing of information so that everybody who is determined to stop this
kind of attack can conduct their investigations and pursue all possible leads. "So we understand who did it, what happened, how they did it, and how to stop it," he observed.
In terms of taking action against the groups in Pakistan that were involved in this, Boucher said: "I think Pakistan
has done quite a bit. I think India's investigation is advancing. So I think more and more information is being known, so let's try to see what we can do in terms of sharing and following up each other's information."
Last Updated: January 07, 2009 10:42 IST
Supporting India's views on involvement of Pakistan-based terror outfits in Mumbai attacks, the US has said those involved in the strikes have links in Islamabad [Images].
US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, has said those involved in the
Mumbai terror attacks have links in Pakistan. "I would say it's clear that they had links in Pakistan, that the attackers had links that lead to Pakistani soil," Boucher said in Islamabad on Monday, according to transcripts released by State Department in Washington on Tuesday.
"And as far as exactly what those links were and who they were attached to and how they did this, I think that's a
matter that's still under investigation," Boucher told reporters in response to a question.
Boucher, who talked with the Pakistani leadership on this issue at length, reiterated that whoever was involved in this, needs to be held responsible. "But I also wouldn't jump to any particular conclusions," he said.
"It's important that anybody who was involved in this, in the planning and execution of this act, be brought to justice
and held accountable. I think leaders in Pakistan are determined to do that. They're determined to pursue the investigation. And we'll have to watch as it unfolds to see where it leads," he said.
When asked about the evidence given by India to Pakistan on the Mumbai attacks, Boucher refrained from passing any judgment at this stage as the investigations were still on.
"I think we're at the stage where people need to share information, follow up leads, and determine everything they
can about what happened," Boucher said.
When asked about Pakistan's role in the investigation related to the Mumbai attacks in which several US nationals were
killed, Boucher said: "I think there's a determination here to follow up, find those who are responsible, make sure that we know all we can about how they did it, and even better than that, making sure that they can't ever do it again."
Referring to his meetings with the Pakistani leadership, Boucher said: "We talked about how to ensure that, particularly how to ensure the flow of information back and forth so that the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Indian side can be known to the rest of us that are interested, and the pieces of the puzzle that are on the Pakistani side can be known to the Indians who want to get to the bottom of this."
Boucher said the US has tried to encourage sharing of information so that everybody who is determined to stop this
kind of attack can conduct their investigations and pursue all possible leads. "So we understand who did it, what happened, how they did it, and how to stop it," he observed.
In terms of taking action against the groups in Pakistan that were involved in this, Boucher said: "I think Pakistan
has done quite a bit. I think India's investigation is advancing. So I think more and more information is being known, so let's try to see what we can do in terms of sharing and following up each other's information."
Saturday, January 3, 2009
India shall go to any extent to root out terror: PM
January 03, 2009 13:22 IST
Last Updated: January 03, 2009 13:51 IST
Asserting that government will never compromise with those using gun, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] on Saturday said the government will go to any extent to root out terrorism from the country but was open to hold dialogue with those lying down arms.
"The growing menace of terrorism and naxalism is a cause of worry. The government will not compromise with terrorism," Dr Singh told media persons in Shillong.
"There were some initial setbacks, but we will overcome them. The government will go to any extent to root out terrorism from the country," the prime minister said, referring to the terrorist strikes in Mumbai [Images], Delhi [Images] and Assam.
Notwithstanding Islamabad's [Images] rejection of extraditing anyone to India, the prime minister asked Pakistan to hand over 'criminals' responsible for these strikes to face trial here.
He also hoped that the new government in Bangladesh would not allow its territory to be used for terrorist acts against India especially in the North East.
Dr Singh hoped that 'some sense' would prevail on the leadership of Pakistan and it recognises that those behind the 'horrible acts' in Mumbai have to be brought to justice.
"It (Pakistan) has to take action on the demand from all civilised countries that the perpetrators (of Mumbai attacks) will be brought to book. We hope that these criminals will be handed over to us to face trial," he said.
Asked whether the Centre was open to talks with the banned ULFA, he said, "All insurgent groups must recognise that their only course open to them is to lay down arms. We will never compromise with those who believe in use of gun to get solution to their real or imaginary problems."
He said insurgents and terrorists must recognise that gun is no solution to get their demands met.
"Once they lay down arms as Indian citizens, we are willing to talk to anybody," he said.
Last Updated: January 03, 2009 13:51 IST
Asserting that government will never compromise with those using gun, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] on Saturday said the government will go to any extent to root out terrorism from the country but was open to hold dialogue with those lying down arms.
"The growing menace of terrorism and naxalism is a cause of worry. The government will not compromise with terrorism," Dr Singh told media persons in Shillong.
"There were some initial setbacks, but we will overcome them. The government will go to any extent to root out terrorism from the country," the prime minister said, referring to the terrorist strikes in Mumbai [Images], Delhi [Images] and Assam.
Notwithstanding Islamabad's [Images] rejection of extraditing anyone to India, the prime minister asked Pakistan to hand over 'criminals' responsible for these strikes to face trial here.
He also hoped that the new government in Bangladesh would not allow its territory to be used for terrorist acts against India especially in the North East.
Dr Singh hoped that 'some sense' would prevail on the leadership of Pakistan and it recognises that those behind the 'horrible acts' in Mumbai have to be brought to justice.
"It (Pakistan) has to take action on the demand from all civilised countries that the perpetrators (of Mumbai attacks) will be brought to book. We hope that these criminals will be handed over to us to face trial," he said.
Asked whether the Centre was open to talks with the banned ULFA, he said, "All insurgent groups must recognise that their only course open to them is to lay down arms. We will never compromise with those who believe in use of gun to get solution to their real or imaginary problems."
He said insurgents and terrorists must recognise that gun is no solution to get their demands met.
"Once they lay down arms as Indian citizens, we are willing to talk to anybody," he said.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Pak refuses to extradite terror suspects to India
January 02, 2009 12:48 IST
Rejecting India's demand to extradite the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks [Images] to the country, Pakistan has said such a move will be 'harmful' for it as there was no extradition treaty between the two neighbours.
'There is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan. We are keen on rebuilding our internal institutions. So if we engage in these issues, it will be harmful for Pakistan,' Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told Geo TV.
Asked whether India and America have made demands for handing over terror suspects -- Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images] operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azar and Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, Qureshi said Pakistan had conducted its own 'independent investigations' into the charges of Pakistani elements involved in the Mumbai terror strikes and that it will do everything in the interests of India and Pakistan.
Asked about the Wall Street Journal report, which quoted Pakistani government sources saying that a LeT commander had confessed that all terrorists who attacked Mumbai were Pakistanis, Qureshi said: 'I think I don't believe that government sources are involved here.'
Stating that terrorism was a common enemy, the Minister said Pakistan and India should defeat it together.
'Terrorism is our common enemy. We have to defeat it together. Pakistan is always ready for constructive cooperation,' Qureshi said.
Rejecting India's demand to extradite the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks [Images] to the country, Pakistan has said such a move will be 'harmful' for it as there was no extradition treaty between the two neighbours.
'There is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan. We are keen on rebuilding our internal institutions. So if we engage in these issues, it will be harmful for Pakistan,' Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told Geo TV.
Asked whether India and America have made demands for handing over terror suspects -- Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images] operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azar and Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, Qureshi said Pakistan had conducted its own 'independent investigations' into the charges of Pakistani elements involved in the Mumbai terror strikes and that it will do everything in the interests of India and Pakistan.
Asked about the Wall Street Journal report, which quoted Pakistani government sources saying that a LeT commander had confessed that all terrorists who attacked Mumbai were Pakistanis, Qureshi said: 'I think I don't believe that government sources are involved here.'
Stating that terrorism was a common enemy, the Minister said Pakistan and India should defeat it together.
'Terrorism is our common enemy. We have to defeat it together. Pakistan is always ready for constructive cooperation,' Qureshi said.
26/11 points to military-style training: Admiral - Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC
January 02, 2009 12:30 IST
Retired Vice Admiral P S Das said the methodology of 26/11 clearly indicated that the terrorists had received months of professional training, most likely from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence.
Das, who retired as Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, disagreed with those who put the blame entirely on the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images]. 'They are the face of what has happened, but this operation would not have been possible unless people had been trained militarily by military instructors, whether in service or retired, over a long period of time,' he told a seminar hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC, recently.
'If I were to be asked as a commander in the navy, please send 10 fellows in a dingy 10 miles away with this kind of equipment, I would have said my sailors cannot do it, I require Marine Commandos. And I think the US naval commander will say the same thing -- that his sailors cannot do this, it requires SEALs. So if anyone thinks the terrorists were picked up from a madarssa someplace and trained by a terrorist group, they are living in a world of a different kind.'
Das said 26/11 was far more complex than other high profile terrorist attacks, like the September attack on the Islamabad [Images] Mariott, or the December 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole by Al Qaeda [Images] elements.
'What happened with the USS Cole? One little boat went and rammed into the destroyer, tearing apart a big hole. Whenever a ship comes into harbour, there are a dozen boats that come alongside. Why? Because every ship wants to spruce up; they want the bottom and sides of the ship painted, and that is the kind of thing sailors don't like to do. So these little boats come, and in exchange for a can of diesel or for a bagful of bread or whatever, they do this job.'
'Until the USS Cole was hit, this was standard practice of every ship. And one of these boats went and hit the USS Cole in a suicide attack. It was not a planned military operation. But this attack was a planned military operation; it has been planned, and the people were trained for it, by a military institution -- whether it is the ISI or part of the military is difficult to say.'
'If we recognise this, and recognize that the ISI is the principal organization, we would be on track.'
Retired Vice Admiral P S Das said the methodology of 26/11 clearly indicated that the terrorists had received months of professional training, most likely from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence.
Das, who retired as Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, disagreed with those who put the blame entirely on the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images]. 'They are the face of what has happened, but this operation would not have been possible unless people had been trained militarily by military instructors, whether in service or retired, over a long period of time,' he told a seminar hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC, recently.
'If I were to be asked as a commander in the navy, please send 10 fellows in a dingy 10 miles away with this kind of equipment, I would have said my sailors cannot do it, I require Marine Commandos. And I think the US naval commander will say the same thing -- that his sailors cannot do this, it requires SEALs. So if anyone thinks the terrorists were picked up from a madarssa someplace and trained by a terrorist group, they are living in a world of a different kind.'
Das said 26/11 was far more complex than other high profile terrorist attacks, like the September attack on the Islamabad [Images] Mariott, or the December 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole by Al Qaeda [Images] elements.
'What happened with the USS Cole? One little boat went and rammed into the destroyer, tearing apart a big hole. Whenever a ship comes into harbour, there are a dozen boats that come alongside. Why? Because every ship wants to spruce up; they want the bottom and sides of the ship painted, and that is the kind of thing sailors don't like to do. So these little boats come, and in exchange for a can of diesel or for a bagful of bread or whatever, they do this job.'
'Until the USS Cole was hit, this was standard practice of every ship. And one of these boats went and hit the USS Cole in a suicide attack. It was not a planned military operation. But this attack was a planned military operation; it has been planned, and the people were trained for it, by a military institution -- whether it is the ISI or part of the military is difficult to say.'
'If we recognise this, and recognize that the ISI is the principal organization, we would be on track.'
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Sri Lankan troops enter Killinocchi
January 02, 2009 11:57 IST
Last Updated: January 02, 2009 12:21 IST
Sri Lankan troops have entered Killinocchi, the administrative headquarters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Presidential office said on Friday.
Killinocchi: The kiss of death
The troops, backed by fighter jets, had on Thursday stormed two key rebel bastions near Killinocchi in the island's north after killing 50 guerrillas and injuring 100.
Killinocchi will not fall, says Prabhakaran
The security forces took control of the rebels' Iranamadu Junction on Thursday, shortly after capturing the LTTE's [Images] strategic Paranthan town.
LTTE has 15,000 armed fighters left
LTTE fighters put up a stiff resistance from their vital Iranmadu Junction, considered a strategically-important rebel stronghold along the A-9 Trunk road, located 6 km south of Killinocchi.
Last Updated: January 02, 2009 12:21 IST
Sri Lankan troops have entered Killinocchi, the administrative headquarters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Presidential office said on Friday.
Killinocchi: The kiss of death
The troops, backed by fighter jets, had on Thursday stormed two key rebel bastions near Killinocchi in the island's north after killing 50 guerrillas and injuring 100.
Killinocchi will not fall, says Prabhakaran
The security forces took control of the rebels' Iranamadu Junction on Thursday, shortly after capturing the LTTE's [Images] strategic Paranthan town.
LTTE has 15,000 armed fighters left
LTTE fighters put up a stiff resistance from their vital Iranmadu Junction, considered a strategically-important rebel stronghold along the A-9 Trunk road, located 6 km south of Killinocchi.
India counts cost of scrapping Pakistan tour
January 02, 2009 11:41 IST
India's cash-rich cricket board could lose up to US$10 million in revenue following the scrapping of this month's tour of Pakistan, domestic media reported on Friday.
"We will know the exact figure after the finance committee meeting, but it should be roughly around $10 million," a Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) official told the Hindustan Times.
The meeting, scheduled for later on Friday, would also discuss the financial impact of November's terror attacks in Mumbai [Images], it said.
India emerge as superpower in 2008
The Indian government refused permission for the cricket team to tour Pakistan due to strained bilateral ties after blaming Islamist terrorists based in that country for the attacks which killed 179 people.
India had been scheduled to play three Tests, five one-dayers and a Twenty20 [Images] international during that tour. The Pakistan Cricket Board had said they could lose up to $20 million in revenue.
Security concerns following the siege forced the last two games of a home one-day series against England [Images] to be scrapped and the inaugural Twenty20 Champions League, with $6 million in prize money, was also postponed.
BCCI treasurer MP Pandove said last month that security concerns and the global economic meltdown would be a "temporary setback" in the game's global commercial hub.
India's cash-rich cricket board could lose up to US$10 million in revenue following the scrapping of this month's tour of Pakistan, domestic media reported on Friday.
"We will know the exact figure after the finance committee meeting, but it should be roughly around $10 million," a Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) official told the Hindustan Times.
The meeting, scheduled for later on Friday, would also discuss the financial impact of November's terror attacks in Mumbai [Images], it said.
India emerge as superpower in 2008
The Indian government refused permission for the cricket team to tour Pakistan due to strained bilateral ties after blaming Islamist terrorists based in that country for the attacks which killed 179 people.
India had been scheduled to play three Tests, five one-dayers and a Twenty20 [Images] international during that tour. The Pakistan Cricket Board had said they could lose up to $20 million in revenue.
Security concerns following the siege forced the last two games of a home one-day series against England [Images] to be scrapped and the inaugural Twenty20 Champions League, with $6 million in prize money, was also postponed.
BCCI treasurer MP Pandove said last month that security concerns and the global economic meltdown would be a "temporary setback" in the game's global commercial hub.
Let us emulate Israel this year - B Raman
January 02, 2009
Second part of strategic analyst B Raman's column, in which he takes a close look at the security scenario in the New Year.
Read the first part here: 2008 is not our worst terrorism-hit year
Cover-up is another part of our national culture. The report of the committee which enquired into the debacle of 1962 was never released and debated in Parliament and public.
The report of the Kargil [Images] Review Committee was released and acted upon, but never discussed in Parliament. There now seems to be an attempt to avoid a comprehensive enquiry into the terrorist attack of November 2008, similar to the enquiry by a bipartisan National Commission in the US after the 9/11 terrorist strikes and the enquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament into the London [Images] explosions of July 2005. With all eyes on the forthcoming elections, nobody wants a post-mortem.
The public should not accept this and should mount pressure on the government and the political class for a thorough enquiry. The argument that a public enquiry could demoralise the agencies and its officers should not be accepted. Thorough enquiries were held into the assassinations of Indira Gandhi [Images] and Rajiv Gandhi [Images] and the reports released to the public without worrying about any demoralisation. Why should we be worried now?
The police in the affected states have arrested many of the perpetrators of the jihadi terrorist strikes of 2008 -- operatives of the IM as well as Ajmal Amir Kasab [Images], the Pakistani who was captured alive during the attack in Mumbai [Images]. Their interrogation has given a wealth of nuts and bolts details of tactical significance -- what is their background, how did they gravitate to terrorism, where and how were they trained, who trained them, what kind of explosives they used, where they procured them etc. But they have not brought out much information of strategic value which could enable us to make a quantitative analysis of the threat facing us in 2009 and prepare ourselves to counter it.
Who are the real brains behind the IM? What is its command and control like? Does it have any strategic objective or is it purely heat of the moment reprisal terrorism? What are its external sources of funding? What are its external linkages -- with the ISI, the Pakistani jihadi terrorist organisations and with the world of organised crime? The involvement of the world of organised crime in acts of terrorism, which became evident in March 1993, continues to be one of the defining characteristics of jihadi terrorism in the Indian hinterland as could be seen from the suspected association of Riaz Bhatkal, an underworld character, with the IM.
Home-grown jihadi terrorism, which has struck us repeatedly since November 2007 in the name of the IM, is an iceberg. Till we are able to identify, measure and blow up this iceberg, more such terrorist strikes involving serial explosions in important cities are likely. Was the disaster which struck us in Mumbai in November 2008, the LeT tip of an Al Qaeda [Images] iceberg? It will be very unwise to presume that it cannot be so. There is an Al Qaeda iceberg which is on the move from the Pashtun tribal belt of Pakistan to areas outside as seen from the explosions outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad [Images] in June 2008, and outside the Marriott Hotel in September 2008. It is time we come out of our denial mode that what is happening in Pakistan cannot happen to us. It can.
We still do not have a coherent policy to deal with Pakistan, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism in Indian territory and with Bangladesh as a facilitator. Our approach to Pakistan's sponsorship continues to be marked by the kabhi garam, kabhi naram (sometimes tough, sometimes soft) syndrome.
India has been a victim of indigenous terrorism without external sponsorship as well as terrorism externally sponsored -- from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Before 1979, we were also victims of tribal insurgencies in the North-East supported by China, which is no longer supporting them after 1979. One of the reasons why Indira Gandhi decided to support the independence movement in the then East Pakistan was because the ISI was giving sanctuary to terrorists and insurgents in the Chittagong Hill Tracts from where they were operating in North-East India. The creation of Bangladesh ended this sponsorship in 1971, but it was revived by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman in 1975. We are still struggling to cope with it.
One of the lessons of the post-World War history of State-sponsored terrorism is that it never ends unless the guilty State is made to pay a prohibitive price.
STASI, the East German intelligence service, was behind much of the ideological terrorism in West Europe. The collapse of communism in East Germany [Images] and the end of STASI brought an end to this terrorism. The intelligence services of Libya and Syria were behind much of the West Asian terrorism and the Carlos group, then living in Damascus, played a role in helping ideological groups in West Europe. The US bombing of Libya in 1986, the strong US action against Syria which was declared a State sponsor of terrorism, and against Sudan, where Carlos shifted from Damascus, and the prosecution and jailing, under US pressure, of two Libyan intelligence officers for their complicity in the bombing of a Pan Am plane off Lockerbie on the Irish coast in 1988 brought an end to State sponsorship of terrorism by Libya and Sudan. Syria has stopped sponsoring terrorism against the US, but continues to do so against Israel.
There are any number of UN resolutions and international declarations naming State-sponsored terrorism as amounting to indirect aggression against the victim State. Unfortunately, there has been no political will in India to make Pakistan and Bangladesh pay a heavy price for their sponsorship of terrorism against India. Once a firm decision based on national consensus is taken that the time has come to make Pakistan and Bangladesh pay a price, the question as to which organisation should do it and how will be sorted out. The problem is not that we don't have an appropriate organisation, but we don't have the will to act against Pakistan and Bangladesh. Our policy of kabhi garam, kabhi naram towards these two countries is encouraging them not to change their ways.
We must take action instead of depending on the US or other members of the international community to do so. Every country is interested in protecting the lives and property of only its own citizens. This is natural. It is the responsibility of the Government of India and the states to protect the lives and property of our nationals. There are many good things we can learn from Israelis such as their passion for up-to-date databases, all their agencies countering terrorism acting as a single team without ego clashes, turf battles and the tendency to pass the buck, public support for their counter-terrorism agencies, high investments in research & development of new technologies for counter-terrorism etc. India has remained a nation of dogs that bark, but not bite. We have seen it after Mumbai too. It is time we emulated Israel and become a nation of dogs that don't bark but bite ferociously.
At the same time, some methods employed by Israel such as over-militarisation of counter-terrorism will prove counter-productive in a pluralistic, multi-religious state such as India. We have produced many good intelligence bureaucrats, but we have produced very few good intelligence professionals. Our counter-terrorism experts tend to be over-simplistic and superficial in their expertise, are not innovative and try to deal with technology-savvy modern terrorism with methods and thinking which are not equally modern. The terrorists operating in India tend to be more nodern and innovative in their thinking than the counter-terrorism agencies. Increasing their numbers and budgets alone will not produce results unless, simultaneously, there is also a change in their thinking and methods.
2008 was not totally gloomy for India. There was gloom in the Indian hinterland. But there was also sunshine in Jammu and Kashmir for the first time in 19 years as seen from the spectacularly successful election held in the state in which over 60 per cent of the voters participated defying threats and intimidation from the terrorists and calls for boycott from their political mentors.
There is terrorism fatigue in J&K as there was in Punjab when P V Narasimha Rao was the prime minister. Rao was bold enough to lift President's rule and hold elections disregarding advice from senior bureaucrats not to do so. The elections in Punjab marked the beginning of the people's alienation from the Khalistani terrorists. People in J&K are tired of violence and of the difficulties which they had to face as a result of security measures for nearly 19 years. They want normalcy, but this need not mean the beginning of the end of their feelings of alienation.
The feeling of alienation will not end just because of the spectacularly successful elections. They will end only through meaningful measures by the Government of India and the new government headed by Omar Abdullah [Images] to address the legitimate grievances of the people and to fulfill some of the past promises to give greater powers to the state -- almost near autonomy, if not total autonomy. The elections also show that the mainstream parties have retained their political base despite 19 years of terrorism -- much of it directed against them -- and that the political base of the political mentors of the militancy such as the Hurriyat is as small as it always has been. Farooq Abdullah [Images] used to describe them as mohalla leaders and not state leaders who are afraid of elections because they know that elections could expose their limited following. He is probably right.
While keeping our fingers crossed in J&K, we have reasons to be proud of what our intelligence agencies and the security forces have achieved in J&K after 19 years of sustained and well-calibrated counter-terrorism. They are capable of achieving similar results in the Indian hinterland in 2009 if the systemic and individual deficiencies are identified and removed instead of being covered up, if they work in a coordinated and united manner as they did in J&K, if they receive the right political leadership, if Pakistan is made to pay a price for its sponsorship of jihadi terrorism and if we pay due to attention to the legitimate grievances of our Muslim co-citizens in hinterland India instead of dismissing them off-hand as imaginary. Some of them are not. Some of our Muslim youth have real causes for anger against the Indian State and society. We must take note of them and address them. Otherwise, we will drive them into the hands of the ISI and the likes of the LeT, the JeM and Al Qaeda.
To be continued
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi [Images], and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Second part of strategic analyst B Raman's column, in which he takes a close look at the security scenario in the New Year.
Read the first part here: 2008 is not our worst terrorism-hit year
Cover-up is another part of our national culture. The report of the committee which enquired into the debacle of 1962 was never released and debated in Parliament and public.
The report of the Kargil [Images] Review Committee was released and acted upon, but never discussed in Parliament. There now seems to be an attempt to avoid a comprehensive enquiry into the terrorist attack of November 2008, similar to the enquiry by a bipartisan National Commission in the US after the 9/11 terrorist strikes and the enquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament into the London [Images] explosions of July 2005. With all eyes on the forthcoming elections, nobody wants a post-mortem.
The public should not accept this and should mount pressure on the government and the political class for a thorough enquiry. The argument that a public enquiry could demoralise the agencies and its officers should not be accepted. Thorough enquiries were held into the assassinations of Indira Gandhi [Images] and Rajiv Gandhi [Images] and the reports released to the public without worrying about any demoralisation. Why should we be worried now?
The police in the affected states have arrested many of the perpetrators of the jihadi terrorist strikes of 2008 -- operatives of the IM as well as Ajmal Amir Kasab [Images], the Pakistani who was captured alive during the attack in Mumbai [Images]. Their interrogation has given a wealth of nuts and bolts details of tactical significance -- what is their background, how did they gravitate to terrorism, where and how were they trained, who trained them, what kind of explosives they used, where they procured them etc. But they have not brought out much information of strategic value which could enable us to make a quantitative analysis of the threat facing us in 2009 and prepare ourselves to counter it.
Who are the real brains behind the IM? What is its command and control like? Does it have any strategic objective or is it purely heat of the moment reprisal terrorism? What are its external sources of funding? What are its external linkages -- with the ISI, the Pakistani jihadi terrorist organisations and with the world of organised crime? The involvement of the world of organised crime in acts of terrorism, which became evident in March 1993, continues to be one of the defining characteristics of jihadi terrorism in the Indian hinterland as could be seen from the suspected association of Riaz Bhatkal, an underworld character, with the IM.
Home-grown jihadi terrorism, which has struck us repeatedly since November 2007 in the name of the IM, is an iceberg. Till we are able to identify, measure and blow up this iceberg, more such terrorist strikes involving serial explosions in important cities are likely. Was the disaster which struck us in Mumbai in November 2008, the LeT tip of an Al Qaeda [Images] iceberg? It will be very unwise to presume that it cannot be so. There is an Al Qaeda iceberg which is on the move from the Pashtun tribal belt of Pakistan to areas outside as seen from the explosions outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad [Images] in June 2008, and outside the Marriott Hotel in September 2008. It is time we come out of our denial mode that what is happening in Pakistan cannot happen to us. It can.
We still do not have a coherent policy to deal with Pakistan, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism in Indian territory and with Bangladesh as a facilitator. Our approach to Pakistan's sponsorship continues to be marked by the kabhi garam, kabhi naram (sometimes tough, sometimes soft) syndrome.
India has been a victim of indigenous terrorism without external sponsorship as well as terrorism externally sponsored -- from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Before 1979, we were also victims of tribal insurgencies in the North-East supported by China, which is no longer supporting them after 1979. One of the reasons why Indira Gandhi decided to support the independence movement in the then East Pakistan was because the ISI was giving sanctuary to terrorists and insurgents in the Chittagong Hill Tracts from where they were operating in North-East India. The creation of Bangladesh ended this sponsorship in 1971, but it was revived by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman in 1975. We are still struggling to cope with it.
One of the lessons of the post-World War history of State-sponsored terrorism is that it never ends unless the guilty State is made to pay a prohibitive price.
STASI, the East German intelligence service, was behind much of the ideological terrorism in West Europe. The collapse of communism in East Germany [Images] and the end of STASI brought an end to this terrorism. The intelligence services of Libya and Syria were behind much of the West Asian terrorism and the Carlos group, then living in Damascus, played a role in helping ideological groups in West Europe. The US bombing of Libya in 1986, the strong US action against Syria which was declared a State sponsor of terrorism, and against Sudan, where Carlos shifted from Damascus, and the prosecution and jailing, under US pressure, of two Libyan intelligence officers for their complicity in the bombing of a Pan Am plane off Lockerbie on the Irish coast in 1988 brought an end to State sponsorship of terrorism by Libya and Sudan. Syria has stopped sponsoring terrorism against the US, but continues to do so against Israel.
There are any number of UN resolutions and international declarations naming State-sponsored terrorism as amounting to indirect aggression against the victim State. Unfortunately, there has been no political will in India to make Pakistan and Bangladesh pay a heavy price for their sponsorship of terrorism against India. Once a firm decision based on national consensus is taken that the time has come to make Pakistan and Bangladesh pay a price, the question as to which organisation should do it and how will be sorted out. The problem is not that we don't have an appropriate organisation, but we don't have the will to act against Pakistan and Bangladesh. Our policy of kabhi garam, kabhi naram towards these two countries is encouraging them not to change their ways.
We must take action instead of depending on the US or other members of the international community to do so. Every country is interested in protecting the lives and property of only its own citizens. This is natural. It is the responsibility of the Government of India and the states to protect the lives and property of our nationals. There are many good things we can learn from Israelis such as their passion for up-to-date databases, all their agencies countering terrorism acting as a single team without ego clashes, turf battles and the tendency to pass the buck, public support for their counter-terrorism agencies, high investments in research & development of new technologies for counter-terrorism etc. India has remained a nation of dogs that bark, but not bite. We have seen it after Mumbai too. It is time we emulated Israel and become a nation of dogs that don't bark but bite ferociously.
At the same time, some methods employed by Israel such as over-militarisation of counter-terrorism will prove counter-productive in a pluralistic, multi-religious state such as India. We have produced many good intelligence bureaucrats, but we have produced very few good intelligence professionals. Our counter-terrorism experts tend to be over-simplistic and superficial in their expertise, are not innovative and try to deal with technology-savvy modern terrorism with methods and thinking which are not equally modern. The terrorists operating in India tend to be more nodern and innovative in their thinking than the counter-terrorism agencies. Increasing their numbers and budgets alone will not produce results unless, simultaneously, there is also a change in their thinking and methods.
2008 was not totally gloomy for India. There was gloom in the Indian hinterland. But there was also sunshine in Jammu and Kashmir for the first time in 19 years as seen from the spectacularly successful election held in the state in which over 60 per cent of the voters participated defying threats and intimidation from the terrorists and calls for boycott from their political mentors.
There is terrorism fatigue in J&K as there was in Punjab when P V Narasimha Rao was the prime minister. Rao was bold enough to lift President's rule and hold elections disregarding advice from senior bureaucrats not to do so. The elections in Punjab marked the beginning of the people's alienation from the Khalistani terrorists. People in J&K are tired of violence and of the difficulties which they had to face as a result of security measures for nearly 19 years. They want normalcy, but this need not mean the beginning of the end of their feelings of alienation.
The feeling of alienation will not end just because of the spectacularly successful elections. They will end only through meaningful measures by the Government of India and the new government headed by Omar Abdullah [Images] to address the legitimate grievances of the people and to fulfill some of the past promises to give greater powers to the state -- almost near autonomy, if not total autonomy. The elections also show that the mainstream parties have retained their political base despite 19 years of terrorism -- much of it directed against them -- and that the political base of the political mentors of the militancy such as the Hurriyat is as small as it always has been. Farooq Abdullah [Images] used to describe them as mohalla leaders and not state leaders who are afraid of elections because they know that elections could expose their limited following. He is probably right.
While keeping our fingers crossed in J&K, we have reasons to be proud of what our intelligence agencies and the security forces have achieved in J&K after 19 years of sustained and well-calibrated counter-terrorism. They are capable of achieving similar results in the Indian hinterland in 2009 if the systemic and individual deficiencies are identified and removed instead of being covered up, if they work in a coordinated and united manner as they did in J&K, if they receive the right political leadership, if Pakistan is made to pay a price for its sponsorship of jihadi terrorism and if we pay due to attention to the legitimate grievances of our Muslim co-citizens in hinterland India instead of dismissing them off-hand as imaginary. Some of them are not. Some of our Muslim youth have real causes for anger against the Indian State and society. We must take note of them and address them. Otherwise, we will drive them into the hands of the ISI and the likes of the LeT, the JeM and Al Qaeda.
To be continued
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi [Images], and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
'India must give reply to Pak in its own language' - Parag Dave in Gandhinagar
January 02, 2009 09:59 IST
Terror as an issue may not have paid off for the BJP in the recent assembly elections but its Hindutva mascot and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi [Images] may not be averse to flagging it again in the Lok Sabha elections later this year.
Modi, who had exploited the issue of export of terror from Pakistan through his famous 'Mian Musharraf' campaign in the earlier elections, also feels that the Indian government has to 'respond' to the Mumbai terror attacks from across the border 'in their own language'.
In an exclusive interview to PTI, he also spoke of the anti-terror laws passed in Parliament recently but feels that terrorism cannot be fought with the '19th century laws'.
Disagreeing with the view that terrorism as an issue had not paid for BJP in the recent assembly elections in Rajasthan and Delhi [Images], where he had also campaigned against the backdrop of the Mumbai attacks, the chief minister said: "This theory is being propagated by a few people who wish to help Pakistan and Congress."
"In the four states (Madhya Pradesh [Images], Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Delhi) where the elections were held, more than 600 seats were in contention. BJP won 294 while the Congress won 274. This only shows that the people have supported BJP to root out terrorism."
Terming the recent Mumbai mayhem as an attack on the country, Modi said the people wished that Pakistan should be given an "apt reply in its own language".
He termed as "eyewash" the Central government's steps like creation of National Investigating Agency (NIA) and amendments in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after the Mumbai terror attack.
"It is eyewash. The steps are not enough to give legal backing to fight terrorism. The only positive thing about these steps is that opinion of those who were saying that no new law is required to fight terrorism has changed. We cannot fight terrorism with 19th century laws," Modi said.
"The Mumbai mayhem was an attack on India by Pakistan. Now, India has to respond. Central government has to decide about the right kind of response that needs to be given to Pakistan. It is the wish of common people that India should give reply to Pakistan in its own language," he said.
A 'zero tolerance' policy should be adopted by the Centre as well as each and every state against terrorism like in the United States, he said.
Accusing the Congress led-UPA government of practising 'vote bank' politics over terror issue, Modi said the alliance has to decide whether it will continue to adopt such policies or care for common people.
"The more they indulge in vote-bank politics, the more the common people will become vulnerable. By not hanging Afzal Guru and repealing the existing terror law (POTA) they encouraged terrorism."
Replying to a question about the chances of his playing a bigger role in his party at the national level in view of the advancing age of BJP's prime ministerial candidate, 58-year-old Modi said people prefer experience when it comes to leading the nation.
He said India required experienced and capable leaders and compared two former Congress prime ministers Narasimha Rao and Rajiv Gandhi [Images].
"In India issues are very complex, to run the country is not just a simple administration. The person needs to understand problems of South, North East, Gujarat, the hills and the plains. In such circumstances, experience is an advantage," Modi further said.
"BJP was one such party, which had capable and experienced leaders like Advani [Images]. This is our plus point," Modi said.
Terror as an issue may not have paid off for the BJP in the recent assembly elections but its Hindutva mascot and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi [Images] may not be averse to flagging it again in the Lok Sabha elections later this year.
Modi, who had exploited the issue of export of terror from Pakistan through his famous 'Mian Musharraf' campaign in the earlier elections, also feels that the Indian government has to 'respond' to the Mumbai terror attacks from across the border 'in their own language'.
In an exclusive interview to PTI, he also spoke of the anti-terror laws passed in Parliament recently but feels that terrorism cannot be fought with the '19th century laws'.
Disagreeing with the view that terrorism as an issue had not paid for BJP in the recent assembly elections in Rajasthan and Delhi [Images], where he had also campaigned against the backdrop of the Mumbai attacks, the chief minister said: "This theory is being propagated by a few people who wish to help Pakistan and Congress."
"In the four states (Madhya Pradesh [Images], Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Delhi) where the elections were held, more than 600 seats were in contention. BJP won 294 while the Congress won 274. This only shows that the people have supported BJP to root out terrorism."
Terming the recent Mumbai mayhem as an attack on the country, Modi said the people wished that Pakistan should be given an "apt reply in its own language".
He termed as "eyewash" the Central government's steps like creation of National Investigating Agency (NIA) and amendments in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after the Mumbai terror attack.
"It is eyewash. The steps are not enough to give legal backing to fight terrorism. The only positive thing about these steps is that opinion of those who were saying that no new law is required to fight terrorism has changed. We cannot fight terrorism with 19th century laws," Modi said.
"The Mumbai mayhem was an attack on India by Pakistan. Now, India has to respond. Central government has to decide about the right kind of response that needs to be given to Pakistan. It is the wish of common people that India should give reply to Pakistan in its own language," he said.
A 'zero tolerance' policy should be adopted by the Centre as well as each and every state against terrorism like in the United States, he said.
Accusing the Congress led-UPA government of practising 'vote bank' politics over terror issue, Modi said the alliance has to decide whether it will continue to adopt such policies or care for common people.
"The more they indulge in vote-bank politics, the more the common people will become vulnerable. By not hanging Afzal Guru and repealing the existing terror law (POTA) they encouraged terrorism."
Replying to a question about the chances of his playing a bigger role in his party at the national level in view of the advancing age of BJP's prime ministerial candidate, 58-year-old Modi said people prefer experience when it comes to leading the nation.
He said India required experienced and capable leaders and compared two former Congress prime ministers Narasimha Rao and Rajiv Gandhi [Images].
"In India issues are very complex, to run the country is not just a simple administration. The person needs to understand problems of South, North East, Gujarat, the hills and the plains. In such circumstances, experience is an advantage," Modi further said.
"BJP was one such party, which had capable and experienced leaders like Advani [Images]. This is our plus point," Modi said.
Killinocchi: The kiss of death - B Raman
December 19, 2008
Killinocchi within kissing distance'.
So said the disinformation warriors of Lt Gen Sarath Fonseka, the Sri Lankan army commander, more than a week ago.
It has been a long and fatal kiss -- more for the army than for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It has been a long kiss of death for the young, hastily-trained Sinhalese recruits to the Sri Lankan army who were rushed to the battlefront by the general in his keenness to keep his promise of 'In Killinocchi before the new year'.
Similar to the promise which Gen Douglas McArthur, commanding the allied troops in South Korea during the Korean war, repeatedly made to the US troops fighting against the North Korean and Chinese Armies. 'To home before Christmas', he used to promise.
Christmas came and Christmas went, but the North Koreans and the Chinese fought fiercely. McArthur's promises were repeatedly belied. 'Which Christmas?' people started asking sarcastically.
Ultimately, there were neither victors nor losers in that war. It ended in a stalemate after the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.
In bitter fighting on the outskirts of Killinocchi since the beginning of this week, the Lankan army and the LTTE [Images] have sustained heavy casualties. As normally happens in military conflicts, both sides are playing down their own casualties and exaggerating those of the adversary. However, the LTTE's claims seem to be nearer the truth than those of the army.
The LTTE claims to have killed 170 soldiers, but the army insists that only 25 of its soldiers have been killed. However, the LTTE has been able to release photographs of at least 36 soldiers killed, thereby proving that the fatalities sustained by the army are more than the 25 admitted by it.
Reliable accounts show that both sides have been fighting fiercely and losing many young people. The army has lost much more arms and ammunition and other equipment than the LTTE. The fighting has been a bonanza for the LTTE, which has been able to replenish its dwindling stocks of arms and ammunition.
The odds are still against the LTTE. It has well-trained and well-motivated cadres, who have been fighting with great determination, but it is running short of arms and ammunition despite the seizures from the army. It has no air cover against the repeated air strikes by the Sri Lankan air force.
The army has the advantage of numbers and arms and ammunition procured with funds from China and Iran, but its soldiers are not as well-motivated and as well-trained as those of the LTTE.
The LTTE had shifted its offices from Killinocchi many weeks ago in anticipation of the battle. Killinocchi now has nothing but death-traps for the Army laid by the LTTE. The LTTE knows where those death-traps are, but not the army. This gives an advantage to the LTTE.
The battle being fought for Killinocchi is a combined miniature version of the battles of Stalingrad in the erstwhile USSR and El Alamein in North Africa. At Stalingrad, the Soviet Army beat back the Nazis after inflicting repeated heavy casualties on them. At El Alamein, the allied troops commanded by Gen Bernard Montgomery (later a field marshal) beat back the advancing Nazi army commanded by Gen Rommel with heavy casualties. These two battles marked the turning points in the Second World War.
Making a statement on the defeat of Rommel's army at El Alamein, Sir Winston Churchill [Images], the then British prime minister, told the House of Commons: 'There was no victory before Al Alamein. There will be no defeat after El Alamein.' He was proved right.
Will Killinocchi prove a similar turning point in the battle being fought between the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE? If the LTTE loses the battle, it could mark the beginning of its end as an insurgent force, but not as a terrorist organisation. If the Sri Lankan army wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi [Images], and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Killinocchi within kissing distance'.
So said the disinformation warriors of Lt Gen Sarath Fonseka, the Sri Lankan army commander, more than a week ago.
It has been a long and fatal kiss -- more for the army than for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It has been a long kiss of death for the young, hastily-trained Sinhalese recruits to the Sri Lankan army who were rushed to the battlefront by the general in his keenness to keep his promise of 'In Killinocchi before the new year'.
Similar to the promise which Gen Douglas McArthur, commanding the allied troops in South Korea during the Korean war, repeatedly made to the US troops fighting against the North Korean and Chinese Armies. 'To home before Christmas', he used to promise.
Christmas came and Christmas went, but the North Koreans and the Chinese fought fiercely. McArthur's promises were repeatedly belied. 'Which Christmas?' people started asking sarcastically.
Ultimately, there were neither victors nor losers in that war. It ended in a stalemate after the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.
In bitter fighting on the outskirts of Killinocchi since the beginning of this week, the Lankan army and the LTTE [Images] have sustained heavy casualties. As normally happens in military conflicts, both sides are playing down their own casualties and exaggerating those of the adversary. However, the LTTE's claims seem to be nearer the truth than those of the army.
The LTTE claims to have killed 170 soldiers, but the army insists that only 25 of its soldiers have been killed. However, the LTTE has been able to release photographs of at least 36 soldiers killed, thereby proving that the fatalities sustained by the army are more than the 25 admitted by it.
Reliable accounts show that both sides have been fighting fiercely and losing many young people. The army has lost much more arms and ammunition and other equipment than the LTTE. The fighting has been a bonanza for the LTTE, which has been able to replenish its dwindling stocks of arms and ammunition.
The odds are still against the LTTE. It has well-trained and well-motivated cadres, who have been fighting with great determination, but it is running short of arms and ammunition despite the seizures from the army. It has no air cover against the repeated air strikes by the Sri Lankan air force.
The army has the advantage of numbers and arms and ammunition procured with funds from China and Iran, but its soldiers are not as well-motivated and as well-trained as those of the LTTE.
The LTTE had shifted its offices from Killinocchi many weeks ago in anticipation of the battle. Killinocchi now has nothing but death-traps for the Army laid by the LTTE. The LTTE knows where those death-traps are, but not the army. This gives an advantage to the LTTE.
The battle being fought for Killinocchi is a combined miniature version of the battles of Stalingrad in the erstwhile USSR and El Alamein in North Africa. At Stalingrad, the Soviet Army beat back the Nazis after inflicting repeated heavy casualties on them. At El Alamein, the allied troops commanded by Gen Bernard Montgomery (later a field marshal) beat back the advancing Nazi army commanded by Gen Rommel with heavy casualties. These two battles marked the turning points in the Second World War.
Making a statement on the defeat of Rommel's army at El Alamein, Sir Winston Churchill [Images], the then British prime minister, told the House of Commons: 'There was no victory before Al Alamein. There will be no defeat after El Alamein.' He was proved right.
Will Killinocchi prove a similar turning point in the battle being fought between the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE? If the LTTE loses the battle, it could mark the beginning of its end as an insurgent force, but not as a terrorist organisation. If the Sri Lankan army wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi [Images], and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Punish Mumbai attackers in the country, US to Pak
January 02, 2009 11:26 IST
The US administration has asked Pakistan to ensure that those responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks are punished inside the country instead of being extradited to India, according to a media report.
The Bush administration has informed the Pakistan government that it would like it to initiate 'prosecution with sufficient efforts to ensure conviction' of those behind the Mumbai incident, the Dawn newspaper quoted US sources as saying.
The move is a 'clear change' in the attitude of the US, which earlier had backed the Indian demand that some of the suspects be extradited to India.
The change apparently has been noticed in New Delhi [Images], where External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee [Images] said on Thursday that the US pressure on Pakistan to act against the Mumbai perpetrators had 'not produced tangible returns', the newspaper said.
US officials had earlier supported India's demand for the handing over of those behind the attacks but the change in their attitude followed a realisation in Washington that it would not be easy for the Pakistan government to extradite key Lashker-e-Tayiba leaders to India, the sources said.
In their negotiations with US officials on this issue, the Pakistanis insisted that the extradition of Pakistani citizens to India -- particularly when the two countries did not have an extradition treaty -- would have unpredictable consequences for the government, the sources said.
'The Pakistanis argued that the resulting political instability would not only weaken the government but could also harm the war against the Taliban [Images] and Al Qaeda [Images] militants in Afghanistan as Pakistan played a key supporting role in this war,' the report said.
The 'softening in US attitude' is also linked to a crackdown in Pakistan on LeT and other militant groups. The move appears to have convinced the US that Pakistan is serious about uprooting militant groups that use its territory for conducting attacks inside India and Afghanistan, the report said.
The Americans, who have stayed involved with the investigation, have 'noted with satisfaction that Pakistani authorities were seriously interrogating the suspects involved in the Mumbai attacks and looked determined to find out those responsible'.
The New York Times had on Thursday reported that Pakistani authorities had obtained confessions from LeT members that they were involved in the Mumbai carnage. The Times quoted a Pakistani official as saying that the 'most talkative' of the LeT leaders being interrogated is Zarar Shah, the group's communications chief.
The Wall Street Journal had on Wednesday reported the news of Shah's confession. The Times reported LeT operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is also cooperating with investigators.
Mukherjee too said that an FBI team currently in Pakistan had shared with Pakistani authorities 'strong evidence' of Lashker-e-Tayiba's involvement in the Mumbai attacks that killed over 180 people.
He said an extradition treaty is not needed for handing over three terror suspects Dawood Ibrahim [Images], Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhwi, who India believes staged the Mumbai attacks
The US administration has asked Pakistan to ensure that those responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks are punished inside the country instead of being extradited to India, according to a media report.
The Bush administration has informed the Pakistan government that it would like it to initiate 'prosecution with sufficient efforts to ensure conviction' of those behind the Mumbai incident, the Dawn newspaper quoted US sources as saying.
The move is a 'clear change' in the attitude of the US, which earlier had backed the Indian demand that some of the suspects be extradited to India.
The change apparently has been noticed in New Delhi [Images], where External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee [Images] said on Thursday that the US pressure on Pakistan to act against the Mumbai perpetrators had 'not produced tangible returns', the newspaper said.
US officials had earlier supported India's demand for the handing over of those behind the attacks but the change in their attitude followed a realisation in Washington that it would not be easy for the Pakistan government to extradite key Lashker-e-Tayiba leaders to India, the sources said.
In their negotiations with US officials on this issue, the Pakistanis insisted that the extradition of Pakistani citizens to India -- particularly when the two countries did not have an extradition treaty -- would have unpredictable consequences for the government, the sources said.
'The Pakistanis argued that the resulting political instability would not only weaken the government but could also harm the war against the Taliban [Images] and Al Qaeda [Images] militants in Afghanistan as Pakistan played a key supporting role in this war,' the report said.
The 'softening in US attitude' is also linked to a crackdown in Pakistan on LeT and other militant groups. The move appears to have convinced the US that Pakistan is serious about uprooting militant groups that use its territory for conducting attacks inside India and Afghanistan, the report said.
The Americans, who have stayed involved with the investigation, have 'noted with satisfaction that Pakistani authorities were seriously interrogating the suspects involved in the Mumbai attacks and looked determined to find out those responsible'.
The New York Times had on Thursday reported that Pakistani authorities had obtained confessions from LeT members that they were involved in the Mumbai carnage. The Times quoted a Pakistani official as saying that the 'most talkative' of the LeT leaders being interrogated is Zarar Shah, the group's communications chief.
The Wall Street Journal had on Wednesday reported the news of Shah's confession. The Times reported LeT operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is also cooperating with investigators.
Mukherjee too said that an FBI team currently in Pakistan had shared with Pakistani authorities 'strong evidence' of Lashker-e-Tayiba's involvement in the Mumbai attacks that killed over 180 people.
He said an extradition treaty is not needed for handing over three terror suspects Dawood Ibrahim [Images], Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhwi, who India believes staged the Mumbai attacks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)