INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO.568
B.RAMAN
In the wake of the four well-orchestrated commando-style attacks launched by different terrorist groups against security establishments on October 15,2009---- three in Lahore and one in the North-West Frontier Province--- Rehman Mallick, Pakistan's Interior Minister, is reported to have aptly described the increasingly uncontrollable situation faced by Pakistan in the Pashtun tribal belt and in Punjab as a guerilla warfare launched against the State of Pakistan.
2. 149 fatalities---security forces personnel and civilians as well as terrorists--- have been reported in a relentless series of fedayeen attacks launched by different groups since October 5,2009. Among the targets of the terrorists were the highly-guarded but easily penetrated General Headquarters (GHQ)_ of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi, a Lahore office of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which is
responsible for the investigation of terrorism-related cases, two training institutions in Lahore and a police station in the NWFP. Rehman Mallick used to be a senior officer of the FIA when Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister from 1993 to 96.
3. The attacks are more and more fedayeen (suicidal) than suicide and have involved a mix of modus operandi---use of hand-held weapons and explosives. Suicide attacks involving explosives-laden vehicles continue to take places against convoys of security forces, but commando-style attacks against well-fortified and supposedly well-guarded fixed establishments of the Army and the police are taking place with increasing frequency----to demonstrate the ability of the terrorists to attack with ferocity despite supposedly enhanced physical security.
4.Of the four attacks reported on October 15, two were against targets which were attacked earlier----the FIA office office in Lahore and the police training academy at Manawan, a Lahore suburb. They had both been attacked in March last, following which physical security was reportedly enhanced. This could not prevent the terrorists from attacking them again. About 20 terrorists split into three groups are
reported to have participated in the three attacks in the Lahore area on October 15---against the FIA office, the Manawan Police Academy and a commando school at Bedian on the outskirts of Lahore. It is not yet clear whether the Bedian commando school is of the police or of the army's Special Services Group (SSG). It is, however, noticed that the security forces personnel who participated in the fighting against
the attackers at Bedian, which reportedly lasted about four hours, were mainly from the Army and not from the police.
5. At least 10 of the attackers in Lahore perished---some were killed by the security forces and some blew themselves up. The fourth attack of the day on a police station at Kohat in the NWFP was carried out by a lone vehicle-borne suicide bomber. There were 32 fatalities in the four attacks---of security forces personnel as well as civilians caught in the firing or explosion.
6. Poor intelligence, poor investigation, poor physical security in establishments of the security forces, including in the army's GHQ, poor access control, poor road security and poor morale and motivation as seen from the failure or reluctance of the security forces personnel to give a chase to the surviving terrorists and capture them continue to be the bane of Pakistan's counter-terrorism mechanism. One saw this after the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this year when the terrorists just sauntered away after the attack without being stopped or chased and caught by the security forces.
7. While the morale, motivation, training and resilience of the terrorists belonging to different Taliban affiliates have been steadily increasing, there are worrisome signs of poor morale and motivation among the security forces. One notices also an alarming casualness and a lack of professionalism in performing their counter-terrorism tasks There is a tendency, even in the army, to avoid coming to terms with the ground reality, which is that the situation, which has already deteriorated in the Pashtun tribal belt, has now started deteriorating in the non-tribal areas of Punjab. Senior political leaders and military officers continue to behave with a certain nonchalance as if they are the masters of the situation despite the repeated attacks. Seriousness and determination in dealing with the situation are totally lacking.
8. There are more and more reasons to be worried about the security of Pakistan's nuclear establishments---if not of its nuclear arsenal. If the terrorists can lay hands on Pakistan's nuclear waste, which is stored in the NWFP, they could threaten the international community with the use of dirty bombs.Even if one feels that the fatalities due to the use of nuclear waste may not be much, the psychological effect on the general population could be high. ( 15-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, October 15, 2009
PAKISTAN'S HAFEEZ MOHAMMAD SAYEED CHARADE
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO. 567
B.RAMAN
One should not be surprised by the Lahore High Court's dismissal on October 12,2009, of the two cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act registered against Hafeez Mohammed Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET ), by the Faislabad Police in the Pakistani province of Punjab. The cases were registered following two inflammatory speeches delivered by him glorifying jihad and for collecting funds for a supposedly banned terrorist organisation. His speeches were interpreted as amounting to incitement to terrorism.
2. The dismissal of the cases was ordered by the Lahore High Court after it was admitted by the prosecution that the JUD was not a banned organisation. While there is a notified ban on the LET as a terrorist organisation since January 2002, there is no notified ban on the JUD.Sayeed and his aides have been maintaining since the JUD was formed after the January 2002 ban on the LET that the JUD had nothing
to do with the LET. This argument has not been successfully challenged in any Pakistani court.
3. Ever since the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 2008, Pakistani authorities have been repeatedly saying that whatever action they took or sought to take against Sayeed and the JUD such as arresting some of their cadres, seizing their funds etc was in pursuance of the decision of the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the UN Security Council calling for action against the JUD and Sayeed and not based
on their own evidence.
4.The lawyers for Sayeed have been repeatedly arguing before different courts---with some success--- that no action can be taken against Sayeed and the JUD purely on the basis of a resolution of the UN Committee without any independent evidence supporting such action collected by the Pakistani investigation agencies. The Pakistani authorities have shown no interest in collecting such evidence.
5.Two actions by the Pakistani authorities are required in the wake of the involvement of the LET in the Mumbai terrorist attack. The first is action against the JUD and Hafeez for orchestrating the attack as has come out during the investigation by the Mumbai Police. The second is prosecution of those members of the LET in Pakistan involved in planning the attack and having it carried out.
6. The Pakistani authorities have shown some interest---one does not know how sincere they are--- only in the second action. They have been repeatedly dragging their feet in respect of the first. They are encouraged by the fact that the international pressure ---including US pressure--- on them is only in respect of the second. There is only seeming pressure in respect of the first --- even from the US.
7. A careful reading of the observations by judges of different courts----even by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court--- before which the lawyers of Sayeed had challenged on different occasions the action sought to be taken against Sayeed clearly shows that there is considerable judicial sympathy for Sayeed ---if not for the JUD. These observations have mainly related to two points. Firstly, that the action against him is being taken purely on the basis of a resolution of the UN committee, which has no relevance for the judicial proceedings against him. Secondly, that the action was also under Indian pressure.
8.Instead of reacting to the goings-on in Pakistani courts on a day-to-day basis through the media, the Government of India should carefully examine the various observations made by the Pakistani courts, decide how to counter them and then pressure Pakistan in a low-profile manner instead of through the media to pursue the cases against him. The high-profile campaign through the media against Sayeed seems
to be proving counter-productive. It is being exploited by his lawyers to contend that the Indian pressure--- and not legal evidence--- is making the Pakistan Govt. act against him. ( 15-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
One should not be surprised by the Lahore High Court's dismissal on October 12,2009, of the two cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act registered against Hafeez Mohammed Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET ), by the Faislabad Police in the Pakistani province of Punjab. The cases were registered following two inflammatory speeches delivered by him glorifying jihad and for collecting funds for a supposedly banned terrorist organisation. His speeches were interpreted as amounting to incitement to terrorism.
2. The dismissal of the cases was ordered by the Lahore High Court after it was admitted by the prosecution that the JUD was not a banned organisation. While there is a notified ban on the LET as a terrorist organisation since January 2002, there is no notified ban on the JUD.Sayeed and his aides have been maintaining since the JUD was formed after the January 2002 ban on the LET that the JUD had nothing
to do with the LET. This argument has not been successfully challenged in any Pakistani court.
3. Ever since the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 2008, Pakistani authorities have been repeatedly saying that whatever action they took or sought to take against Sayeed and the JUD such as arresting some of their cadres, seizing their funds etc was in pursuance of the decision of the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the UN Security Council calling for action against the JUD and Sayeed and not based
on their own evidence.
4.The lawyers for Sayeed have been repeatedly arguing before different courts---with some success--- that no action can be taken against Sayeed and the JUD purely on the basis of a resolution of the UN Committee without any independent evidence supporting such action collected by the Pakistani investigation agencies. The Pakistani authorities have shown no interest in collecting such evidence.
5.Two actions by the Pakistani authorities are required in the wake of the involvement of the LET in the Mumbai terrorist attack. The first is action against the JUD and Hafeez for orchestrating the attack as has come out during the investigation by the Mumbai Police. The second is prosecution of those members of the LET in Pakistan involved in planning the attack and having it carried out.
6. The Pakistani authorities have shown some interest---one does not know how sincere they are--- only in the second action. They have been repeatedly dragging their feet in respect of the first. They are encouraged by the fact that the international pressure ---including US pressure--- on them is only in respect of the second. There is only seeming pressure in respect of the first --- even from the US.
7. A careful reading of the observations by judges of different courts----even by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court--- before which the lawyers of Sayeed had challenged on different occasions the action sought to be taken against Sayeed clearly shows that there is considerable judicial sympathy for Sayeed ---if not for the JUD. These observations have mainly related to two points. Firstly, that the action against him is being taken purely on the basis of a resolution of the UN committee, which has no relevance for the judicial proceedings against him. Secondly, that the action was also under Indian pressure.
8.Instead of reacting to the goings-on in Pakistani courts on a day-to-day basis through the media, the Government of India should carefully examine the various observations made by the Pakistani courts, decide how to counter them and then pressure Pakistan in a low-profile manner instead of through the media to pursue the cases against him. The high-profile campaign through the media against Sayeed seems
to be proving counter-productive. It is being exploited by his lawyers to contend that the Indian pressure--- and not legal evidence--- is making the Pakistan Govt. act against him. ( 15-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CHINESE MEDIA REVERT TO PRE-DENG RHETORIC ON INDIA
B.RAMAN
Simultaneously with the publication of a strong anti-India editorial by the " Global Times" of China on October 14,2009, the party-run "People's Daily", has come out with an equally-strong anti-India editorial the same day under the title "Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors." The text of the editorial is annexed.
2.The "Global Times" belongs to the "People's Daily" group of publications of the Communist Party of China. While the "Global Times" seeks to project itself as an independent newspaper not necessarily voicing the opinion of the party,the "People's Daily" continues to be the voice of the party. It is generally believed that the editorials and op-ed articles carried by it have been pre-approved by the party before publication.
3. Ever since the 'Global Times" started coming out with editorials and articles critical of India and making derogatory references to India after April this year, the "People's Daily" followed the policy of occasionally reproducing some of the comments of the "Global Times" without identifying itself with those comments. It did carry opinion pieces on Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, but they were largely free of any negative references to India.
4.Thus, till recently, one saw a three-pronged approach by Beijing in matters relating to relations with India.Governmental spokespersons continued to be conciliatory while referring to issues relating to India. the "Global Times" was increasingly critical of India---even virulently sometimes--- and the "People's Daily" sometimes reproduced the comments of the "Global Times" without any anti-India comments of its own editorial department.
5. This policy seems to have changed from October 13. The comments of the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the recent electoral visit of Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh are anything but conciliatory. Instead of following its past policy of seeking to lower down the rhetoric in the local media, the Foreign Ministry itself seems to have taken the initiative in stepping up the rhetoric. Taking the cue from the Foreign Ministry, the"Global Times" and the "People's Daily" have come out with no-holds-barred criticism
of India.
6.Whereas the editorial of the "Global Times" was Arunachal Pradesh-centric in the context of our Prime Minister's visit to that Indian State,the "People's Daily's" criticism is focussed on the general directions of the Indian policy towards its neighbours. It tends to be critical as well as derogatory. It does not contain the kind of warnings to India that one noticed in the editorial of the "Global Times", but the bluntness of its depiction of India and its attitude to its neighbours recalls to one's mind the similar depiction of India by the Chinese media and party
circles before Deng Xiao-ping introduced a more nuanced and a more conciliatory policy towards India starting ftrom 1978.
7.The "People's Daily's" projection of India as a hegemonistic power, its underlining of the common experiences and common difficulties of China and Pakistan in dealing with India with which both have pending border disputes and its references to India's war with China and Pakistan disturbingly indicate a reversal to the pre-Deng projection of India in negative terms and to the pre-1978 rhetoric.
8. Its description of India's policy of "befriending the far and attacking the near" is unmistakably a reference to the developing strategic relations between India and the US the foundation for which was laid by the previous US President George Bush. Since President Barack Obama assumed office, he has been trying to exclude from this relationship aspects which could cause concern to China. Despite the positive attitude of the Obama Administration to China, Beijing continues to view the India-US strategic relations with suspicion and continues to suspect a common Indo-US objective of countering China.
9. The anti-India rhetoric in the party-controlled media and even from the Foreign Ministry has come at a time when there has been speculation of a weakening of the position of President Hu Jintao following the July outbreak of violence in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, which forced him to cancel his participation in the G-8 summit in Italy and return ahead of schedule to Beijing to handle
the situation in Xinjiang.
10. Reports from Tibet and Xinjiang indicate that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been increasingly in the driving seat of decision-making in matters relating to these two provinces and China's relations with India. The more hawkish line adopted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the party media indicate that the hawks in the PLA and the party have started influencing the policy towards India.
11. It is important for the leaders of the two countries to get in touch with each other to eliminate the possibility of trans-border incidents caused by a misreading and misinterpretation of each other's intentions and moves.
12. It is clear from the present campaign against India that Beijing has come to the conclusion that it has made whatever concessions it could to India and that it is India's turn to make concessions to China in the negotiations on the border dispute. (15-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
"People's Daily" editorial of October 14,2009
Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors.
Nobody can deny that today's India is a power. In recent years, Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalism sentiment rises, with some of them even turning to hegemony. It can be proved by India's recent provocation on border issues with China.
Given the country's history, hegemony is a hundred-percent result of British colonialism. Dating back to the era of British India, the country covered a vast territory including present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal. India took it for granted that it could continue to rule the large area when Britain ended its colonialism in South Asia. A previous victim of colonialism and hegemony started to dream about developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbors like Pakistan.
Many Indians didn't know that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, had once said that India could not play an inferior role in the world, and it should either be a superpower or disappear.
Although the pursuit of being a superpower is justifiable, the dream of being a superpower held by Indians appears impetuous. The dream of superpower is mingled with the thought of hegemony, which places the South Asian giant in an awkward situation and results in repeated failure.
Throughout the history, India has constantly been under foreign rule. The essence for the rise of India lies in how to be an independent country, to learn to solve the complicated ethnic and religious issues, to protect the country from terrorist attacks, to boost economic development as well as to put more efforts on poverty alleviation.
Additionally, the hegemony can also be harmful in terms of geopolitical environment. The expansion of India is restricted by its geographic locations. It has Himalaya Mountain to its north, a natural barrier for northward expansion; it has Pakistan to the west, a neighbor it is always at odds over the disputed border issues.
To everyone's disappointment, India pursued a foreign policy of "befriend the far and attack the near". It engaged in the war separately with China and Pakistan and the resentment still simmers. If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is shortsighted and immature.
India, which vows to be a superpower, needs to have its eyes on relations with neighbors and abandon the recklessness and arrogance as the world is undergoing earthshaking changes. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower. At present, China is proactively engaging in negotiations with India for the early settlement of border dispute and India should
give a positive response.
Simultaneously with the publication of a strong anti-India editorial by the " Global Times" of China on October 14,2009, the party-run "People's Daily", has come out with an equally-strong anti-India editorial the same day under the title "Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors." The text of the editorial is annexed.
2.The "Global Times" belongs to the "People's Daily" group of publications of the Communist Party of China. While the "Global Times" seeks to project itself as an independent newspaper not necessarily voicing the opinion of the party,the "People's Daily" continues to be the voice of the party. It is generally believed that the editorials and op-ed articles carried by it have been pre-approved by the party before publication.
3. Ever since the 'Global Times" started coming out with editorials and articles critical of India and making derogatory references to India after April this year, the "People's Daily" followed the policy of occasionally reproducing some of the comments of the "Global Times" without identifying itself with those comments. It did carry opinion pieces on Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, but they were largely free of any negative references to India.
4.Thus, till recently, one saw a three-pronged approach by Beijing in matters relating to relations with India.Governmental spokespersons continued to be conciliatory while referring to issues relating to India. the "Global Times" was increasingly critical of India---even virulently sometimes--- and the "People's Daily" sometimes reproduced the comments of the "Global Times" without any anti-India comments of its own editorial department.
5. This policy seems to have changed from October 13. The comments of the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the recent electoral visit of Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh are anything but conciliatory. Instead of following its past policy of seeking to lower down the rhetoric in the local media, the Foreign Ministry itself seems to have taken the initiative in stepping up the rhetoric. Taking the cue from the Foreign Ministry, the"Global Times" and the "People's Daily" have come out with no-holds-barred criticism
of India.
6.Whereas the editorial of the "Global Times" was Arunachal Pradesh-centric in the context of our Prime Minister's visit to that Indian State,the "People's Daily's" criticism is focussed on the general directions of the Indian policy towards its neighbours. It tends to be critical as well as derogatory. It does not contain the kind of warnings to India that one noticed in the editorial of the "Global Times", but the bluntness of its depiction of India and its attitude to its neighbours recalls to one's mind the similar depiction of India by the Chinese media and party
circles before Deng Xiao-ping introduced a more nuanced and a more conciliatory policy towards India starting ftrom 1978.
7.The "People's Daily's" projection of India as a hegemonistic power, its underlining of the common experiences and common difficulties of China and Pakistan in dealing with India with which both have pending border disputes and its references to India's war with China and Pakistan disturbingly indicate a reversal to the pre-Deng projection of India in negative terms and to the pre-1978 rhetoric.
8. Its description of India's policy of "befriending the far and attacking the near" is unmistakably a reference to the developing strategic relations between India and the US the foundation for which was laid by the previous US President George Bush. Since President Barack Obama assumed office, he has been trying to exclude from this relationship aspects which could cause concern to China. Despite the positive attitude of the Obama Administration to China, Beijing continues to view the India-US strategic relations with suspicion and continues to suspect a common Indo-US objective of countering China.
9. The anti-India rhetoric in the party-controlled media and even from the Foreign Ministry has come at a time when there has been speculation of a weakening of the position of President Hu Jintao following the July outbreak of violence in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, which forced him to cancel his participation in the G-8 summit in Italy and return ahead of schedule to Beijing to handle
the situation in Xinjiang.
10. Reports from Tibet and Xinjiang indicate that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been increasingly in the driving seat of decision-making in matters relating to these two provinces and China's relations with India. The more hawkish line adopted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the party media indicate that the hawks in the PLA and the party have started influencing the policy towards India.
11. It is important for the leaders of the two countries to get in touch with each other to eliminate the possibility of trans-border incidents caused by a misreading and misinterpretation of each other's intentions and moves.
12. It is clear from the present campaign against India that Beijing has come to the conclusion that it has made whatever concessions it could to India and that it is India's turn to make concessions to China in the negotiations on the border dispute. (15-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
"People's Daily" editorial of October 14,2009
Indian hegemony continues to harm relations with neighbors.
Nobody can deny that today's India is a power. In recent years, Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalism sentiment rises, with some of them even turning to hegemony. It can be proved by India's recent provocation on border issues with China.
Given the country's history, hegemony is a hundred-percent result of British colonialism. Dating back to the era of British India, the country covered a vast territory including present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal. India took it for granted that it could continue to rule the large area when Britain ended its colonialism in South Asia. A previous victim of colonialism and hegemony started to dream about developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbors like Pakistan.
Many Indians didn't know that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, had once said that India could not play an inferior role in the world, and it should either be a superpower or disappear.
Although the pursuit of being a superpower is justifiable, the dream of being a superpower held by Indians appears impetuous. The dream of superpower is mingled with the thought of hegemony, which places the South Asian giant in an awkward situation and results in repeated failure.
Throughout the history, India has constantly been under foreign rule. The essence for the rise of India lies in how to be an independent country, to learn to solve the complicated ethnic and religious issues, to protect the country from terrorist attacks, to boost economic development as well as to put more efforts on poverty alleviation.
Additionally, the hegemony can also be harmful in terms of geopolitical environment. The expansion of India is restricted by its geographic locations. It has Himalaya Mountain to its north, a natural barrier for northward expansion; it has Pakistan to the west, a neighbor it is always at odds over the disputed border issues.
To everyone's disappointment, India pursued a foreign policy of "befriend the far and attack the near". It engaged in the war separately with China and Pakistan and the resentment still simmers. If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is shortsighted and immature.
India, which vows to be a superpower, needs to have its eyes on relations with neighbors and abandon the recklessness and arrogance as the world is undergoing earthshaking changes. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower. At present, China is proactively engaging in negotiations with India for the early settlement of border dispute and India should
give a positive response.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
CHINA ACCUSES INDIA OF PROVOCATION, ITS MEDIA ALLEGES DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH
B.RAMAN
As the time approaches for the proposed visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh next month to declare open a hospital built with contributions from the Tibetan exile community, China has stepped up its rhetoric against India. The recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh to canvass for the candidates of his party in the just concluded elections to the State Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh on October 12 has been used as a pretext for the renewed criticism of the Indian policy on Arunachal Pradesh. Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh has been projected as his visit to the so-called Southern Tibet.
2. China never fails to bring on record its protests and concerns over the visits of Indian leaders to Arunachal Pradesh for whatever purpose.The fact that it has done so after the recent electoral visit of Dr.Manmohan Singh should not, therefore, have been a matter of surprise and undue concern. What is disturbing is the kind of language used by a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Office in commenting on the visit and the even stronger language used by the "Global Times", in an editorial on the subject on October 14,2009. The "Global Times" is a sister publication of the Party-controlled "People's Daily".
3. The fresh campaign against India on the subject was triggered off by the comments of a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.Ma Zhaoxu, the spokesperson, was quoted by the "Global Times" as saying on October 13 that China was "seriously dissatisfied" by the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, who was accused of "ignoring China's concerns by visiting southern Tibet". The "Global Times" quoted the spokesperson as saying further as follows: "China and India have not reached any formal agreement on the border issue.We demand that the Indian side pay attention to the serious and just concerns of the Chinese side and not provoke incidents in the disputed region, in order to facilitate the healthy development of China-Indian relations."
4.There has been a difference in the translation into English of the spokesperson's remarks by the BBC and the "Global Times". While the BBC quoted the spokesperson as telling India "not to trigger disturbances in the disputed region", the "Global Times" spoke of the spokesperson telling India " not to not provoke incidents in the disputed region."
5.The editorial of the "Global Times" titled "Indian PM's visit a provocative move" described the Indian Prime Minister's visit as a "provocative and dangerous move" and alleged that the visit was designed to put the area under India's de facto administration. It accuses India of encouraging the "immigration of more than one million Indians to the region" and warns: "India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's approach for weakness. The Chinese government and public regard territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be defended with every means......The disputed border area is of strategic importance, and hence, India's recent moves – including Singh's trip and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama – send the wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences."
6. The text of the editorial is annexed.
7. The conventional wisdom is that since any military confrontation could affect China's economic development and its aspirations of rising as a major power on par with the US, Beijing will restrict itself to angry rhetoric and will not indulge in any ground action in the Arunachal Pradesh area. This wisdom has some validity, but overlooks the fact that China is feeling increasingly insecure in its peripheral areas because of the recent violent uprisings by the Tibetans last year and the Uighurs this year. Its increasing nervousness and feelings of insecurity in its border areas could lead to irrational and unpredictable reflexes vis-a-vis the Arunachal Pradesh issue.
8. We should avoid countering China's renewed rhetoric with our own rhetoric. While maintaining our cool, we should press ahead with the construction of the infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area and strengthening our defensive capabilities there without talking about them from the roof-top. We should not advise His Holiness not to visit Tawang. When he visits Tawang, we should pay close attention to his personal security. The period before and after the visit of His Holiness to Tawang should call for extra vigilance from our side. China may not
indulge in any ground action till the visit of President Barack Obama to China next month is over. What it might do after Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring. (14-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
"Global Times" editorial of October 14,2009
Indian PM's visit a provocative move
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made another provocative and dangerous move by visiting the East Section of the China-India Boundary, which India calls Arunachal Pradesh, on October 3 ahead of a local legislative election.
The visit is designed to put the area, a disputed border region between China and India, under the de facto administration of India.
China has completed land border demarcation with all of its neighboring countries but India.
Territorial disputes stand as a seemingly intractable issue between the two largest emerging economies in the world.
Though in similar developmental circumstances, China and India seem to have more confrontations than common ground.In the past decades, more than 10 rounds of negotiations held at various levels and through different mechanisms
The 120,000 square kilometers of the so-called Arunachal Pradesh, around the size of South China's Fujian Province, is at the center of the controversy. India currently occupies 90,000 square kilometers of the area.
Over the years, India has intensified its effective control over the area by encouraging the immigration of more than 1 million Indians to the region, and applying for loans from international bodies for public facilities projects in the region.
India is also increasing military deployment, along with sophisticated equipment, in the area. India's hawks are dangerously fanning public sentiment fearing a "China threat."
China favors peaceful resolution of territorial disputes through negotiation and consultation with its neighbors.
In the past the Chinese government has sought to build consensus in border negotiations through making concessions in exchange for reciprocal action.
China has maintained that same approach with India. India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's approach for weakness.
The Chinese government and public regard territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be defended with every means.
A stable border is crucial to the economic development of both China and India.
The disputed border area is of strategic importance, and hence, India's recent moves – including Singh's trip and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama – send the wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences.
Furthermore, India's actions add to the difficulties that have stalled negotiations on the region in the past.
It looks as if a breakthrough in talks is unlikely to happen any time soon.
As the time approaches for the proposed visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh next month to declare open a hospital built with contributions from the Tibetan exile community, China has stepped up its rhetoric against India. The recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh to canvass for the candidates of his party in the just concluded elections to the State Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh on October 12 has been used as a pretext for the renewed criticism of the Indian policy on Arunachal Pradesh. Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh has been projected as his visit to the so-called Southern Tibet.
2. China never fails to bring on record its protests and concerns over the visits of Indian leaders to Arunachal Pradesh for whatever purpose.The fact that it has done so after the recent electoral visit of Dr.Manmohan Singh should not, therefore, have been a matter of surprise and undue concern. What is disturbing is the kind of language used by a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Office in commenting on the visit and the even stronger language used by the "Global Times", in an editorial on the subject on October 14,2009. The "Global Times" is a sister publication of the Party-controlled "People's Daily".
3. The fresh campaign against India on the subject was triggered off by the comments of a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.Ma Zhaoxu, the spokesperson, was quoted by the "Global Times" as saying on October 13 that China was "seriously dissatisfied" by the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, who was accused of "ignoring China's concerns by visiting southern Tibet". The "Global Times" quoted the spokesperson as saying further as follows: "China and India have not reached any formal agreement on the border issue.We demand that the Indian side pay attention to the serious and just concerns of the Chinese side and not provoke incidents in the disputed region, in order to facilitate the healthy development of China-Indian relations."
4.There has been a difference in the translation into English of the spokesperson's remarks by the BBC and the "Global Times". While the BBC quoted the spokesperson as telling India "not to trigger disturbances in the disputed region", the "Global Times" spoke of the spokesperson telling India " not to not provoke incidents in the disputed region."
5.The editorial of the "Global Times" titled "Indian PM's visit a provocative move" described the Indian Prime Minister's visit as a "provocative and dangerous move" and alleged that the visit was designed to put the area under India's de facto administration. It accuses India of encouraging the "immigration of more than one million Indians to the region" and warns: "India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's approach for weakness. The Chinese government and public regard territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be defended with every means......The disputed border area is of strategic importance, and hence, India's recent moves – including Singh's trip and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama – send the wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences."
6. The text of the editorial is annexed.
7. The conventional wisdom is that since any military confrontation could affect China's economic development and its aspirations of rising as a major power on par with the US, Beijing will restrict itself to angry rhetoric and will not indulge in any ground action in the Arunachal Pradesh area. This wisdom has some validity, but overlooks the fact that China is feeling increasingly insecure in its peripheral areas because of the recent violent uprisings by the Tibetans last year and the Uighurs this year. Its increasing nervousness and feelings of insecurity in its border areas could lead to irrational and unpredictable reflexes vis-a-vis the Arunachal Pradesh issue.
8. We should avoid countering China's renewed rhetoric with our own rhetoric. While maintaining our cool, we should press ahead with the construction of the infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area and strengthening our defensive capabilities there without talking about them from the roof-top. We should not advise His Holiness not to visit Tawang. When he visits Tawang, we should pay close attention to his personal security. The period before and after the visit of His Holiness to Tawang should call for extra vigilance from our side. China may not
indulge in any ground action till the visit of President Barack Obama to China next month is over. What it might do after Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring. (14-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
"Global Times" editorial of October 14,2009
Indian PM's visit a provocative move
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made another provocative and dangerous move by visiting the East Section of the China-India Boundary, which India calls Arunachal Pradesh, on October 3 ahead of a local legislative election.
The visit is designed to put the area, a disputed border region between China and India, under the de facto administration of India.
China has completed land border demarcation with all of its neighboring countries but India.
Territorial disputes stand as a seemingly intractable issue between the two largest emerging economies in the world.
Though in similar developmental circumstances, China and India seem to have more confrontations than common ground.In the past decades, more than 10 rounds of negotiations held at various levels and through different mechanisms
The 120,000 square kilometers of the so-called Arunachal Pradesh, around the size of South China's Fujian Province, is at the center of the controversy. India currently occupies 90,000 square kilometers of the area.
Over the years, India has intensified its effective control over the area by encouraging the immigration of more than 1 million Indians to the region, and applying for loans from international bodies for public facilities projects in the region.
India is also increasing military deployment, along with sophisticated equipment, in the area. India's hawks are dangerously fanning public sentiment fearing a "China threat."
China favors peaceful resolution of territorial disputes through negotiation and consultation with its neighbors.
In the past the Chinese government has sought to build consensus in border negotiations through making concessions in exchange for reciprocal action.
China has maintained that same approach with India. India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's approach for weakness.
The Chinese government and public regard territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be defended with every means.
A stable border is crucial to the economic development of both China and India.
The disputed border area is of strategic importance, and hence, India's recent moves – including Singh's trip and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama – send the wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences.
Furthermore, India's actions add to the difficulties that have stalled negotiations on the region in the past.
It looks as if a breakthrough in talks is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Monday, October 12, 2009
THE PUNJABI TALIBAN
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO. 566
B.RAMAN
The interrogation of Muhammed Aquil alias Dr.Usman, the only surviving member of the group of nine terrorists, which launched a commando-style attack on the Pakistan Army's General Headquarters (GHQ) at Rawalpindi on October 10,2009, which lasted a little over 20 hours, has not yet started. He is reported to have been seriously injured, when he tried to blow himself up inside the GHQ to avoid being captured. He is presently under treatment in a military hospital, where army doctors are desperately trying to save his life. The Pakistani authorities now believe that he was the leader of the commando group, which attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in March last and the GHQ on October 10-11.
2. On the basis of a record check, Pakistani investigators say that he is a Punjabi from the Kahuta Tehsil of the Rawalpindi District. He had served as a sepoy in the Army Medical Corps. He resigned from the Army after some years and joined the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ). When the Pashtun-dominated Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) came into existence after the Pakistani Army commando raid in the Lal Masjiid of Islamabad in July,2007, some of the Punjabi members of the LEJ , including Aquil, floated a new organisation called the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab. Its leader's name is given as Farooq. Not much is known about him.
3. In the 1990s, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which came into existence with the encouragement of the late Zia-ul-Haq, floated the LEJ. The SSP and the LEJ projected themselves as different organisations with no links, but Pakistani police officials believed that the SSP was the political wing of the clandestine LEJ. They further believe that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab is a newly-created united front of theLEJ, which seeks to bring together the various anti-Shia and pro-Al Qaeda groups of Punjab to act against the Army as well as the Shias.While the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) is part of this united front, the Laashkar-e-Toiba (LET) is not.
4.The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), now headed by Hakimullah Mehsud, and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab share a Wahabist ideology and a common objective of fighting against the Pakistan Army's co-operation with the US. The two organisations share each other's training facilities and sanctuaries. They keep using each other's trained and motivated cadres for their operations. However, the operations of the
Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab are largely confined to the non-tribal belt. The LEJ Sometimes acts as the fighting arm of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab and sometimes independently. Al Qaeda acts as the mentor and motivator of all these organisations.
5. Police sources say that Aquil's name had earlier figured in the investigations into the assassination of the Surgeon General of the Pakistan Army Hafiz Mirza Muhammad Mushtaq Baig last year, the firing of a rocket at a plane carrying Pervez Musharraf in July,2007, and the attack on the SL cricket team in Lahore in March last.
6. Both the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the LEJ are members of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People. Both are strongly Wahabi organisations, but whereas the LEJ is strongly anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-India,anti-Iran and anti-Shia, the LET is only anti-US, anti-Israel and anti-India, but not anti-Iran or anti-Shia.
7.There is no confirmed instance of the LET indulging in planned anti-Shia violence in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but the LEJ has been responsible for most of the targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship in Pakistan and on the Hazaras---who are Shias---in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
8. The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), which are also members of the IIF,strongly share the anti-Shia feelings of the LEJ, but they do not indulge in targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship. Many of the leaders of these organisations, including Maulana Masood Azhar, the Amir of the JEM, started their jihadi career in the SSP, but later drifted away from it since they felt uncomfortable with its targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship. Despite being separate now, they
do co-operate with the LEJ in its operations directed against US interests and the Pakistani armed forces. The LET prefers to operate independently without getting involved with the SSP or the LEJ. The LET avoids attacks on Pakistani security forces.
9.The strong action taken by the international community against known and suspected Arab members of Al Qaeda created difficulties for them in travelling freely and in carrying out operations in non-Muslim countries. Consequently, it started depending increasingly on the Pakistani members of the LET for its operations. Post-9/11, the LET opened its sleeper cells in countries such as Australia, Singapore, the UK, France and the US to help Al Qaeda in its operations by collecting information, motivating the members of the Pakistani diaspora and other means.
10. The discovery of LET sleeper cells in the Western countries post-2002 brought increased focus on the LET in the West.Next to the Arab members of Al Qaeda, suspected Pakistani members of the LET were placed under close surveillance in many countries. This created difficulties in the movement and activities of the LET. The LET is no longer able to operate outside the Indian sub-continent and the Gulf
countries as freely as it used to do in the past.
11.Moreover, the LET started feeling uncomfortable over the anti-Shia violence unleashed by Al Qaeda and its surrogates in Iraq. While continuing to be a member of the IIF, it tried to avoid being associated with Al Qaeda's anti-Shia and anti-Saudi policies. Saudi charity organisations have been one of the main funders of the LET, which has an active branch in Saudi Arabia to recruit members from the Indian
Muslim diaspora in the Gulf countries.
12.In view of these developments, Al Qaeda has started increasingly using the LEJ for its operations in Pakistan itself as well as in the non-Muslim countries. The LEJ was actively involved in supporting the students of the two madrasas of the Lal Masjid of Islamabad before they were raided by Pakistani military commandoes in July, 2007. Many of the women, who were targeted by the girl students for allegedly
running a call girl racket, were reportedly Shias. It has been actively backing the tribals, who have taken to arms against the Pakistani security forces in North and South Waziristan and in the Swat Valley in the Provincially-Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) of the North-West Frontier Province. Under the influence of the LEJ, the tribals have been beheading or otherwise killing only the Shias among the security forces personnel captured by them. Well-informed Police sources say that all the para-military personnel beheaded so far by the tribals were Shias. According to them, there has not been a single instance of the beheading of a Sunni member of the security forces though many Sunnis have been killed in explosions.
13. The JEM is also actively involved in supporting the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM) in its fight against the security forces in the Swat Valley. There have been targeted attacks on members of the local Shia community. The anti-Shia dimension of the current violence in the tribal areas was also corroborated by the well-informed "Daily Times" of Lahore in an editorial titled "Two Oppressions"
carried by it on November 10, 2007. The editorial said: ' The latest news from Waziristan is that a well-known Shia personality has been gunned down. This is a part of the sectarian violence that Al Qaeda commits in the territories it captures. Earlier, Shias among the captured Pakistani troops were casually beheaded while the Sunnis were returned. In the Shia-majority Parachinar in the Kurram Agency,
suicide-bombers have been killing indiscriminately."
14.Al Qaeda's use of the LEJ is not confined to Pakistani territory. Police sources say that in view of the difficulties now faced by suspected LET members in Western countries and in South-east Asia, Al Qaeda is encouraging the SSP and the LEJ to gradually take over the role of the LET as the motivators and mobilisers of members of the overseas Pakistani diaspora for assisting Al Qaeda in its operations.
They claim that some sleeper cells of the SSP and the LEJ have already come up in the US, the UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Singapore and Australia. Since the foreign intelligence agencies do not have much information about the SSP and the LEJ, they are able to operate without creating suspicions about them. ( 12-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
The interrogation of Muhammed Aquil alias Dr.Usman, the only surviving member of the group of nine terrorists, which launched a commando-style attack on the Pakistan Army's General Headquarters (GHQ) at Rawalpindi on October 10,2009, which lasted a little over 20 hours, has not yet started. He is reported to have been seriously injured, when he tried to blow himself up inside the GHQ to avoid being captured. He is presently under treatment in a military hospital, where army doctors are desperately trying to save his life. The Pakistani authorities now believe that he was the leader of the commando group, which attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in March last and the GHQ on October 10-11.
2. On the basis of a record check, Pakistani investigators say that he is a Punjabi from the Kahuta Tehsil of the Rawalpindi District. He had served as a sepoy in the Army Medical Corps. He resigned from the Army after some years and joined the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ). When the Pashtun-dominated Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) came into existence after the Pakistani Army commando raid in the Lal Masjiid of Islamabad in July,2007, some of the Punjabi members of the LEJ , including Aquil, floated a new organisation called the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab. Its leader's name is given as Farooq. Not much is known about him.
3. In the 1990s, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which came into existence with the encouragement of the late Zia-ul-Haq, floated the LEJ. The SSP and the LEJ projected themselves as different organisations with no links, but Pakistani police officials believed that the SSP was the political wing of the clandestine LEJ. They further believe that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab is a newly-created united front of theLEJ, which seeks to bring together the various anti-Shia and pro-Al Qaeda groups of Punjab to act against the Army as well as the Shias.While the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) is part of this united front, the Laashkar-e-Toiba (LET) is not.
4.The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), now headed by Hakimullah Mehsud, and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab share a Wahabist ideology and a common objective of fighting against the Pakistan Army's co-operation with the US. The two organisations share each other's training facilities and sanctuaries. They keep using each other's trained and motivated cadres for their operations. However, the operations of the
Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab are largely confined to the non-tribal belt. The LEJ Sometimes acts as the fighting arm of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab and sometimes independently. Al Qaeda acts as the mentor and motivator of all these organisations.
5. Police sources say that Aquil's name had earlier figured in the investigations into the assassination of the Surgeon General of the Pakistan Army Hafiz Mirza Muhammad Mushtaq Baig last year, the firing of a rocket at a plane carrying Pervez Musharraf in July,2007, and the attack on the SL cricket team in Lahore in March last.
6. Both the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the LEJ are members of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People. Both are strongly Wahabi organisations, but whereas the LEJ is strongly anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-India,anti-Iran and anti-Shia, the LET is only anti-US, anti-Israel and anti-India, but not anti-Iran or anti-Shia.
7.There is no confirmed instance of the LET indulging in planned anti-Shia violence in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but the LEJ has been responsible for most of the targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship in Pakistan and on the Hazaras---who are Shias---in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
8. The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), which are also members of the IIF,strongly share the anti-Shia feelings of the LEJ, but they do not indulge in targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship. Many of the leaders of these organisations, including Maulana Masood Azhar, the Amir of the JEM, started their jihadi career in the SSP, but later drifted away from it since they felt uncomfortable with its targeted attacks on Shias and their places of worship. Despite being separate now, they
do co-operate with the LEJ in its operations directed against US interests and the Pakistani armed forces. The LET prefers to operate independently without getting involved with the SSP or the LEJ. The LET avoids attacks on Pakistani security forces.
9.The strong action taken by the international community against known and suspected Arab members of Al Qaeda created difficulties for them in travelling freely and in carrying out operations in non-Muslim countries. Consequently, it started depending increasingly on the Pakistani members of the LET for its operations. Post-9/11, the LET opened its sleeper cells in countries such as Australia, Singapore, the UK, France and the US to help Al Qaeda in its operations by collecting information, motivating the members of the Pakistani diaspora and other means.
10. The discovery of LET sleeper cells in the Western countries post-2002 brought increased focus on the LET in the West.Next to the Arab members of Al Qaeda, suspected Pakistani members of the LET were placed under close surveillance in many countries. This created difficulties in the movement and activities of the LET. The LET is no longer able to operate outside the Indian sub-continent and the Gulf
countries as freely as it used to do in the past.
11.Moreover, the LET started feeling uncomfortable over the anti-Shia violence unleashed by Al Qaeda and its surrogates in Iraq. While continuing to be a member of the IIF, it tried to avoid being associated with Al Qaeda's anti-Shia and anti-Saudi policies. Saudi charity organisations have been one of the main funders of the LET, which has an active branch in Saudi Arabia to recruit members from the Indian
Muslim diaspora in the Gulf countries.
12.In view of these developments, Al Qaeda has started increasingly using the LEJ for its operations in Pakistan itself as well as in the non-Muslim countries. The LEJ was actively involved in supporting the students of the two madrasas of the Lal Masjid of Islamabad before they were raided by Pakistani military commandoes in July, 2007. Many of the women, who were targeted by the girl students for allegedly
running a call girl racket, were reportedly Shias. It has been actively backing the tribals, who have taken to arms against the Pakistani security forces in North and South Waziristan and in the Swat Valley in the Provincially-Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) of the North-West Frontier Province. Under the influence of the LEJ, the tribals have been beheading or otherwise killing only the Shias among the security forces personnel captured by them. Well-informed Police sources say that all the para-military personnel beheaded so far by the tribals were Shias. According to them, there has not been a single instance of the beheading of a Sunni member of the security forces though many Sunnis have been killed in explosions.
13. The JEM is also actively involved in supporting the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM) in its fight against the security forces in the Swat Valley. There have been targeted attacks on members of the local Shia community. The anti-Shia dimension of the current violence in the tribal areas was also corroborated by the well-informed "Daily Times" of Lahore in an editorial titled "Two Oppressions"
carried by it on November 10, 2007. The editorial said: ' The latest news from Waziristan is that a well-known Shia personality has been gunned down. This is a part of the sectarian violence that Al Qaeda commits in the territories it captures. Earlier, Shias among the captured Pakistani troops were casually beheaded while the Sunnis were returned. In the Shia-majority Parachinar in the Kurram Agency,
suicide-bombers have been killing indiscriminately."
14.Al Qaeda's use of the LEJ is not confined to Pakistani territory. Police sources say that in view of the difficulties now faced by suspected LET members in Western countries and in South-east Asia, Al Qaeda is encouraging the SSP and the LEJ to gradually take over the role of the LET as the motivators and mobilisers of members of the overseas Pakistani diaspora for assisting Al Qaeda in its operations.
They claim that some sleeper cells of the SSP and the LEJ have already come up in the US, the UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Singapore and Australia. Since the foreign intelligence agencies do not have much information about the SSP and the LEJ, they are able to operate without creating suspicions about them. ( 12-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, October 11, 2009
COMMENTS FROM A DISTINGUISHED INDIAN EXPERT ON PAK GHQ ATTACK
B.RAMAN
I have received through a common friend the following comments on my articles on the terrorist attack on the Pakistan Army GHQ on October 10,2009, from a very distinguished retired senior officer of the Indian Army:
1.Though I would call this a suicide attack there are some interesting aspects to be taken note of.
2.Firstly the target was Army HQ. HQ are usually weak spots.
3.Death of a Brigadier and other officers is surprising. It shows they just rushed to the gates non tactically. Pakistani officers are not known for their professionalism. Unfortunately similar to Police officers’ deaths at Mumbai.
4.Total Number of terrorists seems to be minimum 8 since four died at Gate 1, and at least 4 must have gone through Gate 2 to hold large number of hostages.
5.How did they know personnel of one gate would go to the other? Must have been insiders or had observed the drills well. Or some insider told them of this drill. Shows reserves were not held on the premises.
6.All guards at the GHQ were unprofessional. These could not be of the SSG. SSG must have been called later and these too took so much time to eliminate the terrorists.
7.Why were SSG called in and not normal infantry? Shows professional standard of the military and the SSG.
8.Interesting that a maximum of four terrorists could hold at least 40 hostages. How could a max of four terrorists hold 40 hostages for so long? The hostages did nothing throughout last night!!
9.HQ of Pakistan’s elite 10 Corps and its Corps reserve brigade (111?) are located at Rawalpindi besides troops of other arms and services.
10.Most demands were anti Army operations and against Pervez Musharraf, who is a non entity now.
11.Why did the Taliban waste at least 8 suicide terrorists just to send this message? Could have been done with much less. Do they have plenty of suicide terrorists? Are there mature leaders planning strategies for them? Seems the aim was to tarnish image of the Army. Why? by Who?
12.There is nothing new about their state of training or modus operandi. Attacks at Kalu Chak, Sanjuwan and Akhnur in 2002 – 2003 as well as the attack on the Parliament followed similar tactics. They wore Khaki uniforms and shot their way in killing guards at the perimeter.
I have received through a common friend the following comments on my articles on the terrorist attack on the Pakistan Army GHQ on October 10,2009, from a very distinguished retired senior officer of the Indian Army:
1.Though I would call this a suicide attack there are some interesting aspects to be taken note of.
2.Firstly the target was Army HQ. HQ are usually weak spots.
3.Death of a Brigadier and other officers is surprising. It shows they just rushed to the gates non tactically. Pakistani officers are not known for their professionalism. Unfortunately similar to Police officers’ deaths at Mumbai.
4.Total Number of terrorists seems to be minimum 8 since four died at Gate 1, and at least 4 must have gone through Gate 2 to hold large number of hostages.
5.How did they know personnel of one gate would go to the other? Must have been insiders or had observed the drills well. Or some insider told them of this drill. Shows reserves were not held on the premises.
6.All guards at the GHQ were unprofessional. These could not be of the SSG. SSG must have been called later and these too took so much time to eliminate the terrorists.
7.Why were SSG called in and not normal infantry? Shows professional standard of the military and the SSG.
8.Interesting that a maximum of four terrorists could hold at least 40 hostages. How could a max of four terrorists hold 40 hostages for so long? The hostages did nothing throughout last night!!
9.HQ of Pakistan’s elite 10 Corps and its Corps reserve brigade (111?) are located at Rawalpindi besides troops of other arms and services.
10.Most demands were anti Army operations and against Pervez Musharraf, who is a non entity now.
11.Why did the Taliban waste at least 8 suicide terrorists just to send this message? Could have been done with much less. Do they have plenty of suicide terrorists? Are there mature leaders planning strategies for them? Seems the aim was to tarnish image of the Army. Why? by Who?
12.There is nothing new about their state of training or modus operandi. Attacks at Kalu Chak, Sanjuwan and Akhnur in 2002 – 2003 as well as the attack on the Parliament followed similar tactics. They wore Khaki uniforms and shot their way in killing guards at the perimeter.
PAK ARMY'S CREDIBILITY DAMAGED BY ATTACK ON GHQ
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO 565
B.RAMAN
The crdibility of the Pakistani Army and its Chief of Staff, Gen.Pervez Ashfaq Kayani ,has taken a beating following the daring raid launched by a group of nine terrorists into the Army's General Headquarters at Rawalpindi and their success in holding the Army and its commando group called the Special Services Group (SSG) at bay for nearly 20 hours before the terrorists could be neutralised and 39 of the 42
hostages---civilians and military personnel---taken by them got released. Eight military personnel, including a Brigadier and a Lt.Col, and eight terrorists were killed during the raid and the subsequent action to free the hostages.
2.The Urdu daily Jang and its English sister publication The News International had published a report on October 5, 2009, stating that according to the Interior Department of the provincial Government of Punjab a source had revealed that terrorists of the Tehrik-e-Taliban,Pakistan (TTP) were planning a commando-style attack on the GHQ in collaboration with the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the anti-Shia
organisation, and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). According to the report carried by these papers, the Punjab Interior Department had warned that the the terrorists had planned to enter the GHQ using fake army uniforms and vehicles.
3. Embarrassing questions are being asked as to what action the Army and the federal Ministry of the Interior headed by Rehman Mallik had taken on this report of the Punjab Interior Department and what precautions were taken to thwart a commando-style attack by the terrorists.
4.The Army's credibility has also been damaged not only by the success of the terrorists in forcing their way into the GHQ premises, but also by the confusion, which prevailed in the GHQ as was evident from the conflicting reports given by an army spokesman about the raid. After the four terrorists, who tried to force their way into the GHQ premises, had been foiled and killed by the security guards at Gate No.1 after an exchange of fire lasting about 45 minutes, an army spokesman claimed that the operation was over and that the terrorists' attempt to enter the GHQ premises had been thwarted at the gate itself.
5. Subsequently, it turned out that five other terrorists had made their way in through Gate No.2 by taking advantage of the fact that the security picket at this gate had left it unattended and rushed to Gate No.1 when the exchange of fire started there and that they had taken some hostages. Only sometime after the four terriorists had been killed at Gate No.1 that the Army realised that some other terrorists had made their way in and had taken hostages. For over 14 hours after the terrorist attack had started, the Army had no clue as to how many hostages had been taken.
6. Initially, the Army spokesman gave the number of hostages taken by the five terrorists as between 10 and 15. Then, he raised it to between 20 and 25. Finally, it turned out that the terrorists had actually taken 42 hostages, of whom 39 were rescued by the Army early on the morning of October 11 and the remaining three died during the exchange of firing. The Army has not so far given the names of the
hostages, who died, and of those, who were rescued.
7. After the action was over, the Army spokesman announced that while eight of the raiding party were killed, the leader of the terrorist group by name Aquil alias Dr.Usman, who was injured when he unsuccessfully tried to kill himself with an explosive device, had been taken into custody and was being interrogated. Initially, it was stated that he was the same person who had led the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan Cricket team in Lahore in March last as the team was being taken by bus from the hotel in which it was staying to the stadium.Subsequently, the Army modified its contention by stating that the terrorist leader arrested in the GHQ premises had a name sounding similar to that of the leader of the group which had attacked the SL cricket team and that it was being verfied whether the two are one and the same.
8.The Lahore City Police Chief Pervez Rathore had told the media at Lahore on June 17,2009, that one of the terrorists involved in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team had been arrested and six other terrorists involved in the attack, including the mastermind, had been identified. He said that the arrested terrorist had been identified as Zubair alias Naek Muhammad and that he belonged to a till then
unknown organisation called the Tehrik-e- Taliban Punjab .He described Zubair as a retired low-ranking army officer. He identified the mastermind as Aquil alias Dr. Usman alias Rana Hanif and said that he was also involved in the firing of a rocket on a plane carrying Musharraf from an air base near Islamabad to Balochistan in July,2007. He also said that all the militants involved in the attack on the SL
team belonged to Southern Punjab. He said that Zubair identified the leader of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab as one "Emir Farooq" . The Lahore City Police chief said that the attack on the SL cricket team was jointly mounted by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab and the anti-Shia Lashkar e-Jhangvi. He identified four others involved in the attack as Muhammad Adnan, alias "Sajad"; Sami Ullah, alias "Ejaz"; Abdul Wahab, alias "Umar"; and Qari Ehsan Ul Haq, alias "Qari Ajmal." The Lahore police offered a cash reward of Rs. 2.5 million ($52,000) each for the arrest of any of these men or "any other suspects."
9. If it turns out that Aquil alias Usman arrested for allegedly leading the attack on the GHQ on October 10 is identical with the person by the same name wanted for leading the attack on the SL cricket team, this would indicate that the attack on the GHQ was carried out by a group of jihadis from Punjab and not from the Pashtun tribal belt. It is possible that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab is also known as the Amjad Farooqi detachment of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in whose name the responsibility for the GHQ attack was claimed shortly after the attack. (11-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
The crdibility of the Pakistani Army and its Chief of Staff, Gen.Pervez Ashfaq Kayani ,has taken a beating following the daring raid launched by a group of nine terrorists into the Army's General Headquarters at Rawalpindi and their success in holding the Army and its commando group called the Special Services Group (SSG) at bay for nearly 20 hours before the terrorists could be neutralised and 39 of the 42
hostages---civilians and military personnel---taken by them got released. Eight military personnel, including a Brigadier and a Lt.Col, and eight terrorists were killed during the raid and the subsequent action to free the hostages.
2.The Urdu daily Jang and its English sister publication The News International had published a report on October 5, 2009, stating that according to the Interior Department of the provincial Government of Punjab a source had revealed that terrorists of the Tehrik-e-Taliban,Pakistan (TTP) were planning a commando-style attack on the GHQ in collaboration with the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the anti-Shia
organisation, and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). According to the report carried by these papers, the Punjab Interior Department had warned that the the terrorists had planned to enter the GHQ using fake army uniforms and vehicles.
3. Embarrassing questions are being asked as to what action the Army and the federal Ministry of the Interior headed by Rehman Mallik had taken on this report of the Punjab Interior Department and what precautions were taken to thwart a commando-style attack by the terrorists.
4.The Army's credibility has also been damaged not only by the success of the terrorists in forcing their way into the GHQ premises, but also by the confusion, which prevailed in the GHQ as was evident from the conflicting reports given by an army spokesman about the raid. After the four terrorists, who tried to force their way into the GHQ premises, had been foiled and killed by the security guards at Gate No.1 after an exchange of fire lasting about 45 minutes, an army spokesman claimed that the operation was over and that the terrorists' attempt to enter the GHQ premises had been thwarted at the gate itself.
5. Subsequently, it turned out that five other terrorists had made their way in through Gate No.2 by taking advantage of the fact that the security picket at this gate had left it unattended and rushed to Gate No.1 when the exchange of fire started there and that they had taken some hostages. Only sometime after the four terriorists had been killed at Gate No.1 that the Army realised that some other terrorists had made their way in and had taken hostages. For over 14 hours after the terrorist attack had started, the Army had no clue as to how many hostages had been taken.
6. Initially, the Army spokesman gave the number of hostages taken by the five terrorists as between 10 and 15. Then, he raised it to between 20 and 25. Finally, it turned out that the terrorists had actually taken 42 hostages, of whom 39 were rescued by the Army early on the morning of October 11 and the remaining three died during the exchange of firing. The Army has not so far given the names of the
hostages, who died, and of those, who were rescued.
7. After the action was over, the Army spokesman announced that while eight of the raiding party were killed, the leader of the terrorist group by name Aquil alias Dr.Usman, who was injured when he unsuccessfully tried to kill himself with an explosive device, had been taken into custody and was being interrogated. Initially, it was stated that he was the same person who had led the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan Cricket team in Lahore in March last as the team was being taken by bus from the hotel in which it was staying to the stadium.Subsequently, the Army modified its contention by stating that the terrorist leader arrested in the GHQ premises had a name sounding similar to that of the leader of the group which had attacked the SL cricket team and that it was being verfied whether the two are one and the same.
8.The Lahore City Police Chief Pervez Rathore had told the media at Lahore on June 17,2009, that one of the terrorists involved in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team had been arrested and six other terrorists involved in the attack, including the mastermind, had been identified. He said that the arrested terrorist had been identified as Zubair alias Naek Muhammad and that he belonged to a till then
unknown organisation called the Tehrik-e- Taliban Punjab .He described Zubair as a retired low-ranking army officer. He identified the mastermind as Aquil alias Dr. Usman alias Rana Hanif and said that he was also involved in the firing of a rocket on a plane carrying Musharraf from an air base near Islamabad to Balochistan in July,2007. He also said that all the militants involved in the attack on the SL
team belonged to Southern Punjab. He said that Zubair identified the leader of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab as one "Emir Farooq" . The Lahore City Police chief said that the attack on the SL cricket team was jointly mounted by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab and the anti-Shia Lashkar e-Jhangvi. He identified four others involved in the attack as Muhammad Adnan, alias "Sajad"; Sami Ullah, alias "Ejaz"; Abdul Wahab, alias "Umar"; and Qari Ehsan Ul Haq, alias "Qari Ajmal." The Lahore police offered a cash reward of Rs. 2.5 million ($52,000) each for the arrest of any of these men or "any other suspects."
9. If it turns out that Aquil alias Usman arrested for allegedly leading the attack on the GHQ on October 10 is identical with the person by the same name wanted for leading the attack on the SL cricket team, this would indicate that the attack on the GHQ was carried out by a group of jihadis from Punjab and not from the Pashtun tribal belt. It is possible that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Punjab is also known as the Amjad Farooqi detachment of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in whose name the responsibility for the GHQ attack was claimed shortly after the attack. (11-10-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)