Crisis India-Pakistan:
Achtergrondinformatie, analyse en nieuws
uit de Indiase, Pakistaanse en internationale media.

index

Issues in Secular Politics, July 2006

India: Terror Tales

by Ram Puniyani

July 11, 2006, witnessed one of the worst disasters which the city of Mumbai has seen. In a series of explosions nearly 200 precious, innocents lives were lost in the senseless act of terror. This is the third major terrorist attack on this metropolis known for a modern and progressive profile. The first such attack was in the aftermath of Mumbai riots in which nearly thousand innocent lives were lost, majority of them Muslim. In the wake of Gujarat carnage four blasts shook the city and took the toll of several lives. This, latest one is again severe in its extent and various theses are going on about whodunit? The 1993 blasts were masterminded by the underworld in collaboration with local elements that were deeply hurt and mauled by the anti Muslim nature of the violence led by Shiva Sena and assisted by the local administration. While the accused of the blasts are rotting in jails for over a decade awaiting the judgment, those named in Shrikrishna report have neither been convicted nor are in jails. As a matter of fact several of them were promoted in status, like Bala Saheb Thackeray promoted himself to Hindu Hridaya Samrat (Emperor of Hindu hearts) and the R.D. Tyagi the one who led the killings of several Muslims in the Suleiman Bakery was promoted a few notches up.
The responsibility of post 2002 Gujarat genocide was taken by a group, Gujarat Muslim Revenge group, which came into being after the Gujarat genocide led by Modi. Incidentally here also while the blast accused are behind the bars, Modi has had a promotion to the much exalted status of Hindu Hriday Samrat II, with Mumbai's Balasaheb having the distinction of being the first one to assume this throne. Here again as the state itself was actively involved in the carnage, many a state officials have moved upwards like P.C. Pandey who was ‘good' enough to act as per Modi's bidding. In the present one various theories are floating, but nothing definitive has emerged, as only a non descript terrorist group has taken the responsibility of the same. While the major one's like Al Qaeda has expressed happiness over the tragedy without owning it, and some of them have expressed sorrow over the incident. The other suspect SIMI, the outlawed right wing Islamic students group has not issued any statement so far.
Before trying to understand the direction of needle of suspicion, it will be imperative to see the state of affairs in Gujarat after the carnage and also what has been happening here. After the carnage, Gujarat Muslims have been ghettoized to the worst possible level and the division in the society along communal lines has reached unimaginable proportions, where the prefix of Hindu and Muslim has to accompany before every persons name. The isolation and boycott of Muslims in social life is intense, the guilty of the carnage are roaming freely and even adequate and just compensation has not been paid to the victims. In Maharashtra, in a interior remote place called Nanded, two Bajrang dal activists were killed while making an explosive device and the diary with the bomb making tips was found on the location along with the artificial moustache and beard. The place belonged to an RSS sympathizer and saffron flag adorned the top of the house. After this, huge piles of explosives were detected in the nearby places and later three alleged terrorists were killed by the police in an encounter near the RSS head office in Nagpur. An investigation team under the chairmanship of a retired Judge of Mumbai High Court went into the matter facing the full hostility from the police, and came out with a report which pointed out several holes in the police version of the encounter. There was no eye witness to the act of police. As usual the necessary diary with the names and addresses of the ‘terrorists' was found on the bodies of slain terrorist to ease the work of the police to identify the links of the terrorists. Lately, in Bhivandi, in the scuffle between police and local Muslim groups, who were opposing the police move to build a police station near or on the land of graveyard, led to the killing of two policemen and few Muslims. Shiv Sena was hyperactive in taking the cudgels against the Muslim leadership. Close on the heels of it, the Shiv Sainiks all over Maharashtra burnt buses and indulged in hooliganism, after the defilement of the statue of the wife of their supremo, Balsaheb Thackeray. To build a conclusion from these antecedents is very difficult. For the investigating authorities all angels are important but the one related to Nanded blasts by RSS affiliates has been put under the carpet. While the civic society and social groups rose to the occasion to lend a helping hand to the victims of violence, by offering prayers for peace and the Muslim leadership went overboard to condemn the blasts. One can understand the hyper response of Muslim political and religious leadership in condemning this and meeting the state authorities to urge upon them not to harass the innocent Muslim youth as is the wont of the police for whom Muslim youth are equal to criminals and terrorists, and so no proof is needed to put them behind the bars. Incidentally it also comes as an easy option to prove that police are working.
For BJP this occasion is serving multiple purposes. On one hand it has got the opportunity to come out from the oblivion. This tragedy is being seen as an opportunity and the rallies are being organized against the terrorism. Who are they opposing, a faceless enemy, and an insane organization, which is already illegal. At such times the only possible message comes from a white ribbon or a rose. Also its accusation that lifting of POTA and soft policies of the UPA are responsible for the acts of terrorists hold no water as the nation has seen that the terror acts were no lesser when POTA was operative and when the NDA was ruling.
The reasons for such acts of terror are multiple. One can not be superficial to think that these are due to teachings of Islam and due to Muslims. This is what is being strengthened in the popular psyche by a section of media and the right wingers. There are people belonging to different religions operating on the terrain of terror, ULFA, Irish Republican Army, LTTE and too far back in time, the Khalistanis. As far as Muslims are concerned three major causes of terror involving them can be specifically pin pointed. One is the politics of control over oil wells, in pursuit of which the outfits like Al Qaeda were floated through the U.S.'s CIA. Even if this ghastly organization has outlived its original purpose of throwing out such Soviet armies from Afghanistan, such terror outfits are like cancerous growths, which begin from a irritating point and than even if the original purpose is no more in existence they perpetuate themselves in an uncontrolled way like a cancer. In this case the ideological indoctrination of a political need of U.S. in the language of Islam, i.e. Al Qaeda to fight against Soviet armies, has done immense harm to the Muslims all over the world. The second one relates to the unresolved Kashmir issue, which superficially sounds to be the problem between Pakistan and India, or the one of Muslim separatism, but surely Pakistan itself has been small puppet in the hands of imperialists is forgotten most of the times. Many an institutions in Pakistan are supra government. So this should not come in the way of peace process. The third one can be divided into two parts, one is the insane thinking of a section of Muslims for taking the revenge of anti Muslim carnage in Mumbai and Gujarat. The two previous blasts in Mumbai showed in a clear-cut manner correlations to these episodes of violence. In the current one the additional aspect of Nanded blasts and their implications have to be thought of, more so in the light of the fact that Mumbai blasts did not use the dreaded RDX.
All said and done, at all times, one simple rule of punish the guilty and protect the innocent has to be the norm of state authorities. And revenge has no place in the democratic polity, so the upholders of Newton's action reaction have to be outlawed in moral and legal arena. The mandatory state behavior of implicating Muslim youth in these acts and making them suffer the long ordeals till the judgments comes is too harsh a punishment for belonging to a particular religion. The demonization of Muslims will be taken a few steps further by the some political streams and a section of media. These terrorists are the worst enemies of Islam and Muslims in general. While a section of RSS sympathizers argue that all Muslims are suspect as they give shelter to these terrorists, one has to recall that in Punjab, the average Sikh was not giving shelter to Sikh terrorists due to religious sameness but due to the threat of bullet piercing one's chest. While saluting the civic society for its magnanimity in handling the post terror situation with grace, one hopes that political elements also wake up to the fact that demonizing the Muslims due to this will be against the teachings of saint tradition of Hinduism.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 31, 2006

Upgraded Shilkas Rejected by Indian Army

By Vivek Raghuvanshi, New Delhi

The Indian Army has rejected an upgraded prototype of the Russian-made Shilka air defense system, asking the government to immediately buy a replacement instead. Two Shilka air defense systems were upgraded for the Army by Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) in collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The effort was part of a $104 million, 48-system contract intended to overhaul the systems; extend their life by 15 years; and install solid-state radar and computers, electro-optical fire-control systems and new engines. IAI is helping with the technology and system integration. Official: Not Up to Army’s Standards The Army rejected the prototypes because they were innacurate and had insufficient range, a senior Army official said. He would not say whether the Shilka met other requirements — such as resisting electronic jamming, detecting targets out to 15 kilometers, and operating in deserts and other harsh environments, where temperatures range from 35 degrees Celsius down to minus 40 degrees. Acceptable upgrades could take several years, the Army official said, during which the service’s combat capability would suffer. A BEL executive said there were no technical problems with the Shilka air defense system. India’s Army operates about 150 Shilka air defense systems, purchased three decades ago from the former Soviet Union. The Shilka has four 23mm automatic cannons that can acquire and track target aircraft up to 2,500 meters away, and fire while moving. The Army operates a variety of other air defense systems, mostly of Soviet origin. These include the Kvadrat, Osaka, Strela-1, Pechora and Shilka surface-to-air missile systems, and Tanguska self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 31, 2006

India Says Nuclear Plants a Target for Militants

Reuters, New Delhi

India has stepped up security at its nuclear installations fearing an attack by a Pakistan-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the defense minister told parliament on July 31.
Pranab Mukherjee said a series of "special security measures" had been taken and more were under consideration as officials took the possibility of an attack "very seriously."
"The information that is available with the security agencies is that LeT modules are planning on carrying out some strikes against critical infrastructure items, military targets and religious places," the minister said.
"Regarding items of critical infrastructure, reports indicate a possibility of nuclear installations being considered," he said. India has 15 operating nuclear power plants.
Lashkar has long been active in Indian Kashmir, where more than 45,000 people have been killed in an anti-India insurgency since 1989. But the group has also been blamed for attacks in other parts of India.
Security agencies say the recent Mumbai bombings, where 186 people were killed in a series of blasts on commuter trains and platforms, were carried out by local Muslims who may have had links with Lashkar.
Lashkar has denied a role in the blasts.
Mukherjee said the group was becoming more active and was being "continuously and carefully monitored".

index

FT.com, July 30, 2006

Plutonium over growth is dangerous

By Mansoor Ijaz

Nuclear terrorism is perhaps the most important threat the world faces today. Few countries carry greater risks of allowing terrorists to get their hands on illicit nuclear materials than India and Pakistan, notwithstanding the safety records of these south Asian nuclear powers. Pakistan’s case is particularly troubling.
In a poor country of 166m, there is not enough money to build schools for educating Pakistan’s largely illiterate population or feeding its undernourished children. But there is enough, it seems, to build a modern plutonium reactor that will churn out 15 to 20 times more plutonium for bomb-making than the country can ever use.
The danger for the rest of the world lies in radical Islamists – of which there are many in Pakistan – getting hold of a growing and readily available source of radioactive materials that can be easily transported and shaped into less detectable, miniaturised configurations. To maintain Pakistan’s support in its war on terror, the Bush administration has looked the other way while this dangerous nuclear development took place. That its man in Islamabad, Pervez Musharraf, was an assassin’s bullet away from handing Pakistan’s future to the very radicals the US is trying to eradicate does not seem to have mattered much in Washington.
Satellite photos show that a new 1,000 megawatt plutonium reactor is being built adjacent to the existing 50 megawatt Khushab district reactor that will produce enough plutonium (about 200kg) for 40-45 weapons per year, or about 15 to 20 times what is produced today. Construction on the reactor appears to have begun in 2000. It is still a few years from completion, hindered by the dismantling of the illicit black-market nuclear network run by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s atomic father, several years ago.
The drive for nuclear cores that can be more easily fashioned into complex warhead designs may be Pakistan’s overarching military objective, but it brings with it a plethora of dangerous scenarios that brittle governments, such as Gen Musharraf’s, are ill-equipped to handle. The most troubling is one in which Islamabad’s political manoeuvring to keep its neighbour, Afghanistan, in check by supporting a resurgent Taliban spirals out of its control. Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and others who hopscotch across the Afghan-Pakistan border are as capable of transporting processed plutonium into the wrong hands as they are of running guns and heroin.
Pakistan has successfully walked the anti-terror tightrope since September 11 2001 because Gen Musharraf has sought to be all things to all people. But what if he is gone tomorrow? Who insures the world against Islamists wresting control of a nuclear programme that is populated with some of the brightest, most radicalised minds in the Muslim world who still deeply resent the US dethroning of A.Q. Khan?
The new reactor also raises serious questions about the underlying motivations of the US-India civilian nuclear arms pact – passed by the US House of Representatives last week – that will bring American nuclear technology to India’s atomic power industry. Improving India’s civilian nuclear safety standards and transparency of operations is a laudable goal in providing for that country’s energy needs and renovating its decrepit reactors. But if Washington thinks giving India nuclear technology is appropriate compensation for looking the other way while Islamabad builds its mega-plutonium plant – enabling India to build 40-50 nuclear weapons a year to match Pakistan – it risks dangerously escalating a regional arms race and destroying economic growth in the process.
If his army hawks insist on finishing Khushab II, Gen Musharraf can at least ensure that it starts up operations with full international safeguards in place that match those agreed to by New Delhi under the US-India nuclear pact. These include inspections that ensure fissile materials are safeguarded and accounted for at all times. He can change the dynamics of south Asia’s arms race by championing a new fissile materials cut-off treaty – forbidding the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium – and prodding George W.?Bush and Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, to do the same.
Pakistan’s erroneous decision to build Khushab II – and the US plan to fuel India’s nuclear power plants as a counterbalance – should not be permitted to put the rest of the world at risk at the hands of extremists.

index

Washington Post, July 29, 2006

Sale Of Jets To Pakistan Cleared

A Bush administration plan to sell as many as 36 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-16 jets and other equipment to Pakistan, the largest U.S. arms sale to the South Asian country, has emerged unscathed from a congressional review period.
The close of business yesterday was the deadline for the Congress to block to the $5 billion sale, which also would benefit Raytheon Co., Boeing Co.. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Without a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to kill the sale, it is automatically approved under the laws governing international arms sales.
Although two Democratic House lawmakers introduced legislation in the last two weeks to block the sale, neither measure has garnered much support.

index

Frontline, July 29 - August 11, 2006

A disastrous model

Praful Bidwai

Those advocating armed attacks on Pakistan in response to the Mumbai bombings wish to emulate Israel's aggression. That is the worst model India could follow.

A crass and hysterical nationalism is taking hold among a section of the Indian middle class in response to the Mumbai blasts. This nationalism is paranoid. It considers India uniquely vulnerable to terrorism because its state is exceptionally soft, pusillanimous and "cowardly". At the same time, it wants a militant response - armed attacks on Pakistan. Its votaries say it is not enough just to suspend India-Pakistan talks; India must teach Pakistan "a lesson". Some advocates of this view have strong sympathies for Hindutva and harp on the "timidity of Hindus", a phrase the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) fondly uses to explain why India has been repeatedly subjugated by "aggressors". But even if the communal element is excised from this view, its essential content remains unaltered. It advocates a particular model unfolding before our eyes - namely, Israel's aggression in Gaza and Lebanon, after the arrest of one-third of the Palestinian Authority's Cabinet. India would be "effete", unlike Israel, if it fails to respond to threats to its security with all-out punitive attacks.
This view was encouraged by the state's confused initial response to the Mumbai blasts. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's address to the nation did not reflect the gravity of the destruction in Mumbai, which is of the same order as Madrid 2004, the world's worst recent terrorist incident, next only to 9/11. In a recent English-language television programme in which I participated, the anchor asked whether India should follow Israel's example. While the participants argued against this on differing grounds, 94 per cent of the audience agreed with the proposition through email and SMS responses. In keeping with such extreme opinions, the government hardened its stand and cancelled the Foreign Secretary-level meeting, issued belligerent statements, rounded up hundreds of Muslims, and mindlessly banned access to blogs on the Internet.
It is of vital importance that we view the Mumbai blasts in perspective and formulate a rational response that defends the interests and security of the Indian people. To start with, it is not at all clear that the attacks exposed India's "exceptional" vulnerability. A similar attack could well have occurred on suburban trains in Paris, New York, Moscow or London and produced similar damage. True, the Mumbai suburban rail system is even more crowded than the New York subway. But it is nearly impossible to prevent such attacks altogether. Beyond a point, no state can anticipate such events, screen passengers, check all unattended baggage, and so on. The very pace of metropolitan life makes such checks impracticable.
India lags behind in quickness of response, in sounding warnings and providing emergency services. We have failed to create the infrastructure necessary to deal with mishaps such as train coaches falling on tracks, which need to be quickly cleared, and so on. There is a strong case for installing inexpensive closed-circuit television cameras at important transport hubs. But this is not a watertight guarantee that terrorist attacks will never occur. No state, however powerful, especially a democratic one, can provide 100 per cent security or guarantee absence of violence. It can take precautionary measures, be more vigilant, and improve police efficiency and procedures. That is where India fails badly.
Secondly, the response of the Mumbai and railway police was tardy and meagre. Citizens themselves had to rush victims to hospitals and arrange for blood much before the state acted. There was public anger that the state was not doing enough or being responsive. This grievance is legitimate.
However, a rational long-term response to terrorist violence can only be based on systematic investigation to establish the identity of the culprits, their motives, and their internal and external links. Only thus can a responsible government conclude that the terrorists received encouragement or help from abroad - in the present case, Pakistan. But senior officials, including National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, rushed to judgment and selectively briefed the media alleging that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Students Islamic Movement of India and other organisations allegedly supported by Pakistani clandestine agencies were involved. Most national newspapers duly echoed such views based upon mere guesswork and speculation.
The assessment that Pakistan was behind the Mumbai attacks is open to doubt on two grounds. In the past too, similar allegations were made. Yet, in no major case have the culprits' identity or links with Pakistan been fully established and convictions secured (an exception being the Parliament building attack case, now under appeal). Accusations about their links with "sleeper cells", or agencies operating through Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal remain unsupported under Indian laws of evidence.
The second reason pertains to recent developments in Pakistan and in India-Pakistan relations. General Musharraf is under tremendous pressure from the U.S., other Western powers and China to demonstrate that he will take on jehadi groups and comply with the anti-terrorist commitments he made in 2004. It is hard to believe, at this point in the evolution of the India-Pakistan dialogue, that it makes sense for Pakistani agencies to risk wrecking the dialogue process by encouraging or instigating gross violence such as the Mumbai bombings.
It is possible that some "rogue elements" of the Inter-Services Intelligence could have done this. But the central issue is Manmohan Singh's assessment that the sheer scale of the attack points to external involvement. Any number of Indian groups with no live contact with foreign agencies is capable of getting hold of explosives and planting them. Such groups learn by watching others in different parts of the world. Enough hatreds and injustices exist in Indian society, which can explain the kind of ideological pathologies that encourage them to visit violence on innocent civilians. It is a terrible, very sick, pathology. But such groups exist.
India has a huge amount to gain from the peace process with Pakistan. It would be foolhardy to make it a hostage to speculation about Pakistani involvement in terrorist violence. In any cultural, economic or social interaction, India stands to gain more than Pakistan. Apart from launching bus and train services, India has received an assurance from Musharraf that the Kashmir issue would be discussed on condition that there can be no redrawing of boundaries. The more we blame Pakistan, the more obsessively we look for "the foreign hand", the farther we get from the task of looking inwards, to examine what is wrong with our police, intelligence agencies and criminal justice system so that we can address some of the cesspool of grievances in which violence and extremist ideologies flourish.
The "hit-Pakistan-teach-Pakistan-a-lesson" clamour is a complete negation of any reasonable, balanced, mature and sober approach to the Mumbai blasts - just as was the 10-month-long military mobilisation after the Parliament building attack, which achieved nothing. What gives the demand a dangerous edge is the advocacy of Israel-style militaristic approaches. Its proponents admire Israel for unleashing high levels of violence upon its adversaries when threatened. But, to start with, Israel is not a state that respects international law. It has the longest history in the world of violation of Security Council resolutions, such as 242 and 338, as well as the World Court judgment on the apartheid wall. India cannot and should not emulate it. This will encourage terrible lawlessness and violence in our own neighbourhood.
Secondly, what Israel is now doing is illegal, immoral and politically disastrous. The roots of the current conflict go back to Israel's recent liquidation of Abu Jamal Samhanada, newly appointed security-chief of the Interior Ministry of the Palestinian Authority. This was calculated, as many past Israeli actions, to provoke. It brought on retaliatory attacks from pro-Hamas militants with crude home-made Qassam rockets which inflicted minimal damage. In response, Israel launched devastating attacks on civilians, including a picnicking family of eight. The ensuing violence eventually led to the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the capture of one.
Under international law, it is perfectly legitimate for people under occupation to militarily target occupying military personnel, although not to abduct them. But Israel has itself practised abduction and kidnappings and made hostage-prisoner swaps, as in 1968, 1983, 1985 and 2004. In June, it took one-third of the Palestinian Cabinet hostage. It escalated its attack on Hamas with a view to destroying its entire military infrastructure. Israeli troops cut off Gaza's water and power supply and inflicted collective punishment on civilians who were in no way responsible for the earlier attacks or abduction. Cutting off electricity means cutting off refrigeration - and people's food supplies.
Israel has since invaded Lebanon, in response to a Hizbollah raid on its forces. One need not justify Hizbollah's actions to note the sheer disproportion of the violence Israel unleashed on civilians. More than 380 were killed in 10 days. The number of Israeli casualties is not even one-tenth this number. Israel targeted civilian installations in Beirut and devastated its infrastructure. Israel hopes to weaken decisively the Hizbollah militarily and further the objective of establishing a Greater Israel, which annexes large parts of the West Bank.
This objective can only be achieved if Israel destroys all regional challenges and unilaterally draws - for the first time ever - its national boundaries after dividing up Palestinian territory into a series of Bantustans through the apartheid wall. To do this, it must claim that there is no Palestinian agency with which it can negotiate. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza even while continuing with the colonisation of the West Bank must be seen in this perspective. To these ends, Israel has inflicted cruel forms of collective punishment, as well as large-scale violence, upon non-combatant civilians. Collective punishment is impermissible under international law, as are sieges of cities, which starve them of food and water - the state of Beirut today after 15 years of recovery and revival as one of West Asia's liveliest cities. Israel's unconscionable military offensive is an act of international brigandage linked to expansionism. Those who want India to emulate Israel assign the most obnoxious motives and purposes to our state. Obviously, they see nothing wrong with expansionism, aggression, occupation, disproportionate force, hostage-taking and outright assassination of suspects - actions that are punishable under international law.
India is being asked to follow Israel's bellicose, lawless and brigand-like conduct on the presumption that "shock-and-awe" methods, although excessive, disproportionate and immoral, successfully deter future terrorist attacks. However, this presumption has been repeatedly falsified. Israel's coercion has failed to deter adversaries or generate security for Israeli citizens. In fact, the moral force of the first Intifada derived from the determination that Palestinian youth showed when fighting the mighty Israeli military with nothing more than stones.
Israel is one of the world's most militarised societies: more than 576,000 of its 6.5 million people serve in its armed forces. The country probably has the world's highest density of surveillance equipment such as X-ray machines, closed-circuit cameras and explosive detectors. And yet, suicide-bombers infiltrate populated high-security areas and kill. Such is the deep sense of injustice, injury, insult and resentment that Israel's excesses have created among its neighbours; that its own citizens cannot remotely hope to become secure in the absence of a just settlement of the Palestinian question.
It should be demeaning for India even to think of following a model based on devotion to violence and cultivation of hatred and prejudice. It is a sign of the moral and political degeneration of the Indian elite that it has stooped to clamour for attacks on Pakistan, without even establishing its complicity in the Mumbai carnage.
It is incumbent upon all those who value sanity, sobriety and principle in public life to counter such crass and extreme militarist nationalism. Such extremism is the stuff of fascism.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 27, 2006

U.S. Sanctions Two India Firms for Transfers to Iran

by Carol Giacomo, Reuters

The Bush administration has decided to impose sanctions on two Indian firms for missile-related transactions with Iran, U.S. officials told Reuters on July 27.
The disclosure came hours after the U.S. House of Representatives late July 26 overwhelmingly agreed the United States should sell nuclear technology to India and rejected a move by critics to delay the vote over concerns New Delhi had not sufficiently aided U.S. efforts to contain Iran.
Under terms of the U.S. Iran-Syria Non-proliferation Act, "we are going to report to Congress about transactions by two private Indian companies with Iran," one official said.
He and another official declined to identify the firms but one official said the transfers involve "dual-use items related to missiles."
While the administration is mandated by law to report violations of the act to Congress every six months, sanctions are discretionary but "they won't be waived" in these cases, the other official said.
The officials did not specify the exact sanctions to be imposed but in previous cases, sanctioned companies were barred from receiving U.S. government contracts, assistance or military trade as well as certain controlled goods which have both civilian and military purposes.
Congressional critics had accused the administration of withholding any conclusive word on possible sanctions until after the vote on the nuclear deal, so the issue would not affect the vote.
The nuclear agreement is viewed as the cornerstone of an evolving new strategic alliance between India and the United States, former Cold War adversaries.
The administration has repeatedly defended India as having an excellent record of protecting sensitive technology.
According to lawmakers, the United States since 2003 has filed at least eight non-proliferation sanctions against at least seven Indian companies or persons, including two sanctions in December 2005. The new sanctions would add to that tally.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 27, 2006

U.S. House Approves India Nuclear Deal

by Carol Giacomo, Reuters

The U.S. House of Representatives gave overwhelming initial approval on July 26 to a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation accord with India, an important but far from final step in making the agreement a reality.
The approval vote was 359-68 after lawmakers rejected amendments that aimed to put limits on India's nuclear weapons program and were proposed by critics concerned the deal would harm nonproliferation goals.
Lawmakers also rejected an effort to defer action until India did more to back U.S. efforts to contain Iran.
The deal would allow nuclear-armed India to buy American nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in more than 30 years, despite the fact it has still not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It also requires the rising South Asian power to open civilian nuclear facilities to international inspections, forgo future nuclear tests and cooperate with the United States and other nations on halting the spread of nuclear exports.
"History will regard what we do today as a tidal shift in relations between India and the United States. This will be known as the day when Congress signaled definitively the end of the Cold War paradigm governing interactions between New Delhi and Washington," said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.
The Senate must also approve the bill but a vote is not expected until September. The House and Senate would vote again after U.S.-India negotiations on the technical details of the agreement are completed. India must also complete negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a system of inspections for its civilian nuclear facilities and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must change its regulations to allow nuclear transfers to India.

Pouring 'Nuclear Fuel'

Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, head of a bipartisan nonproliferation task force, lambasted the deal as pouring "nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race" because it would allow New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons production to upward of 50 bombs a year from seven.
During several hours of debate, the House, led by President George W. Bush's Republican Party, soundly rejected an amendment that would have forced India to halt fissile material production as a condition of the nuclear deal.
The House also rejected an amendment that would forbid India from capitalizing on a new ability to buy U.S. nuclear fuel by diverting all its domestically produced uranium for weapons use. India now uses half of its domestic uranium for energy production and half for weapons, lawmakers said.
A surprise move to defer a vote until India did more to back U.S. efforts to contain Iran failed by 235-193.
The Bush administration had warned such amendments would kill the deal, seen as crucial to an evolving strategic alliance between India and the United States, frequent Cold War adversaries.
But proponents said requiring India to halt production of weapons-related fissile material would help ensure U.S. technology aided India's energy production, not bomb-making.
As a signatory to the NPT, the United States is obligated not to help India and other states advance their nuclear weapons programs.
Lawmakers made clear U.S. nuclear technology should only be used to meet India's growing energy demands, warning America's cooperation would end if India tested another nuclear weapon, as in 1998.
The deal has also faced criticism in India, with communist parties that shore up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition and the opposition Hindu nationalists accusing Washington of setting new terms in the legislation.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 25, 2006

India Tightens Border Security after Mumbai Blasts

by Bappa Majumdar, Kolkatta

India is stepping up vigil on its borders with Nepal and Bangladesh after investigations into the Mumbai bombings revealed militants and weapons were being smuggled from these areas, officials said on July 25.
While the number of border guards on the open frontier with Nepal would be doubled to nearly 11,000, troops would speed up building a fence on the Bangladesh border and use high-technology equipment to monitor the area, they said.
"It is an open border with Nepal and anybody can enter anytime and we are viewing this seriously," Raj Kanojia, an inspector-general of police, told Reuters.
"With penetration impossible from the northern side due to strong presence of army and police, the militants are using the eastern side to infiltrate," he added.
Investigations into the train bombings in Mumbai this month which killed more than 180 people, revealed that Islamist militants were increasingly smuggling arms and explosives and infiltrating through the two borders, officials said.
Two of the four men arrested so far in connection with the blasts were from the eastern state of Bihar, which along with West Bengal and Sikkim states, shares borders with Nepal and has been identified as vulnerable, they said.
India shares a 1,750-kilometer (1,090-mile) open border with Nepal and a 4,000-kilometer (2,500-mile) frontier with Bangladesh. While about half the Bangladesh border is fenced, there are no barriers along the Nepal frontier.
"The border with Nepal and Bangladesh is emerging prominently in our investigation as the terror route," said K.P. Raghuvanshi, the chief of the Anti-Terrorist Squad investigating the blasts in India's financial capital.
"Militants are using the twin borders to send their cadres to Pakistan and this is a big threat to India's security," he said.
Indian investigators suspect Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani military spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence to be behind the attacks.
They say the two outfits were suspected to have armed and trained Indian Muslims to bomb train carriages and railway platforms in the crowded city.
Pakistan has denied any connection with the bombings and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said New Delhi should desist from a "blame game" without any evidence.
Indian border guards said they had increased patrolling along the Bangladesh frontier.
"We are using thermal imagers in the night and also stepping up work to complete erecting fences in view of the blasts," A.K. Mitra, director-general of the force, said from New Delhi.

index

SACW.net, July 24, 2006

Waiting For Enlightenment

by Pervez Hoodbhoy

The centrepiece of Pakistan's relationship with the West since September 11, 2001, has been dubbed "enlightened moderation" by its president and philosopher-general, Pervez Musharraf. Under his rule, Musharraf claims, Pakistan has rejected the orthodox, militant, violent Islam imposed by the previous chief of army staff to seize power in Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq (who ruled from 1977-1988), in favour of a more 'modern' and 'moderate' Islam. But Musharraf's actions, and those of his government and its allies, are often at odds with this. In fact, after almost five years of 'enlightened moderation,' it seems there is more continuity than change. And, with each passing day, it becomes harder to see how such a policy can hope to stem the tide of religious radicalism that is overwhelming Pakistani society.
No one doubts that there have been some changes for the good. There is a perceptible shift in institutional practices and inclinations. Heads of government organizations are no longer required to lead noon prayers as in the 1980's; female announcers with undraped heads freely appear on Pakistan Television; to the relief of many passengers thickly bearded stewards are disappearing from PIA flights; the first women fighter pilots have been inducted into the Pakistan Air Force. More importantly, in early July 2006, Musharraf directed the Council of Islamic Ideology to draft an amendment to the controversial Hudood Ordinance, put in place by General Zia-ul-Haq and not repealed by any of the civilian governments that ruled from 1988 to 1999. This law gives women a lower legal status and punishes the victims of rape. Repeal of these anti-women laws has been a long standing demand of Pakistani women's groups. A vastly overdue -- but nevertheless welcome -- action was taken by the government when it released in July hundreds of women prisoners arrested under the Hudood Ordinance, many of whom had spent years awaiting their trial.
But the force of these pluses cannot outweigh the many more weighty minuses. General Musharraf has formally banned some of many Jihadi groups that the Pakistan army has helped train and arm for over two decades, but they still operate quite freely. After the October earthquake, some of these extremist groups in Kashmir seized the opportunity of relief work to fully reestablish and expand their presence. Exploiting Musharraf's ambivalence, they openly flaunted their banners and weapons in all major towns of Azad Kashmir and fully advertised their strength. Some obtained relief materials from government stocks to pass off as their own, and used heavy vehicles that could only have been provided by the authorities. Many national and international relief organizations were left insecure by their overwhelming presence. Only recently have the jihadists moved out of full public view into more sheltered places.
Other Pakistani leaders send similar messages. Shaukat Aziz, a former Citibanker and now prime minister of Pakistan, made a call for nation-wide prayers for rain in a year of drought. This effort to improve his Islamic credentials became less laughable when, at an education conference in Islamabad, he proposed that Islamic religious education must start as soon as children enter school. This came in response to a suggestion by the moderate Islamic scholar, Javed Ghamdi, that only school children in their fifth year and above should be given formal Islamic education. Otherwise, said Ghamdi, they would stand in danger of becoming rigid and doctrinaire. The government's 2006 education policy now requires Islamic studies to begin in the third year of school, a year earlier than in the previous policy.
Other ministers are no less determined to show Islamic zeal. The federal minister for religious affairs, Ijaz ul Haq, speaking at the launch of a book authored by a leading Islamic extremist leader on "Christian Terrorism and The Muslim World," argued that anyone who did not believe in jihad was neither a Muslim nor a Pakistani. He then declared that given the situation facing Muslims today, he was prepared to be a suicide bomber.
According to a newspaper report, Pakistani health minister, Mohammad Nasir Khan, assured the upper house of parliament that the government could consider banning female nurses looking after male patients at hospitals. This move arose from a motion moved by female parliamentary members of the MMA, the Islamist party that commands majorities in the provincial assemblies of the Frontier and Baluchistan provinces and offered crucial support for Musharraf staying on as president. Women's bodies are of particular concern to these holy men: "We think that men could derive sexual pleasure from women's bodies while conducting ECG or ultrasound," proclaimed Maulana Gul Naseeb Khan, provincial secretary of the MMA. In his opinion women would be able to lure men under the pretext of these medical procedures. Therefore, he said, "to save the supreme values of Islam and the message of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the MMA has decided to impose the ban." Destroyed or damaged billboards with women's faces can be seen in several cities of the Frontier because the MMA deems the exhibition of unveiled women as un-Islamic.
Total separation of the sexes is a central goal of the Islamists, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. For example, on April 9, 2006, 21 women and 8 children were crushed to death, and scores injured, in a stampede inside a three-storey madrassa in Karachi where a large number of women had gathered for a weekly congregation. Male rescuers, who arrived in ambulances, were prevented from moving injured women to hospitals.
One cannot dismiss this as just one incident. Soon after the October 2005 earthquake, as I walked through the destroyed city of Balakot, a student of the Frontier Medical College described to me how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girl students from under the rubble of their school building. The action of these elders was similar to that of Saudi Arabia's ubiquitous religious "mutaween" police who, in March 2002, had stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing their abayas. In rare criticism, Saudi newspapers had blamed the mutaween for letting 15 girls burn to death.
The Saudiization of a once-vibrant Pakistani culture continues at a relentless pace. The drive to segregate is now also being found among educated women. Vigorous proselytizers bringing this message, such as Mrs. Farhat Hashmi, have been catapulted to heights of fame and fortune. Their success is evident. Two decades ago the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. Now she outnumbers her sisters who still dare show their faces. This has had the effect of further enhancing passivity and unquestioning obedience to the teacher, and of decreasing the self-confidence of female students.
The intensification of religious feelings has had a myriad other more significant consequences. Depoliticization and destruction of all non-religious organizations has lead to the absence of any noticeable public mobilization-even on specifically Muslim causes like US actions against Iraq, Palestine, or Iran. Events in these areas rarely bring more than a few dozen protesters on to the streets-if that. Nevertheless large numbers of Pakistanis are driven to fury and violence when they perceive their faith has been maligned. Mobs set on fire the Punjab Assembly, as well as shops and cars in Lahore, for an act of blasphemy committed in Denmark. Even as religious fanaticism grips the population there is a curious, almost fatalistic, disconnection with the real world which suggests that fellow Muslims don't matter any more-only the Faith does.
Religious identity has also become increasingly sectarian. A suicide bomber, as yet unidentified, killed 57 people and eliminated the entire leadership of the "Sunni Movement" when he leapt on to the stage at a religious gathering in Karachi in April, 2006. Months earlier, barely a mile down from my university, at the shrine of Bari Imam, 25 Shias were killed in similar attack. In the tribal areas, sectarian tensions have frequently exploded into open warfare: in the villages of Hangu district, Sunnis and Shias exchanged light artillery and rocket fire leaving scores dead. Earlier this year, when I traveled for lecturing in the town of Gilgit, I saw soldiers crouched in bunkers behind mounted machine guns. It looked more like a town under siege than a tourist resort.
The clearest political expression of this shift towards a more violent and intolerant religious identity is the rise of the MMA as a national force, which on key issues both supports and is supported by General Musharraf's government. A measure of its power, and the threat it poses to society and the state, is the Pakistani Taliban movement that it has helped create, especially in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Their success draws in large measure on the lessons they learned when working hand in the hand with the Pakistan army to create and sustain the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Unable to combat the toxic mix of religion with tribalism, the Pakistani government is rapidly losing what little authority it ever had in the tribal parts. Under US pressure, the army has been mounting military offensives against Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters who fled Afghanistan. The convenient fiction that the army is merely combating "foreign militants" from the Arab and Central Asian countries is accepted by no one. Its assaults have taken a heavy civilian toll and local resistance has grown.
The local Taliban, as well as Al-Qaida, are popular and the army is not. In the tribal areas, the local Taliban now run a parallel administration that dispenses primitive justice according to tribal and Islamic principles. A widely available Taliban-made video that I saw shows the bodies of criminals dangling from electricity poles in the town of Miranshah while thousands of appreciative spectators look on. In Wana, a regional capital, about 20 miles from the Afghan border, Taliban supporters have decreed that men are forbidden to shave. A Pathan barber, who migrated to Islamabad, told me last month that many others like him are making their way to the big cities or abandoning their traditional occupation.
The Pakistani Taliban (like their brothers in Afghanistan) see education as insidious. Pakistani newspapers frequently carry news of schools in the tribal regions being attacked destroyed by the Taliban. But rarely are these incidents followed by angry editorials or letters-to-the editor. Implicit sympathy for the Taliban remains strong among urban middle-class Pakistanis because they are perceived as standing up to the Americans, while the government has caved in. In Waziristan, one of the locales of a growing insurgency, the state has essentially capitulated and accepted Talibanic rule over tribal society as long as the army is allowed to maintain a spectator presence.
Stepping back, the Islamist shift underway in Pakistan becomes yet more evident. According to the Pew Global Survey (2006), the percentage of Pakistanis who expressed confidence in Osama bin Laden as a world leader grew from 45% in 2003 to 51% in 2005. This 6 point increase must be compared against responses to an identical questionnaire in Morocco, Turkey, and Lebanon, where bin Laden's popularity has sharply dropped by as much as 20 points.
It is worth asking what has changed Pakistan so and what makes it so different from other Muslim countries? What set one section of its people upon the other, created notions of morality centred on separating the sexes, and sapped the country's vitality? Some well meaning Pakistanis -- particularly those who live overseas -- think that it is best to avoid such difficult questions. These days they are venturing to "repackage Pakistan" for the media. They want to change negative perceptions of Pakistan in the West while, at the same time, hesitating to call for a change in the structure of the state and its outlook.
But at the heart of Pakistan's problems lies a truth -- one etched in stone--that when a state proclaims a religious identity and mission, it is bound to privilege those who organize religious life and interpret religious text. Since there are many models and interpretations within every religion, there is bound to be conflict between religious forces over whose model shall prevail. There is also the larger confrontation between religious principles and practices and what we now consider to be 'modern' ideas of society, which have emerged over the past several hundred years. This truth, for all its simplicity, escaped the attention of several generations of soldiers, politicians, and citizens of Pakistan. It is true that there has been some learning -- Musharraf's call for "enlightened moderation" is a tacit (and welcome) admission that a theocratic Pakistan cannot work. But his call conflicts with his other, more important, responsibility as chief of the Pakistan Army.
Pakistan is what it is because its army finds greater benefit in the status quo. Today the Pakistan Army is vast, and as an institution, has acquired enormous corporate interests that sprawl across real estate, manufacturing, and service sectors. It also receives large amounts of military aid, all of which would be threatened if it comes into direct conflict with the US. In the 1960s and 1980s, and again since 9/11, the army discovered its high rental value when serving the US. Each time the long-term costs to the society and state have been terrible.
The relationship between the army and religious radicals is today no longer as simple as in the 1980's. To maintain a positive image in the West, the Pakistani establishment must continue to decry Islamic radicalism, and display elements of liberalism that are deeply disliked by the orthodox. But hard actions will be taken only if the Islamists threaten the army's corporate and political interests, or if senior army commanders are targeted for assassination. The Islamists for their part hope for, and seek to incite, action by zealous officers to bring back the glory days of the military-mullah alliance led by General Zia ul Haq.
Musharraf and his corps commanders well know that they cannot afford to sleep too well. It is in the lower ranks that the Islamists are busily establishing bases. A mass of junior officers and low-ranking soldiers -- whose world view is similar to that of the Taliban in most respects -- feels resentful of being used as cannon fodder for fighting America's war. It is they who die, not their senior officers. So far, army discipline has successfully squelched dissent and forced it underground. But this sleeping giant can -- if and when it wakes up -- tear asunder the Pakistan Army, and shake the Pakistani state from its very foundations.

(The author is a professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.)

index

Star-Telegram.com, July 23, 2006

Aerospace industry eyeing India

by Bob Cox

FARNBOROUGH, England - Orville Prins, a top Lockheed Martin salesman, left London late last week for India on a mission aimed at selling F-16 fighter jets. It's his 10th trip to the South Asian nation in 12 months.
Prins is one of many aerospace industry representatives and executives spending a lot of time in New Delhi lately. Counterparts from nearly all of the world's handful of major defense and aerospace companies are assiduously courting Indian government and private industry, seeking to tap a vast and ripe market.
With an entrenched democratic government, growing economy and flowering capitalism, India is seen as perhaps the hottest market for sales of weapons, commercial aircraft and other new technologies. It's also viewed as a potential source of new capital, lower-cost production capacity and talented people.
"It's not just a commercial market; it's a military and commercial market," said Mark Kronenberg, an executive with Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
Representatives of India's government and military services were the center of lots of attention from Prins, Kronenberg and other aerospace company executives last week at the Farnborough International Airshow, one of the aerospace industry's premier business events.
India is expected to issue a formal request soon for proposals to purchase and co-produce 126 multirole combat aircraft. It's a deal that, based on a roughly $50 million per plane price tag for the F-16, would be worth upward of $6 billon to $7 billion just for the airplanes plus spare parts, training and other support.
The competition, which could last at least two years, is the first big combat aircraft deal of the 21st century, and the winner will gain an important foothold in a fast-growing nation with many defense requirements.
Nearly every fighter jet manufacturer, backed by their governments, is expected to submit bids to the Indian government: Lockheed for the F-16, Boeing for the F/A-18E/F, the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium, France's Mirage 2000 or Rafale, Sweden's Gripen and Russia with a MiG-35.
"This is going to be a tough dogfight," said Prins, vice president of business development for India with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth.
India is largely a new and untapped market for U.S. defense and aerospace companies. The huge nation was off-limits for years because of Cold War politics when India's allegiance was with the Soviet Union. In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration embargoed weapons sales to both India and Pakistan.
"If I went into the Department of Defense five years ago and asked for an export license to India, there was no chance," Kronenberg said. That began to change with the Bush administration, and little more than a year ago, President Bush approved arms sales to India.
The Indian government is shopping, looking to improve its defense capabilities against both traditional enemy Pakistan and other potential threats like China.
"They live in a dangerous neighborhood," Kronenberg said.
Lockheed has been preparing to do business with India for years. The company has kept an office in New Delhi for 20 years that is staffed by seven resident employees.
The company sees "opportunities across the entire corporation," Prins said, and has submitted proposals to sell P-3 patrol aircraft, C-130J cargo planes and even Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, which Lockheed outfits with sophisticated electronics and weapons systems.
Boeing has already sold commercial airliners and is pitching not only F/A-18s, but Chinook helicopters and its own P-8 patrol plane.
Another company trying to cash in on opportunities in India is Fort Worth-based Bell Helicopter.
"You're seeing us take a very active role in India," said Robert Fitzpatrick, Bell's senior vice president for business development. "Over the next 20 years, we see it as a $4.3 billion market for vertical-lift aircraft."
Bell is in the final stages of a competition with Eurocopter to sell 197 aircraft to the Indian army for observation and reconnaissance missions. The Indian requirements are stiff.
Both companies have had to show that their helicopters can take off and land while loaded as high as 25,000 feet altitude and function perfectly after spending an entire night parked on the side of a mountain at minus 20 degrees Celsius.
Bell sold 18 helicopters into the Indian market last year and has 20 orders so far in 2006. The market potential is vast. In the U.S. economy, there is about one helicopter in use for every 20,000 residents. That figure is one for every 10 million people in India, which has just one emergency medical service helicopter in the entire country.
If Bell wins the army contract, it would make 60 of the aircraft in its plants in Fort Worth and suburban Montreal. The rest would be assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in India, with Bell producing many of the key parts and assemblies in Texas.
The fighter-plane competition figures to be a free-for-all, with each country and manufacturer touting its aircraft's capabilities, the purchase and operation cost, and trying to offer the Indian government the best package of work-sharing and other perks to sweeten the package.
Lockheed believes that its experience exporting various F-16 models to more than 70 nations, with 50 making repeat purchases, is a big selling point. The company would, with U.S. government and Air Force involvement, offer India an F-16 version customized to its needs. As it has with numerous other customers, Lockheed will offer India a major share of F-16 work, including probably final assembly of the aircraft.
"We think the F-16 brings the optimum blend of capability and cost, both acquisition costs and life-cycle costs," Prins said.
There will be cheaper planes to buy, he said, but they may not be cheaper to own. The Russian MiG, for example, carries a sticker price of $30 million to $35 million.
But the Russian planes, and especially their engines, are not noted for reliability and require heavier spending to keep flying.
At any one time, 15 to 20 people out of Fort Worth are working on preparations for the Indian fighter bid.
"This is an important program to our company," Prins said.
He can, if needed, call on the added firepower of Ralph Heath, president of the aeronautics division, or even Robert Stevens, Lockheed's chief executive.
Boeing has also called in the heavy artillery to aid its efforts to sell F-18s and other aircraft to India. Chief Executive James McNerney has made one trip during his short time with the company. James Albaugh, head of Boeing's defense business, has also made the trip in recent months.
The key to working with India for all of the U.S. companies will be patience, a long-term view. The Indian political and acquisition process is described as thorough and deliberate.
"This isn't something that either us or Lockheed Martin is going to realize huge benefits from in the short term," said Boeing's Kronenberg. "It's going to take a decade."

index

Khaleej Times, July 22, 2006

Mumbai lessons

Praful Bidwai

From internal confusion to blaming external agencies. That's how the state responded to India's second worst serial-bombing incident. The response wasn't commensurate with the shocking loss of 200 lives in Mumbai. This toll is about the same as in the 2004 Madrid bombings -- Europe's worst-ever terrorist attack -- which led to the Spanish government's collapse.
There's speculation that terrorists targeted first-class suburban rail coaches in Mumbai mainly to kill affluent Gujaratis who live in Malad and Kandivali -- as revenge for the Gujarat pogrom. But only 15 per cent of those killed were Gujarati. Had Gujaratis been the target, the terrorists would have bombed Kandivali and Malad stations.
We must equally dismiss all claptrap about the 'spirit of Mumbai'. True, Mumbai struggled to quickly regain some sanity through its citizens' admirable solidarity. But it's ludicrous to equate ordinary people's struggle for survival with the elite's craving to shore up the Sensex.
The opposition BJP has tried to politicise the issue by accusing the government of "trading" national security for votes. This implies that "Muslim appeasement" has encouraged terrorism. The charge is communal and insulting to the whole community.
The UPA too didn't cover itself with glory. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's bland, emotionless speech failed to register the tragedy's gravity.
The establishment was divided in its response. The hardliners, led by National Security Adviser MK Narayanan, planted stories about the involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Students' Islamic Movement of India and other Pakistan-backed agencies. But the external affairs and home Ministries were more guarded and said the India-Pakistan dialogue wouldn't suffer-despite an objectionable remark by Pakistani foreign minister Kasuri.
The Mumbai police rounded up hundreds of Muslims from Mahim, Malwani and Bhendibazar without even a "midnight knock". They kicked open the doors of their homes, violating their dignity.
The bombings raise questions about the perpetrators' identity and motives. A major issue is whether the government was right to consider putting Foreign Secretary-level talks on hold unless Pakistan honours its commitment that its territory wouldn't be used for anti-India terrorism.
Although horrifying, the Mumbai killings they don't pose a systemic challenge to India. No sub-state organisation anywhere has successfully mounted such a challenge. For all the resources-and fanatical cadres-at its command, Al-Qaeda has failed to repeat 9/11 in the US. The threat to Indian democracy from the communal Right is far graver.
Neither intelligence agencies nor the police have produced convincing, rigorous evidence identifying Mumbai's culprits or their external links. All we have is speculation. This is no different from the "clues" offered in countless cases, from Baroda to Benares, and Coimbatore to Jammu. That virtually no convictions were secured in these is a shameful comment on the police's slipshod work in generating reliable evidence. Manmohan Singh declared in Russia that the Mumbai bombings couldn't have been accomplished "without some external involvement." This stretches credulity. Neither the explosives used-RDX, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil-nor the targeting of super-crowded trains involve sophistication or scale that cannot be mastered by numerous groups. You don't need the ISI, or even its "rogue" elements, for this.
The timing of such acts may be unrelated to specific events. Groups commit them simply when their cadres and weapons are in place. Nothing suggests that the bombings were meant to avenge a special humiliation or injustice, such as the post-Babri violence in Mumbai, or the Gujarat carnage.
Responsible governments don't change policies on the basis of imperfect, flimsy evidence. The Vajpayee government mobilised 700,000 troops at the border in response to the 2001 Parliament attack. It sustained the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation for ten months at a huge expense. India and Pakistan twice came close to the nuclear brink.
Yet, India achieved none of its stated objectives, including the release of any of the list of 20 criminals handed over to Pakistan. There's no credible evidence of Pakistani official involvement in the Mumbai bombings. Such involvement scarcely makes sense given that Pervez Musharraf himself is a terrorist target, that Pakistan has deployed 60,000 soldiers to fight Al-Qaeda, and that it's under close watch of the international community as regards its commitment to fight terror. Harping on Pakistan denies that terrorism and its causes are rooted in India.
India would be ill-advised to jeopardise the peace process. Rather, it should explore Pakistan's offer of joint investigation, along with a multilateral agency like Interpol.
The India-Pakistan dialogue has worked, despite its flaws and now-slackened pace, in both countries' interest. Several barriers to people-to-people movement have broken down-with an unprecedented 1.7 lakh people crossing the border in six months. India has created, to its own benefit, conditions conducive to economic and cultural cooperation with Pakistan.
Above all, India has won a crucial assurance from President Musharraf that Pakistan would discuss Kashmir within a framework that rules out redrawing borders. Here lies a big peace dividend, which can free us from the psychological, military and political burden of rivalry. It would be self-defeating to miss it.
Mumbai holds a larger lesson. No democratic state can gain absolute security and prevent terrorism. However, it can do three things. First, it can encourage greater alertness, and methodically collect information on suspect groups. It can install simple surveillance equipment such as closed-circuit television cameras at transport hubs. It shouldn't emulate London, with its half-a-million hidden cameras.
Second, the government must provide advance warning, and relief, including medical help, evacuation and rehabilitation, to victims. Citizens needn't feel that the state can assuredly prevent all violence, only that it's doing its utmost to help them. This can only happen if violence is thoroughly investigated and the culprits convicted in a revamped justice delivery system.
Finally, the government must sort out "inter-agency politics". India's 10 intelligence agencies work at cross-purposes. Their top officers are often appointed on cronyist considerations.
This must stop. We must understand how terrorist groups work and the associative bonds that consolidate them. Without this, our agencies will fail to bring terrorists to book. Their knee-jerk responses are the last thing we need.

index

Kashmir Times, July 17, 2006

Knee-jerk reaction

Ominous signs of peace process going off rails

Editorial

When, on a single day, around 200 are killed at Mumbai and 8 at Srinagar, leaving nearly 800 injured, in all, it is but natural that the vocal population will cry for the retaliatory response. The people will not tolerate the sight of the authorities sitting smug and behaving as if nothing shocking has happened. But, the question is, what should be India's reaction to what has happened? Should authorities crack down on a particular community, pass more Draconian laws and come down on the suspected neighbour with fire and brimstone and thereby play into the hands of the terrorists and their allies who are opposed to the ongoing peace process and are determined to tear apart the fragile fabric of India's liberal secular democracy? Or, should we prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their nefarious designs by callibrating Indian response with care and restraint? India can prevent them from reaping the harvest of their heinous effort by frustrating their designs to subvent the peace process, vitiate communal atmosphere and disturb peace and tranquility. But, alas, it seems that New Delhi has decided to play to the gallery of the voters and dance to the tune of the perpetrators of violence by behaving the way it wanted it to do.
In varying language and tone the prime minister, defence minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and the president of the BJP have brushed aside Pak denials and offer of cooperation and have held it responsible for what had happened in Mumbai on that 'terrible Tuesday'. Reportedly, the PM is going to attend the G-8 meeting at St. Petersburg with the express intention of pin-pointing Pakistan as the ultimate source of terrorism round the world. New Delhi has already announced that the two Indian MPs scheduled to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar at Islamabad would not go there. The proposed meeting of the foreign secretaries on the 21st and 22nd has also been called off. By their statements Indian authorities have chosen to hold the Indo-Pak talks hostage to good behaviour of the terrorists, ignoring Pak foreign minister's confession that Islamabad might have some influence over them, but no control. If India really chooses to suspend or slow-down the on-going process, in response to the atavistic demands for a revengeful response, then it shall be surrendering to the terrorists' dictate, despite the PM's assertion to the contrary. There are strong vested interests on both the sides of the border who are opposed to the peace process and are going to win the first round. The BJP too has not done the right thing by selecting, of all persons, the highly controversial Narendra Modi as their mascot for peace and security in Mumbai. Along with Pakistan the Muslim leadership of India, have stood side by side with the Hindus in condemning these heinous deeds. So, anti-terrorist marches in Mumbai, or for that matter any where else, should be led by a generally acceptable face and not by any highly controversial one. Even, in its search for clues and culprits the police should be extremely cautious and careful. Already, around 250 have been taken into custody near the railway station of Mahim, in Mumbai, alone. Many more have been rounded up in other parts of Maharastra, also and by definition they are all Muslims. Aurangabad is already having a khaki look, because of the heavy presence of the police. Now, know what it means to be interrogated by the police. So, one can easily imagine the reaction of innocents when they are subjected to such humiliation and torture for no fault of theirs, except for being a Muslim in Hindu-dominated India. We know the police have to do their duty the way they have been trained, but we should also know what the consequences are when they try to be too thorough by casting their net very wide. The danger of charge-sheeting some innocents, in the absence of the real culprits, who might have fled the country already, is also there. Nabbing the culprits is important, but what is far more important is to ensure the failure of their mission. Attack on a mosque at Surat is not the right response in this hour, nor are the suggestions for 'hot pursuit'.

index

The Hindu, July 17, 2006

Limit to tolerance, but options are limited too

Siddharth Varadarajan

Despite the Musharraf regime's equivocation on terrorism, India will gain nothing by allowing the authors of the Mumbai blasts to disrupt the peace process with Pakistan.

THE WELL-COORDINATED terrorist attacks on commuters in Mumbai on July 11 have paved the way for the re-emergence of two facile arguments, neither of which offers a convincing way of ending this mindless, criminal violence once and for all. In India, the blasts have led the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and many security analysts to fault the Manmohan Singh Government for engaging in a peace process with Pakistan, whose military regime has clearly not lived up to its promise of preventing terrorist organisations from operating from its territory. These critics also find fault with the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), claiming the police have been demoralised as a result. According to this discourse, most terrorist acts are a product of Pakistan's intelligence agencies; and India is a victim because of the government's inability to take Islamabad to task and allow tough measures against those suspected of involvement in terrorism. The BJP has also sought to communalise the debate by linking the "soft on terror" charge to "vote bank politics" and the so-called "appeasement" of Muslims, ignoring the fact that people from all faiths and regions in India sought the repeal of POTA because it was used against innocent persons.
The second, equally problematic, argument revolves around the need to solve the so-called "root cause" of terrorism. Khurshid Ahmed Kasuri, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, provided one variant of this when he suggested that the Mumbai blasts were linked to India's failure to resolve the Kashmir dispute. "I think the Mumbai incident - however tragic it may be and it is undoubtedly very tragic - underlines the need for the two countries to work together to control this environment, but they can only do so if they resolve their disputes," he told Reuters on Wednesday. His remarks drew a sharp rejoinder from India.
At a philosophical level, the idea that a lingering dispute can lead to violence is unexceptionable. Also unexceptionable would be the suggestion - though Mr. Kasuri did not make it - that the "collateral" victims of the Indian government's counter-insurgency campaign in Kashmir might feel driven to commit desperate acts of terror. But what Mr. Kasuri and other root cause-wallahs fail to appreciate is the nihilist nature of the premeditated attack on Mumbai's commuters. Like the London and Madrid bombings, and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Centre, the Mumbai bombings were a deliberate attempt to target non-combatants. The perpetrators do not feel the need to issue a statement or broadcast a charter of demands because the motive of the attack is not the redress of a grievance or the settlement of a dispute, but the creation of one. The motive is to provoke more violence and insecurity and reduce the space that exists for dialogue, debate, and dissent in favour of the hawkish certitudes of the security establishment.
Though there is no evidence yet, Mr. Kasuri has chosen to make the link between Mumbai and Kashmir. But what he ought to have said is that those who have taken up arms in the name of a "freedom struggle" or jihad have no right to wage war against unarmed people. Political or religious-oriented groups that claim to resist oppression have as much of a responsibility to conduct their "struggle" according to the laws of war as do the security forces. No unresolved dispute, no human rights violation can ever give an individual - even if he or she happens to be a victim of injustice - the right to blow up innocent civilians on a train or elsewhere. "Root causes" are important and should be debated and addressed but the first priority has to be good police work, forensics, and intelligence so that the perpetrators are arrested. On their part, Mr. Kasuri and his colleagues in Pakistan need to speak out against such acts of terrorism. They must not seek refuge - as they often do - in the dishonest innuendo that terror that targets civilians is really the handiwork of agents provocateurs or the Indian intelligence agencies.
In the case of Pakistan, there is a responsibility not only to condemn such incidents but also to act. In January 2004, General Pervez Musharraf promised his government would not allow individuals and organisations in Pakistan to plot, finance or launch acts of terrorism against India. Since then, cross-border infiltration by armed insurgents in Kashmir is down, as indicated by official Indian figures. At the same time, the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed - though banned in Pakistan - operate under a variety of assumed names. Both groups sprang to life in the aftermath of last year's earthquake in Kashmir and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest they continue to have links with the Pakistani military establishment.
As the Manmohan Government ponders over its options as far as engagement with Pakistan is concerned, it must ask itself two questions. First, can anything be done to get the Pakistani establishment to convert its half-hearted efforts against terrorism into a wholehearted one? And secondly, has India conceded anything in the composite dialogue that makes the country more vulnerable on the security front?
My answer is `no' to both but for all their criticism of the peace process, the BJP and its supporters do not have clear-cut answers to either question. From the mawkishness of Lahore to the hawkishness of Operation Parakram, the erstwhile Vajpayee Government tried it all. Despite the deployment of troops on full alert for 10 months and half-baked theories of "coercive diplomacy," "surgical strikes," and "limited war," it became clear that there was no military solution to the problem of terrorists basing themselves in Pakistan. But if the threat of military action will not produce results, how can putting the peace process on hold or delaying a meeting of the two Foreign Secretaries do the trick? In any case, the peace process so far has been extremely positive from India's point of view. A number of confidence-building measures have been introduced, which allows India to bypass Gen. Musharraf and the army and build a constituency for peace in Pakistan's civil society, including its business community. And on Kashmir, the two sides have begun to articulate a common approach that acknowledges that borders cannot be redrawn. Based on the record so far, India has nothing to lose from this process going ahead uninterrupted. If anything, it is in Pakistan that one hears concerns about the "CBM trap" India has laid to postpone a settlement on Kashmir.

Three scenarios

This conclusion is independent of the identity of the perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts. Broadly speaking, there are three possibilities. First, Al-Qaeda - or some organisation linked to it - which is as much at war with the Musharraf Government as it is with India. The motive would be disrupt the peace process, foment a communal backlash by giving a boost to the sangh parivar, and send a message to the world, and the U.S. in particular, that the `war on terror' is far from over. Under such circumstances, surely the optimal Indian response would be to not hand the terrorists veto power over the peace process.
What if the authors of the blast turn out to be the LeT or JeM, operating in collusion with some section of the Pakistani state? If at all the government of Pakistan or one of its agencies is linked to the Mumbai blasts, this can only be because Islamabad is dissatisfied with the way the peace process is going. Perhaps the Mumbai blasts were designed to put pressure on India to make concessions on Kashmir. But the ISI must surely know that what little concessions India appears ready to make are largely the brainchild of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and are being opposed tooth and nail by the bureaucratic and security establishment. If anything, then, the Mumbai blasts make it even more difficult for the political leadership to grant concessions.
There is another point Indian policymakers should consider when assessing whether the Pakistani military establishment might have had a hand in the blasts. Pakistan claims a firewall exists between the anti-American, Al-Qaeda-linked extremists and the anti-India groups such as LeT and JeM. But the Mumbai blasts - their serial nature, the choice of public transport, their proximity to the anniversary of the London bombings - serve to strengthen the link between Kashmir and the `global war on terror' as far as the international community is concerned. They can only lead to even greater pressure on Islamabad to crack down on Kashmir-linked insurgents. It is hard to see how such an outcome - which would have been perfectly predictable to the terrorists who planned the Mumbai bombings - would serve the interests of the Musharraf regime or ISI.
Even so, assuming some element of official Pakistani complicity, India really has few options as far as mounting pressure on Pakistan is concerned. If there are areas where the peace process might make the country more vulnerable - the Army would argue Siachen is one such area - an unstated go-slow might be justified. But on other fronts, the process is clearly working to India's advantage and there is no sense in scuppering the gains.
There is a third scenario too, that the terrorists are neither Al-Qaeda nor Pakistan-backed but homegrown fanatics, whether Muslim, Hindu or of some other religious or political persuasion. But again, taking our national anger out on the composite dialogue process would be illogical. Under all three scenarios, the most pressing task is to conduct a swift and professional investigation. Primary reliance must be on forensics and good detective work and not on knee-jerk crackdowns and special laws. In the Parliament attack case, the police produced spectacular arrests and `confessions' with ease but the real masterminds remained undetected. Mumbai must not go the same way.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 17, 2006

India To Build 1,000 T-90 Tanks

by Vivek Raghuvanshi, New Delhi

India’s state-owned Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) has garnered its largest order to date: a $2.5 billion deal to produce 1,000 T-90 tanks for the Indian Army. The order will be carried out in phases; the first 300-tank phase began last month, said a senior official of the board, which administers India’s 39 ordnance factories. The official said the Army would order the remaining 700 tanks after the first batch is completed, likely by 2010. The work will take place at ordnance factories at Medak in Andhra Pradesh state and at the Avadhi Heavy Vehicles factory in Tamil Nadu state, in southern India. India already has received 310 T-90s through a 2001 agreement with Russia that delivered 124 tanks and kits for 186 more for assembly at Avadhi. The first locally assembled T-90 rolled out in January 2004, and the entire order has since been completed. OFB Chairman Pradip Kumar Misra said that program created enough infrastructure at the Medak and Avadhi ordnance factories to enable indigenous production. Initially, 70 percent of the parts will be made in India, rising to 95 percent by 2010, Misra said. One official said there have been “technical problems” with some components of the T-90s assembled at Avadhi, which will be fixed for indigenous production. Other Army sources said problems with the thermal imaging device hurts troop visibility at night. The OFB official said all problems would be fixed during production by importing better components from overseas markets. The Army needs the 1,000 T-90s to offset a shortage of tanks expected in the next two to three years, said the Army official. Nearly half of the current fleet of 3,200 tanks are to be scrapped by 2008. The Army has decided to scrap all 800 Vijayanta tanks, which have been in service since 1966. Other tanks slated for scrap by 2008 include about 500 T-55s. Some 400 T-72s may be scrapped or upgraded. The Army has ordered 124 Arjun tanks from the Avadhi ordnance factory, but has yet to induct the five Arjuns produced so far due to technical snags. The T-90 is replacing India’s Russian T-72 tanks in response to Pakistan’s purchase of T-80 tanks from Ukraine, said an Indian Army official.

index

DefenseNews.com, July 17, 2006

Pakistan Seeks U.S. Help To Get Nuke Power Plants

by Gopal Ratnam

Pakistani officials want the United States to help build nuclear power plants in the country, similar to the deal Washington is offering neighboring India. Denying Pakistan such technology on the grounds that it could be diverted to make nuclear weapons “obviously is not applicable,” said the country’s foreign minister, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri. “We are a declared nuclear power, we have the means of delivery and we have a huge infrastructure.” With its economy growing at 7 percent a year and petroleum imports going up by 50 percent in the last year, Pakistan — like India — needs nuclear power, Kasuri said. Even if the United States and the rest of the world don’t help Pakistan develop nuclear power plants, “we have the capacity to do it ourselves and we’ll do it,” he said. “We have infrastructure available, manpower available and uranium available, we don’t have to import anything, and it will take longer, but we’ll do it.” If Washington is wary of exporting technology, Kasuri said American companies could instead “bring your machinery, generate electricity, sell it to us and take the spent fuel back.” The United States will “begin to see the logic of our argument. It will be a matter of time.” Kasuri spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on July 11 after meeting senior U.S. officials. Though he did not lay out the details of what Islamabad is seeking, Kasuri said Pakistan was asking the United States for 1,000-megawatt reactors. Pakistan is developing 300-megawatt and 600-megawatt reactors on its own, he said. The U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation pact signed in July 2005 offers India advanced nuclear technologies and material in exchange for New Delhi allowing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor a majority of its nuclear installations. India will get to keep a few reactors — meant for its nuclear weapon program — outside such inspections. India, like Pakistan and Israel, is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires non-nuclear weapon states to subject their facilities to inspection. The U.S.-India deal has just won approval from two key committees in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and is awaiting endorsement from the entire Congress. Lobbying for F-16 Deal Kasuri was also in Washington to press Islamabad’s case for a $5 billion U.S. arms package announced by the Pentagon June 28. The sale, which will go through if Congress does not object, includes: • 36 Block 50/52 model F-16 fighter aircraft, worth nearly $3 billion. • $1.3 billion worth of upgrades to Pakistan’s existing F-16 fleet. • About $650 million worth of weapons for the aircraft. The aircraft and the weapons are essential, because though there is “nuclear parity in South Asia, there is no conventional [military] parity,” Kasuri said. “India is a bigger country with more resources” to spend on its conventional forces, and “it’s buying weapons from a variety of sources.” Kasuri said he expects Congress to approve the sale, “though I get the impression that there may be a few congressmen who have predictably raised objections.” The June 28 announcement from the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which facilitates international arms sales, also said the sale of F-16s to Pakistan would allow the U.S. ally to use the aircraft in “close air support in ongoing operations contributing to the global war on terror.” Though Pakistan says it has deployed 80,000 troops in remote tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan, there have been no reports of its Air Force offering close air support to U.S. or other coalition forces in the region. Many media reports and U.S. intelligence assessments suggest that Taliban leader Mullah Omar and al-Qaida’s Osama Bin Laden are hiding in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. While Pakistan’s military is supporting U.S. and coalition troops in the border areas, “these troops have no official authorization to operate in Pakistan,” said Alan Kronstadt, a Congressional Research Service analyst. The Pentagon’s announcement that the F-16s and weapons will be used for “close air support” could mean they would provide cover for Pakistan's troops over its own territory, Kronstadt said. “I’m aware of no open source evidence that Pakistani aircraft have or will provide air support for U.S. or coalition troops in Afghanistan.” Kasuri said the planes would improve the “ability of the Pakistani Army and its morale will go up. You can’t wage war on terrorism in a vacuum. You need public support and need the people of Pakistan on your side.” The arms sales announced June 28, along with an earlier proposal to sell $370 million worth of Harpoon anti-ship missiles — adding up to a total of $5.5 billion this year — follows Washington’s designation of Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally in July 2004. The largely symbolic designation allows such allies to get preference in buying excess U.S. defense items and to participate in joint research activities with the Pentagon. If the sales of F-16s and associated weapons go through, it will benefit several U.S. defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, BAE Systems, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.

index

Dawn, July 16, 2006

A sad aftermath

Editorial

THE Indian government's decision to call off the foreign secretary-level talks with Pakistan next week will not improve the prospects of the composite dialogue between the two countries. Immediately after the Mumbai blasts, New Delhi adopted a constructive stance that encouraged people to believe that the two countries would address the issue of terrorism in a levelheaded manner. After throwing broad hints for three days, official circles in India have changed their stance and have let it be known that they suspect a Pakistani hand behind the blasts and now they do not want to continue the dialogue. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh even warned that the negotiations could not continue until terrorism stopped. Mercifully, he held out the assurance that this did not spell the death of the peace process. These are obviously semantics and the message is loud and clear. The talks have been stalled for the moment, which indicates a change in the Indian policy of engaging with Pakistan.
This is a pity for two reasons. First, it is not possible for Indian intelligence and investigators to have established the identity of the perpetrators of the terrorist acts in Mumbai so soon. Without any hard evidence on this count, this was an overly hasty and drastic step to take which New Delhi should have avoided at this moment when passions are running high. Secondly, these issues could have been discussed quietly across the table. The way they have been taken up at the moment can have negative repercussions. The two sides have started blaming each other through the media which will only embitter relations between them - something most undesirable at the moment. Given the sensitive nature of India-Pakistan relations, the two sides will have to be extra careful about how they manage the peace process. If need be, the secretary-level talks can be moved to a later date and the issue of terrorism can be discussed between the representatives of the two foreign offices without bringing it in the glare of the media limelight. It should be remembered that Pakistan too is a victim of violence unleashed by terrorists many of whom use Pakistani territory for their foul deeds. The two governments need to cooperate in fighting these elements rather than indulge in a blame game.

index

The News International, July 16, 2006

Will there be another Gujarat after Mumbai?

Foqia Sadiq Khan

The camera was moving from one room to the other, from the gate to the courtyard. Walls were splashed with blood and holed by assailants' weapons. The documentary was showing the haunted house of a former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri where more than 200 people were brutally killed.
Jaffri came out of the house to surrender and beg mercy for co-religionists who had taken refuge in his house. Before surrendering, he called state functionaries and politicians in Gujarat and Delhi, sent frantic faxes across the country but got no support from anywhere. All he could do was wait for a cruel death. Time was up for him and his people. This was Gujarat in 2002. The skyline of Ahmedabad was filled with smoke as Muslim households, buildings and shops were set on fire by rioting mobs.
Will the horrendous attacks on Mumbai's Western railway line mimic the Gujarat carnage abetted by BJP chief minister Narendra Modi? The signs so far are encouraging. Mumbai's police commissioner quickly made an appeal to the people to stay 'calm'. In his address to nation, Manmohan Singh further emphasised, "Do not be provoked by rumours. Do not let anyone divide us. Our strength lies in our unity." The real test is to see whether communal hatred will be whipped once dust from Mahim, Bandra, Matunga, Borivili, Mira Road, Jogeshwari and Khar railway tracks settles. An obvious reaction to Mumbai blasts could be a backlash against Muslims in the state of Maharashtra. It seems that the perpetrators of the bomb blasts were not bothered about the fallout of their actions on Indian Muslims. It falls into the pattern where Muslims have regularly been killed in terrorist attacks within Muslim countries and outside. A political end of terrorism justifies the means, no matter what they are. If Hindu extremist groups such as the Shiv Sena were successful in turning anger over an awful tragedy into a communal frenzy, how effective will official pronouncements be in this situation?
What are terrorists trying to achieve by killing and maiming innocent commuters in the financial hub of India? A number of conjectures are floating: a) senseless violence, b) Muslim extremist groups with Kashmir connection such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba trying to destabilise the Indo-Pakistan peace process, c) the Mumbai under-world launching an assault with the help of a transnational terror network. Coordinated bomb blasts on Mumbai's railway resonate attacks on the financial hub of New York and London. If these attacks allow terrorists to let off frustration, they are not going to destabilise Mumbai or India. Mumbai has already bounced back; its stock exchange has surged, its railway was back on wheels the very next day.
However, the Mumbai attacks could lead to the slowing down of the peace process between India and Pakistan, if not derailment. Though India has not blamed Pakistan for this violence and Pakistan has condemned the attacks unequivocally, there is a visible uneasiness between the two governments. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has reportedly linked the Mumbai attacks to the lack of progress in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Though the link is rather obvious to all and sundry, it is imprudent of Kasuri to have made such brusque proclamation while Mumbai is picking up bodies from the tracks. The Indian government has rebuffed these claims, asked Pakistan not to make Kashmir-oriented linkages and concentrate on rooting out terrorism from its soil.
Terrorist attacks such as the one in Mumbai expose the 'clash of civilisations' myth. The clash is evident within nations rather than across so-called civilisations. In the Muslim world, there is a deeply entrenched feeling of being wronged by the world powers and injustices being done to Muslims in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq and other places. However, moderate and extremist Muslims sharply differ in their response to injustices. Extremists resort to violence within the Muslim countries and outside. Moderates are largely for non-violent means to address grievances. Simplistically speaking, moderates are for 'modernity' and economic development. In Pakistan they are, by and large, for improving relations between India and Pakistan. On the other side, saffronised extremist Hindus and secular Indians fiercely differ in their communal politics, among other things. Clash of ideologies within nations is spreading its tentacles.
If the Mumbai attacks were indeed carried out by pro-Kashmir Muslim extremists, they have done a great favour to Hindu extremists such as Shiv Shena. Thackeray could not have asked for a more appropriate action than an attack on Mumbai trains to reinforce Shiv Shena's fledging popularity. Extremists from both sides are mirror images of each other and they boost the 'other' side by their attacks against innocent civilians.
Notwithstanding the electoral victory of religious parties in the NWFP and Balochistan in 2002, extremists are a small minority in Pakistan. Despite having some linkages in the corridors of power, they are largely voiceless. Hence, they speak through their terror by emulating the Reagan era driven by a so-called transnational jihadi culture. Hindu extremists have ruled India in the recent past and are a political force to reckon with even now.
In the aftermath of the Mumbai blasts, India and Pakistan need to take long-term measures. Moderates on both sides of the border need to claim more space in the state institutions (including the military) and civil society to assert themselves better. Linked to it is the necessity of greater effort in Pakistan to deal with the terrorist network. India is required to break free from its fossilised realpolitik and effectively address issues of justice such as suppression of the Kashmiri people. However, the immediate measure is to prevent a Gujrat like backlash against Muslims in India. The Indian government, human rights groups and international community need to do all it can to stop a massacre, if such a situation arises. If the Western governments can launch a war to halt murder of citizens in Bosnia and Kosovo, it can exert pressure on India to avert bloodletting of its Muslim minority.
The writer is a social science researcher currently in Islamabad.



index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 30 augustus 2006