INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO.625
B.RAMAN
The Pakistan Army and the US intelligence are making headway in the battle against jihadi terrorism --- the indigenous as well as the global varieties--- in Pakistan's Pashtun tribal belt in the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
2. They are working in tandem in some places such as the Swat Valley of the Malakand Division and South Waziristan in the FATA and separately of each other in co-ordinated, but not joint operations in other areas such as the Bajaur and the North Waziristan Agencies of the FATA. While the Pakistan Army has been exclusively handling the ground situation in the Bajaur Agency with very little US involvement, the US has been keeping up relentless pressure on the terrorists in North Waziristan and occasionally in South Waziristan through its Drone (pilotless planes) strikes.
3.There is a gentlemen's agreement between Islamabad and Washington that the former will keep making proforma protests against the Drone strikes without trying to stop them. If Pakistan protests really and vehemently, the US will have to stop them. The US is able to continue them because the Pakistani protests are a charade. Pakistan knows it is benefiting from the Drone strikes and wants them to continue. Fears that disproportionate civilian casualties might add to anti-American feelings have been belied. Civilian casualties there have been, but they are not as heavy as made out by some US analysts. Even the Pakistani civil society and the local tribal population no longer protest against the civilian casualties. They have realised that by eliminating the jihadi terrorist leaders of not only Al Qaeda, but also indigenous organisations such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and trans-border organisations such as the anti-Chinese Islamic Movement of East Turkestan (IMET) the US has given them some relief from the intimidation and terror imposed on the local population by these terrorist groups.
4. There are signs of a jihadi fatigue in the Pakistani Pashtun belt. This fatigue should account for the remarkable decline in public protests over the Drone strikes. It has also contributed to the increasing flow of valuable intelligence to the US agencies. Almost all the successful US Drone strikes were intelligence-driven. Initially, the intelligence came overwhelmingly from technical sources. Now, they are coming more and more from human sources. When there is popular fatigue with the terrorists, intelligence flow improves. We are witnessing this in the tribal belt.
5. The remarkable successes of the US intelligence in North Waziristan have been accompanied by the headway made by the Pakistani security forces in the Swat Valley, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency. These operations cannot be described as successful in terms of identified terrorist leaders neutralised by the Pakistan Army. Many of the terrorist leaders operating in these areas have escaped capture by the Pakistan Army. Their trained followers have dispersed and peeled off. They have retained a capability for re-grouping and striking back at a later stage if the Army pressure eases.
6. Despite this, the Pakistan Army operations have been successful in the sense that it has been able to re-establish territorial control over Swat, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency and deny the use of this territory to the terrorists. Is this territorial control ephemeral or will it be enduring? The training and equipment given by the US to Pakistani para-military forces such as the Frontier Corps have improved their morale and made them fight better to wrest control of the territory from the terrorists, but their ability to hold on to the "newly liberated" territory in the face of a renewed assault is yet to be tested.
7. Any comprehensive operation in this area has to have three components---liberate, hold on to it and develop. Only the first component is now being attempted by the Army with US assistance. US policy-makers and Pakistani civilian leaders are yet to pay attention to the other two components. Holding on to the "liberated" territory demands massive investments for a crash development of roads and other means of communications. One sees no signs of any such investments and related activity. It also demands a robust civilian governing machinery which enforces the civilian authority, brings the liberated areas into the national political mainstream from which the entire FATA had remained excluded ever since Pakistan became independent in 1947 and undertakes massive economic development programmes.
8. The elected civilian Government in Islamabad has shown very little interest in the civilian follow-up to the military actions. It has left all the initiatives in the FATA in the hands of the Army. There is hardly any thinking or discussion in Islamabad or the rest of the country on how to increase the extent and effectiveness of the civilian governing machinery in the tribal belt. The civilian leaders have no interest in the tasks of governance in the tribal areas. Even US policy-makers and experts have shown not much inteterest in following up on the military successes by undertaking a programme for changing the political and economic landscape of the tribal areas.
9. This total lack of interest in "what next" could facilitate re-grouping and a come-back by the terrorists and insurgents. (4-3-10)
( 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, March 3, 2010
INDIA, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN & THE US
B.RAMAN
Here are my answers to four questions e-mailed to me on March 3,2010, by a correspondent of the "Washington Post":
Question: Is the Indian government growing increasingly frustrated over the Obama administration's policy of reconciliation with the so called good Taliban? And why or how will this impact India and U.S. relations? What position does this put India in?
Answer:"Frustrated" is not the word. India is increasingly concerned over the US belief that there are good fundamentalists and bad fundamentalists and that it can do business with the good fundamentalists and bring them into the mainstream. India looks upon the "war" against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as directed not only against these organisations, but also against their ideology of religious obscurantism by projecting before the Afghan people the ideas of a secular and liberal democratic society.If it makes a deal with the so-called good Taliban even if they do not give up their medieval ideas, the US will be admitting beforehand that it has lost the ideological battle. It will not be good for Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. And it will not be good for India, which has the second largest Muslim community in the world.
Question: Is India worried that Pakistan is getting too strong b/c the U.S. is courting Pakistan in its fight? And why is this a concern to India ie - despite Mumbai, despite everything, is there a growing feeling in Delhi that Pakistan will hoodwink the world?
Answer:India is worried over the US readiness to close its eyes to Pakistan's use of terrorism against India so long as Pakistan acts against terrorism directed against the US and helps the US in preventing another 9/11 in the US homeland. Pakistan is confident that so long as it helps the US against the Taliban and Al Qaeda it does not have to fear any adverse consequences from its continued use of terrorism against India. It is this confidence which should explain its inaction against the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other Punjabi terrorist organisations whose activities are directed against India.Pakistan has been hoodwinking the US not today, but for the last 30 years ever since it started using terrorism against India.It will continue to hoodwink the world brazenly so long it has the confidence that no action will be taken against it.
Question:Is Afghanistan the new Kashmir, a place india and Pakistan are fighting it out?
Answer:In Kashmir, India is resisting Pakistani attempts since 1989 to annex Indian territory through a proxy war using terrorist organisations trained in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, India has been resisting Pakistani efforts to exclude it from playing its due role as a historic ally of Afghanistan and as a well-wisher of the Afghan people who has been trying to help them convert their country into a modern democratic state. In Kashmir, it is a confrontation over territory which belongs to India. In Afghanistan it is a political and ideological confrontation.
Question: How big is India's intelligence presense in Afghanistan - is it robust? Is it as big as Pakistan claims? Does anyone know?
Answer: I would not know whether India has an intelligence presence in Afghanistan and, if so, how big is it. (3-3-10)
( 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 )
Here are my answers to four questions e-mailed to me on March 3,2010, by a correspondent of the "Washington Post":
Question: Is the Indian government growing increasingly frustrated over the Obama administration's policy of reconciliation with the so called good Taliban? And why or how will this impact India and U.S. relations? What position does this put India in?
Answer:"Frustrated" is not the word. India is increasingly concerned over the US belief that there are good fundamentalists and bad fundamentalists and that it can do business with the good fundamentalists and bring them into the mainstream. India looks upon the "war" against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as directed not only against these organisations, but also against their ideology of religious obscurantism by projecting before the Afghan people the ideas of a secular and liberal democratic society.If it makes a deal with the so-called good Taliban even if they do not give up their medieval ideas, the US will be admitting beforehand that it has lost the ideological battle. It will not be good for Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. And it will not be good for India, which has the second largest Muslim community in the world.
Question: Is India worried that Pakistan is getting too strong b/c the U.S. is courting Pakistan in its fight? And why is this a concern to India ie - despite Mumbai, despite everything, is there a growing feeling in Delhi that Pakistan will hoodwink the world?
Answer:India is worried over the US readiness to close its eyes to Pakistan's use of terrorism against India so long as Pakistan acts against terrorism directed against the US and helps the US in preventing another 9/11 in the US homeland. Pakistan is confident that so long as it helps the US against the Taliban and Al Qaeda it does not have to fear any adverse consequences from its continued use of terrorism against India. It is this confidence which should explain its inaction against the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other Punjabi terrorist organisations whose activities are directed against India.Pakistan has been hoodwinking the US not today, but for the last 30 years ever since it started using terrorism against India.It will continue to hoodwink the world brazenly so long it has the confidence that no action will be taken against it.
Question:Is Afghanistan the new Kashmir, a place india and Pakistan are fighting it out?
Answer:In Kashmir, India is resisting Pakistani attempts since 1989 to annex Indian territory through a proxy war using terrorist organisations trained in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, India has been resisting Pakistani efforts to exclude it from playing its due role as a historic ally of Afghanistan and as a well-wisher of the Afghan people who has been trying to help them convert their country into a modern democratic state. In Kashmir, it is a confrontation over territory which belongs to India. In Afghanistan it is a political and ideological confrontation.
Question: How big is India's intelligence presense in Afghanistan - is it robust? Is it as big as Pakistan claims? Does anyone know?
Answer: I would not know whether India has an intelligence presence in Afghanistan and, if so, how big is it. (3-3-10)
( 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 )
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
INDIAN EGGS IN SAUDI BASKET
B.RAMAN
The Indian interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia dates back to the period from 1980 to 84 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister. As she was generally in the habit of doing, she initially sent a senior official of the Indian intelligence community on a secret visit to Saudi Arabia to test the waters for making an overture to the then ruling family. R.N.Kao, who was then the Senior Adviser to her, did the spade work in paving the way for a visit by her to Saudi Arabia. The then Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia played a significant role in convincing her about the positive feelings for India in the Saudi ruling family. These preliminary steps culminated in a successful visit by her to Saudi Arabia in 1982.
2. Her interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia had four objectives---- to strengthen India's energy security, to use the good offices of Saudi Arabia to persuade Pakistan to stop supporting the Khalistan movement, to remove suspicions in the Islamic world in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular about India's Afghan policy which was widely perceived in the West and the Islamic world as supporting the Soviet interests in Afghanistan and to retain the continued support of the Indian Muslim community for the Congress (I).
3. The high expectations aroused by her visit did not materialise. Saudi Arabia was not able to or was not in a position to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistan movement. While the economic ties between the two countries continued to grow in fits and starts, there were no political or long-term strategic dividends from the visit. Even hopes that the visit could pave the way for a formal liaison relationship between the intelligence agencies of the two countries resulting in intelligence-sharing arrangements were belied.
4. Among the reasons for the disappointing sequel were---firstly, Indira Gandhi's preoccupation with countering the Khalistan movement which ultimately led to her assassination in October,1984, and, secondly, the emergence of Pakistan as a frontline state in the jihad against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the consequent reluctance of Saudi Arabia and the US to exercise pressure on Pakistan to make it stop supporting the Khalistan movement.
5. Under Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao as Prime Ministers, the exercise to upgrade our relations with Saudi Arabia was given a low priority. Both of them realised that India had to fight Khalistani terrorism and Pakistani sponsorship of it in its own way and through its own means and that it would be futile to expect the US or Saudi Arabia or any other country to exercise pressure on Pakistan. How to make the Pakistani use of Khalistani terrorism prohibitively costly to Islamabad? That became the main objective of Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao.
6. Any scope for a new look at India's relations with Saudi Arabia was considerably reduced by the success of the Afghan Mujahideen supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in overthrowing the India-friendly Government of Najibullah in Kabul and capturing power in 1992, the emergence of the Taliban in 1994 and its capture of power in Kabul in 1996, the Saudi support for the Taliban Government and the Saudi sympathies for the Pakistan-backed jihadi terrorist organisations in Jammu & Kashmir post-1989.
7. Faced with these developments, India started exploring new diplomatic and operational options --- with some success. Iran played a central role in the Indian search for new options. Among these options, one could mention India enlisting the support of Iran to defeat the move of the Benazir Bhutto Government to have India condemned in the UN Human Rights Commission on the Kashmir issue in 1994 and the covert alliance with Iran and Russia to help the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. India's relations with Iran reached the height of their development under Narasimha Rao. Iran became the toast of the Indian diplomacy in the Islamic world just as Saudi Arabia seems to be becoming of the Manmohan Singh Government's diplomacy. Narasimha Rao braved the displeasure of the US Government in developing India's relations with Iran and of the Arab world in developing relations with Israel. Iran and Israel became the two fulcra around which Indian overt and covert diplomacy to counter Pakistan turned.
8. The Manmohan Singh Government's renewed interest in developing closer relations with Saudi Arabia could be traced to his visit to Washington in July, 2005, during which the civilian nuclear co-operation agreement with the US was signed. New Delhi had to pay an unadmitted price for this agreement----downgrading its relations with Iran. The Indian vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the low priority given by India to its participation in the project for the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan were the outcome of Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to the US and the new strategic co-operation with the US. New Delhi, which had consistently resisted US pressure on its Iran policy, became increasingly amenable to pressure from Washington. Result: Iran quietly retaliated on energy co-operation with India.
9. The need to find alternate sources for India's increasing energy requirements in the face of the post-2005 unhelpful attitude of Iran once again made New Delhi turn to Saudi Arabia for its energy security. Our relations with Saudi Arabia have acquired a Pakistani dimension after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Despite the terrorist strikes, the continuing Pakistani support to organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) put the Manmohan Singh Government in a dilemma---to retaliate or not to retaliate. Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. Even though in response to public anger and political pressure from sections of his own party and other political parties, he suspended the composite dialogue with Pakistan and wriggled out of the agreement reached by him with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July last, he has not given up his hopes of reaching some sort of an agreement with Pakistan which would make Pakistan discontinue the use of terrorism against India in Indian and Afghan territories as a prelude to the resumption of the composite dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir and other issues.
10. Just as Indira Gandhi sought to use ----unsuccessfully---the help of Saudi Arabia to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistanis, Dr.Manmohan Singh has sought the good offices of the Saudi King to make Pakistan stop supporting anti-India terrorism so that "he could walk the extra mile" with Pakistan as he put it. We are in for disappointment if we believe that Saudi Arabia will exercise pressure on Pakistan, another Sunni state, to stop supporting anti-India Sunni/Wahabi terrorist groups. There is a convergence between the views of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the issue of jihadi Sunni terrorism directed against India. Both condemn jihadi Sunni terrorism in the Indian territory outside Jammu & Kashmir, but both look upon what is going on in J&K as a "freedom struggle". In the unlikely event of Saudi Arabia interceding with Pakistan to give satisfaction to India on the question of terrorism in hinterland India outside Kashmir, it would expect India to give satisfaction to Pakistan on Kashmir. Would Dr.Manmohan Singh be prepared to do it?
11. Some of the recent statements of Dr.Manmohan Singh in Saudi Arabia are likely to be misinterpreted by Islamabad as indicating the beginning of a battle fatigue in New Delhi. It would make Pakistan even more determined than hitherto to keep up the pressure on India through terrorism to force a change in the status quo. Even if Saudi Arabia sincerely tries to exercise pressure on Pakistan on the terrorism issue, Pakistan is unlikely to give in at a time when it thinks that battle fatigue is setting in. It is one thing to strengthen our energy security by developing our relations with Saudi Arabia , but it is another to put our eggs in the Saudi basket in matters relating to our core concerns about Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism and Kashmir.
12. India is a frontline State in the battle against global Sunni/Wahabi jihadi terrorism. It has to fight the battle on its own, through its own means with the help of like-minded States. Saudi Arabia is definitely not a like-minded State in this regard. Another worrisome aspect of the recent visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) of Dr.Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia is his support to the Arab point of view on a peace settlement with Israel without consideration to the core concerns and sensitivities of Israel, which has been a steadfast well-wisher of India and has been quietly playing a helpful role in our attempts to modernise our Armed Forces to counter the modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces.
13.Just as Dr.Manmohan Singh paid a price in terms of Iran in his keenness to get closer to the US, he seems to be prepared to pay a price in terms of Israel in his keenness to get closer to Saudi Arabia. We supported the Arabs right or wrong to the detriment of Israel before 1967. What did we get in return? It will be very unfortunate if we revert to our pre-1967 policies in our keenness to cultivate Saudi Arabia. (3-3-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institutue For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The Indian interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia dates back to the period from 1980 to 84 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister. As she was generally in the habit of doing, she initially sent a senior official of the Indian intelligence community on a secret visit to Saudi Arabia to test the waters for making an overture to the then ruling family. R.N.Kao, who was then the Senior Adviser to her, did the spade work in paving the way for a visit by her to Saudi Arabia. The then Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia played a significant role in convincing her about the positive feelings for India in the Saudi ruling family. These preliminary steps culminated in a successful visit by her to Saudi Arabia in 1982.
2. Her interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia had four objectives---- to strengthen India's energy security, to use the good offices of Saudi Arabia to persuade Pakistan to stop supporting the Khalistan movement, to remove suspicions in the Islamic world in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular about India's Afghan policy which was widely perceived in the West and the Islamic world as supporting the Soviet interests in Afghanistan and to retain the continued support of the Indian Muslim community for the Congress (I).
3. The high expectations aroused by her visit did not materialise. Saudi Arabia was not able to or was not in a position to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistan movement. While the economic ties between the two countries continued to grow in fits and starts, there were no political or long-term strategic dividends from the visit. Even hopes that the visit could pave the way for a formal liaison relationship between the intelligence agencies of the two countries resulting in intelligence-sharing arrangements were belied.
4. Among the reasons for the disappointing sequel were---firstly, Indira Gandhi's preoccupation with countering the Khalistan movement which ultimately led to her assassination in October,1984, and, secondly, the emergence of Pakistan as a frontline state in the jihad against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the consequent reluctance of Saudi Arabia and the US to exercise pressure on Pakistan to make it stop supporting the Khalistan movement.
5. Under Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao as Prime Ministers, the exercise to upgrade our relations with Saudi Arabia was given a low priority. Both of them realised that India had to fight Khalistani terrorism and Pakistani sponsorship of it in its own way and through its own means and that it would be futile to expect the US or Saudi Arabia or any other country to exercise pressure on Pakistan. How to make the Pakistani use of Khalistani terrorism prohibitively costly to Islamabad? That became the main objective of Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao.
6. Any scope for a new look at India's relations with Saudi Arabia was considerably reduced by the success of the Afghan Mujahideen supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in overthrowing the India-friendly Government of Najibullah in Kabul and capturing power in 1992, the emergence of the Taliban in 1994 and its capture of power in Kabul in 1996, the Saudi support for the Taliban Government and the Saudi sympathies for the Pakistan-backed jihadi terrorist organisations in Jammu & Kashmir post-1989.
7. Faced with these developments, India started exploring new diplomatic and operational options --- with some success. Iran played a central role in the Indian search for new options. Among these options, one could mention India enlisting the support of Iran to defeat the move of the Benazir Bhutto Government to have India condemned in the UN Human Rights Commission on the Kashmir issue in 1994 and the covert alliance with Iran and Russia to help the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. India's relations with Iran reached the height of their development under Narasimha Rao. Iran became the toast of the Indian diplomacy in the Islamic world just as Saudi Arabia seems to be becoming of the Manmohan Singh Government's diplomacy. Narasimha Rao braved the displeasure of the US Government in developing India's relations with Iran and of the Arab world in developing relations with Israel. Iran and Israel became the two fulcra around which Indian overt and covert diplomacy to counter Pakistan turned.
8. The Manmohan Singh Government's renewed interest in developing closer relations with Saudi Arabia could be traced to his visit to Washington in July, 2005, during which the civilian nuclear co-operation agreement with the US was signed. New Delhi had to pay an unadmitted price for this agreement----downgrading its relations with Iran. The Indian vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the low priority given by India to its participation in the project for the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan were the outcome of Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to the US and the new strategic co-operation with the US. New Delhi, which had consistently resisted US pressure on its Iran policy, became increasingly amenable to pressure from Washington. Result: Iran quietly retaliated on energy co-operation with India.
9. The need to find alternate sources for India's increasing energy requirements in the face of the post-2005 unhelpful attitude of Iran once again made New Delhi turn to Saudi Arabia for its energy security. Our relations with Saudi Arabia have acquired a Pakistani dimension after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Despite the terrorist strikes, the continuing Pakistani support to organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) put the Manmohan Singh Government in a dilemma---to retaliate or not to retaliate. Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. Even though in response to public anger and political pressure from sections of his own party and other political parties, he suspended the composite dialogue with Pakistan and wriggled out of the agreement reached by him with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July last, he has not given up his hopes of reaching some sort of an agreement with Pakistan which would make Pakistan discontinue the use of terrorism against India in Indian and Afghan territories as a prelude to the resumption of the composite dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir and other issues.
10. Just as Indira Gandhi sought to use ----unsuccessfully---the help of Saudi Arabia to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistanis, Dr.Manmohan Singh has sought the good offices of the Saudi King to make Pakistan stop supporting anti-India terrorism so that "he could walk the extra mile" with Pakistan as he put it. We are in for disappointment if we believe that Saudi Arabia will exercise pressure on Pakistan, another Sunni state, to stop supporting anti-India Sunni/Wahabi terrorist groups. There is a convergence between the views of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the issue of jihadi Sunni terrorism directed against India. Both condemn jihadi Sunni terrorism in the Indian territory outside Jammu & Kashmir, but both look upon what is going on in J&K as a "freedom struggle". In the unlikely event of Saudi Arabia interceding with Pakistan to give satisfaction to India on the question of terrorism in hinterland India outside Kashmir, it would expect India to give satisfaction to Pakistan on Kashmir. Would Dr.Manmohan Singh be prepared to do it?
11. Some of the recent statements of Dr.Manmohan Singh in Saudi Arabia are likely to be misinterpreted by Islamabad as indicating the beginning of a battle fatigue in New Delhi. It would make Pakistan even more determined than hitherto to keep up the pressure on India through terrorism to force a change in the status quo. Even if Saudi Arabia sincerely tries to exercise pressure on Pakistan on the terrorism issue, Pakistan is unlikely to give in at a time when it thinks that battle fatigue is setting in. It is one thing to strengthen our energy security by developing our relations with Saudi Arabia , but it is another to put our eggs in the Saudi basket in matters relating to our core concerns about Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism and Kashmir.
12. India is a frontline State in the battle against global Sunni/Wahabi jihadi terrorism. It has to fight the battle on its own, through its own means with the help of like-minded States. Saudi Arabia is definitely not a like-minded State in this regard. Another worrisome aspect of the recent visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) of Dr.Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia is his support to the Arab point of view on a peace settlement with Israel without consideration to the core concerns and sensitivities of Israel, which has been a steadfast well-wisher of India and has been quietly playing a helpful role in our attempts to modernise our Armed Forces to counter the modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces.
13.Just as Dr.Manmohan Singh paid a price in terms of Iran in his keenness to get closer to the US, he seems to be prepared to pay a price in terms of Israel in his keenness to get closer to Saudi Arabia. We supported the Arabs right or wrong to the detriment of Israel before 1967. What did we get in return? It will be very unfortunate if we revert to our pre-1967 policies in our keenness to cultivate Saudi Arabia. (3-3-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institutue For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Monday, March 1, 2010
THE JIHADI TERRORISM IN INDIA: THE SAUDI CONNECTION
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO. 624
B.RAMAN
During his just-concluded visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh is reported to have taken up with the Saudi leaders the question of Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of terrorism against India and sought their good offices for persuading Pakistan to act against anti-Indian terrorism directed from Pakistani territory.
2. Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been following a dual policy on terrorism. It has taken ruthless action against Al Qaeda elements posing a threat to its internal security. At the same time, it has avoided taking action against Wahabi organizations which have been supporting terrorism in other countries. Many of the so-called charity organizations, which have been funding terrorist organizations in other countries including India and Bangladesh, are of Saudi origin. Despite international pressure on Saudi Arabia to act against such charity organizations and stop the flow of funds to global jihadi terrorism, the action taken by the Saudi authorities has been unsatisfactory.
3.It would be futile to expect that Saudi Arabia could be of assistance to India in dealing with jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan or Bangladesh. There has been a long history of links between jihadi terrorist elements in India and Saudi Arabia ever since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December,1992. In December 1993, coinciding with the first anniversary of the demolition of the masjid , there was a number of explosions in different railway trains in North India. The interrogation of one of the suspects arrested during the investigation revealed that the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) had organised them.
4. The suspect also alleged that C.A.M.Basheer, who was the President of the SIMI in the 1980s, had, along with one or two other members of the SIMI, attended a training course in the use of arms and ammunition and explosives in a camp of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) of Pakistan in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) run by one Salauddin, a Sudanese national, in the late 1980s. During the training, the JEI arranged a meeting between the SIMI activists and Lal Singh, alias Manjit Singh of the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF), Canada, who was then living in Lahore. Lal Singh was arrested by the Gujarat Police in the middle of 1992 when he crossed over into India.
5. The JEI urged the SIMI and the ISYF to co-operate with each other for the "liberation" of the Sikhs of Punjab and the Kashmiris of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The co-operation project was code-named "K-2", standing for Kashmir-Khalistan. It was also stated that Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the then Amir of the JEI, had nominated Amirul Azim, the then Propaganda Secretary of the JEI, as the co-ordinator of the project.
6. The suspect also stated that the JEI had asked Basheer to send more members of the SIMI to Pakistan for training, but he could not do so due to logistic problems. In the early 1990s, Amirul Azim, accompanied by Salauddin, the Sudanese instructor, entered India via Bangladesh and met Basheer and his associates for discussing their future plans. They were told that in view of the difficulties experienced by them in sending more activists to Pakistan for training, instructions had been given to the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), the Kashmiri terrorist organisation, which is a wing of the JEI, to train SIMI cadres in its camps in J&K itself. The SIMI was asked to send its future batches to J&K for training.
7. Despite intensive searches by the police of different States, Basheer and his associates, who had allegedly undergone training in Pakistan, could not be arrested. Basheer, who must now be around 48, is from Parambayam in Kerala. After studying in the Union Christian College, Aluva, near Kochi, he worked for a brief while in the Safdarjung airport of New Delhi before taking to terrorism and absconding. Subsequent reports indicated that he had taken up residence in Saudi Arabia from where he was guiding the activities of the SIMI in India and organising its branches in other countries of the Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, he was also reported to have floated a new organisation called
the Muslim Development Force .
8. In 1992, the "Time" magazine of the US had carried an interview with one Commander Abu Abdel Aziz, with a picture of his in his henna-dyed beard and Afghan style fatigue. After the "Time", "al-Sharq al-Awsat", a Saudi-owned, London-based daily, ran a front-page story on Abu Abdel Aziz and his activities in Bosnia. In August 1994, "Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem (The Straight Path)", an Islamic journal published in Pakistan (Issue No. 33), carried an interview with Abu Abdel Aziz. The journal, without identifying his nationality, reported that Abu Abdel Aziz spoke perfect Urdu and that he had spent extended periods in Kashmir. It was stated that Abu Abdel Aziz's followers, believed to be mostly Indian Muslims from the Gulf, were part of the seventh battalion of the Bosnian Army (SEDMI KORPUS, ARMIJA REPUBLIKE BH).
9. In the interview, he made the following points:
* "I was one of those who heard about Jihad in Afghanistan when it started. I used to hear about it, but was hesitant about (the purity and intention of) this Jihad. One of those who came to our land (presumably Saudi Arabia) was Sheikh Dr. Abdallah Azzam. I heard him rallying the youth to come forth and (join him) to go to Afghanistan. This was in 1984 -- I think. I decided to go and check the matter for myself. This was the beginning (of my journey with) Jihad. Then the conquest of Kabul came.
* "A new Jihad started in Bosnia, (we moved there), and we are with it. As to Arab Mujahideen (in Bosnia), they do not have a separate battalion. There is a battalion for non-Bosnian fighters. Arabs are a minority compared to those of the Mujahideen (gathered from around the World). This battalion is under a unified command and is called Kateebat al-Mujahideen (Mujahideen Battalion), or "El-Mudzahidin" as they call them in Bosnian. Militarily, it has a link to the Bosnian government under the general command of the Bosnian Armed Forces. It is in fact part of the seventh battalion (SEDMI KORPUS, ARMIJA REPUBLIKE BH) of the Bosnian Army. I am a field commander under the "General Unified Armed Command". We have full jurisdiction in the region we are responsible for (Editor's note: Mostly central Bosnia). The general command of the Muslim forces wants to see results, it does not dictate strategy or action.
* "I met several prominent Ulema. Among them Sheikh Nasir ad-Din al-Albani, Sheikh Abdel Aziz Bin Baz and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Otheimin and others in the Gulf area. Sheikh Nasir ad-Din al-Albani is one of the great Ulema of this time and one seeks guidance in the light of his knowledge and view. (I say) in my last meeting with him, he was supportive of Jihad in Bosnia-Herzeg (as a religious duty). However, he told us not to attack - that is we, the Arab Mujahideen.Since we were the smaller the Sheikh was afraid we might get killed in large numbers if we engaged people in the fight. However, he requested that we dig in and be at the most advanced defense-lines (Khat ad-Difa` al-Awwal) to defend those persecuted.
* "The rest of the Ulema support Jihad by any means (defensive or offensive). You must understand that - militarily speaking - the number of those killed in defense is (far) higher than those killed in attack. This is due to the fact that in attack, clashes and skirmishes take place between Mujahideen and Kuffar (non-believers).The Kafir (unbeliever) does not throw himself arbitrarily in the cross-fire for fear of killing his companions. This fact lowers the number of the dead and this is the most important fact of the matter.
* "Jihad in Kashmir is still going on. It is healthy. Our Kashmiri brothers have achieved a lot. Some of our Mujahideen brethren, whether Arab or (Ajam non-Arab), such as the Pakistanis and our brethren from South-East Asia, have also helped. Their actions have been very successful, especially in the lands under Indian government control. Mujahideen execute hit-and-run operations. However there is a lack of support by Islamic governments and a lack of media coverage by Islamic outlets, on the level of atrocity and destruction by the non-believers in those lands."
10. Subsequently, this Abu Abdel Aziz appeared at a conference of the LET (Lashkar-e-Toiba) at its headquarters in Muridke, near Lahore, in November,1994. He was introduced to the audience as an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia, who was playing a heroic role in helping the Muslims of Bosnia in their fight against the Christian Serbs and in helping the Kashmiris fighting against the Government of India.
11. Other reports indicated that in May 1995, like-minded jihadi groups had formed a "Rapid Deployment Force" called "Katiba (Kateebat?) al Mujahideen" (Batallion of the Mujahideen) at a meeting held in the Philippines. The meeting was attended among others by "al-Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz," described as the Chief Commander of the 7th Brigade of Muslim forces in Bosnia, Salamat Hashan, the Chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (Philippines), Abdul Karim, Chairman of the Islamic Front (Eritrea) and Prof. Hafiz Mohd Saeed, Amir MDI (Markaz Dawa Al Irshad, as the political wing of the LET was then known), Pakistan. "Al-Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz" and Abu Abdel Aziz were probably identical, but one was not certain on the basis of available evidence.
12. The meeting reportedly agreed on the following (a) nationalities and frontiers on the basis of races was an un-Islamic perception; (b) to work in support of Muslims in all those parts of the world where action was being taken against them; (c) the Mujahideen of the newly formed Kateebat Al-Mujahideen would carry out militant operations and fight in Kashmir to eliminate un-Islamic perceptions of nationalities and frontiers.
13. Till 1997, Abu Abdel Aziz either used to attend the annual conventions of the LET at Muridke or his recorded speeches used to be telecast or he used to speak over phone. He disappeared from public view thereafter. There were rumours in Islamic circles in Pakistan that he had been arrested by the Saudi authorities, apparently because of his suspected links with Osama bin Laden, who is against the Saudi monarchy. In August, 2001, the police of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh claimed to have arrested one Abdul Aziz alias Ashrafi, who had fought in Bosnia and Chechnya. From published reports, it was not clear whether they had questioned him about the identity of Abu Abdel Aziz and other Indian Muslims from the Gulf, who had allegedly fought in Bosnia and their subsequent whereabouts.
14. The real identity of Abu Abdel Aziz still remains a mystery. If he was an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia, as claimed by the LET, what was his real name, to which part of India he belonged, what was his political affiliation, did he have any links with the SIMI? All that one could conjecture was that Basheer could not be operating under the alias Abu Abdel Aziz because the Pakistani Urdu media projected him as operating from Saudi Arabia since the early 1980s, whereas Basheer was reported to have moved over to Saudi Arabia only in the early 1990s, possibly after the Babri masjid demolition.
15. From the various reports received, one could make the following surmise:
* There were at least two Indian Muslims operating from Saudi Arabia and associated with jihadi terrorism.
* One of them referred to by Pakistani jihadis as Abu Abdel Aziz was linked to the LET. He had played what the jihadis considered as a legendary role in organising jihad in Bosnia and was also closely involved in assisting the jihadis in J&K.
* Basheer co-ordinated the activities of the SIMI in India and the Gulf from Saudi Arabia.
16. After the Gujarat riots of 2002 and coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, reports started circulating in Pakistan that some of the Indian and Pakistani Muslims working in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, had started a drive for the collection of funds to be utilised for assisting the Muslim victims of the riots and for mounting acts of punishment terrorism in India to avenge the killings of Muslims in Gujarat. Compilations of Indian media reports about the anti-Muslim atrocities in Gujarat and video recordings of these atrocities were used as part of this fund collection drive.
17. In December 2002, the Tamil Nadu Police claimed to have unearthed a new organisation, apparently inspired and controlled by jihadi elements in Saudi Arabia, called the Muslim Defence Force (MDF). It was not clear whether this was identical with the Muslim Development Force of Basheer. Published reports about the Tamil Nadu Police's detection indicated as follows:
* One Abu Hamsa, alias Abdul Bari, an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia and associated with the LET, and one Abu Omar, a Pakistani Muslim working there, had together formed the MDF after the Gujarat riots. They had also met a Muslim leader from Tamil Nadu who had gone to Saudi Arabia on haj pilgrimage.
* On his return to Tamil Nadu, this leader held a clandestine meeting at Tenkasi in Tiruvelveli district, which was attended by about 30 Muslims. At this meeting, plans for organising MDF activities in India were discussed.
* Subsequently, two of those, who had attended the Tenkasi meeting, went to Sri Lanka (the Eastern Province?), where they were to have another meeting with Abu Hamsa, but he did not turn up from Saudi Arabia. They, therefore, returned to Tamil Nadu without meeting him.
* Abu Hamsa alias Abdul Bari was wanted in connection with an explosion in Andhra Pradesh. He had given instructions to his contacts in Tamil Nadu to organise the activities of the MDF and also to float another organisation called New Vision to propagate Islam amongst the so-called backward classes of the Hindu community and recruit them for jihad.
* The associates of Abu Hamsa in Tamil Nadu were instructed to form an elite force to establish hide-outs and protect jihadi terrorists visiting Tamil Nadu and to recruit youth for training in jihad at an undisclosed destination in the Gulf.
* Amongst those arrested by the Tamil Nadu police during their investigation into the activities of the MDF was Noohu Thambi Hamid Bakri, an alleged sympathiser of the LET. He was stated to be the principal of the Ayesha Siddique Arabic College for Women at Kayalpattinam and also the President of the All-India Tauhid Jamath Federation. He also used to be associated with an organisation called the Kayal Islamic Defence Force, which is now believed to be dormant.
* It was Hamid Bakri, accompanied by one Zakkaria, who had met Abu Hamsa in Saudi Arabia and subsequently gone to Sri Lanka for another meeting, which did not materialise.In November, 2002, Zakkaria was allegedly in receipt of Rs.1,50,000 from Abu Hamsa in Saudi Arabia through hawala.
18. None of the reports relating to the unearthing of the activities of the MDF in Tamil Nadu had referred to any role of Basheer in this connection. However, his name again cropped up as possibly amongst the dramatis personae associated with the series of explosions in Mumbai since December, 2002.
19.For some years now there have been indicators of the clandestine creation of a jihadi web in Mumbai, south India and possibly in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, with the SIMI and the LET playing an active role in this matter, either in tandem or separately of each other. Much of the inspiration and financial support for this came from Indian and Pakistani jihadi activists in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.
20. The LET receives funds from the so-called charity organizations in Saudi Arabia. It has an office in Saudi Arabia to make recruitment of jihadis from the Indian Muslim community living in Saudi Arabia. It also recruits from Muslims of other countries visiting Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.
21. It would have been more useful if the Prime Minister had taken up with the Saudi authorities the question of their acting against the LET activities from Saudi territory and stopping the flow of funds to the LET from Saudi organizations. He should have also raised the issue of the activities of absconding SIMI elements from Saudi Arabia. ( 2-3-10)
( 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
During his just-concluded visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh is reported to have taken up with the Saudi leaders the question of Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of terrorism against India and sought their good offices for persuading Pakistan to act against anti-Indian terrorism directed from Pakistani territory.
2. Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been following a dual policy on terrorism. It has taken ruthless action against Al Qaeda elements posing a threat to its internal security. At the same time, it has avoided taking action against Wahabi organizations which have been supporting terrorism in other countries. Many of the so-called charity organizations, which have been funding terrorist organizations in other countries including India and Bangladesh, are of Saudi origin. Despite international pressure on Saudi Arabia to act against such charity organizations and stop the flow of funds to global jihadi terrorism, the action taken by the Saudi authorities has been unsatisfactory.
3.It would be futile to expect that Saudi Arabia could be of assistance to India in dealing with jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan or Bangladesh. There has been a long history of links between jihadi terrorist elements in India and Saudi Arabia ever since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December,1992. In December 1993, coinciding with the first anniversary of the demolition of the masjid , there was a number of explosions in different railway trains in North India. The interrogation of one of the suspects arrested during the investigation revealed that the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) had organised them.
4. The suspect also alleged that C.A.M.Basheer, who was the President of the SIMI in the 1980s, had, along with one or two other members of the SIMI, attended a training course in the use of arms and ammunition and explosives in a camp of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) of Pakistan in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) run by one Salauddin, a Sudanese national, in the late 1980s. During the training, the JEI arranged a meeting between the SIMI activists and Lal Singh, alias Manjit Singh of the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF), Canada, who was then living in Lahore. Lal Singh was arrested by the Gujarat Police in the middle of 1992 when he crossed over into India.
5. The JEI urged the SIMI and the ISYF to co-operate with each other for the "liberation" of the Sikhs of Punjab and the Kashmiris of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The co-operation project was code-named "K-2", standing for Kashmir-Khalistan. It was also stated that Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the then Amir of the JEI, had nominated Amirul Azim, the then Propaganda Secretary of the JEI, as the co-ordinator of the project.
6. The suspect also stated that the JEI had asked Basheer to send more members of the SIMI to Pakistan for training, but he could not do so due to logistic problems. In the early 1990s, Amirul Azim, accompanied by Salauddin, the Sudanese instructor, entered India via Bangladesh and met Basheer and his associates for discussing their future plans. They were told that in view of the difficulties experienced by them in sending more activists to Pakistan for training, instructions had been given to the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), the Kashmiri terrorist organisation, which is a wing of the JEI, to train SIMI cadres in its camps in J&K itself. The SIMI was asked to send its future batches to J&K for training.
7. Despite intensive searches by the police of different States, Basheer and his associates, who had allegedly undergone training in Pakistan, could not be arrested. Basheer, who must now be around 48, is from Parambayam in Kerala. After studying in the Union Christian College, Aluva, near Kochi, he worked for a brief while in the Safdarjung airport of New Delhi before taking to terrorism and absconding. Subsequent reports indicated that he had taken up residence in Saudi Arabia from where he was guiding the activities of the SIMI in India and organising its branches in other countries of the Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, he was also reported to have floated a new organisation called
the Muslim Development Force .
8. In 1992, the "Time" magazine of the US had carried an interview with one Commander Abu Abdel Aziz, with a picture of his in his henna-dyed beard and Afghan style fatigue. After the "Time", "al-Sharq al-Awsat", a Saudi-owned, London-based daily, ran a front-page story on Abu Abdel Aziz and his activities in Bosnia. In August 1994, "Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem (The Straight Path)", an Islamic journal published in Pakistan (Issue No. 33), carried an interview with Abu Abdel Aziz. The journal, without identifying his nationality, reported that Abu Abdel Aziz spoke perfect Urdu and that he had spent extended periods in Kashmir. It was stated that Abu Abdel Aziz's followers, believed to be mostly Indian Muslims from the Gulf, were part of the seventh battalion of the Bosnian Army (SEDMI KORPUS, ARMIJA REPUBLIKE BH).
9. In the interview, he made the following points:
* "I was one of those who heard about Jihad in Afghanistan when it started. I used to hear about it, but was hesitant about (the purity and intention of) this Jihad. One of those who came to our land (presumably Saudi Arabia) was Sheikh Dr. Abdallah Azzam. I heard him rallying the youth to come forth and (join him) to go to Afghanistan. This was in 1984 -- I think. I decided to go and check the matter for myself. This was the beginning (of my journey with) Jihad. Then the conquest of Kabul came.
* "A new Jihad started in Bosnia, (we moved there), and we are with it. As to Arab Mujahideen (in Bosnia), they do not have a separate battalion. There is a battalion for non-Bosnian fighters. Arabs are a minority compared to those of the Mujahideen (gathered from around the World). This battalion is under a unified command and is called Kateebat al-Mujahideen (Mujahideen Battalion), or "El-Mudzahidin" as they call them in Bosnian. Militarily, it has a link to the Bosnian government under the general command of the Bosnian Armed Forces. It is in fact part of the seventh battalion (SEDMI KORPUS, ARMIJA REPUBLIKE BH) of the Bosnian Army. I am a field commander under the "General Unified Armed Command". We have full jurisdiction in the region we are responsible for (Editor's note: Mostly central Bosnia). The general command of the Muslim forces wants to see results, it does not dictate strategy or action.
* "I met several prominent Ulema. Among them Sheikh Nasir ad-Din al-Albani, Sheikh Abdel Aziz Bin Baz and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Otheimin and others in the Gulf area. Sheikh Nasir ad-Din al-Albani is one of the great Ulema of this time and one seeks guidance in the light of his knowledge and view. (I say) in my last meeting with him, he was supportive of Jihad in Bosnia-Herzeg (as a religious duty). However, he told us not to attack - that is we, the Arab Mujahideen.Since we were the smaller the Sheikh was afraid we might get killed in large numbers if we engaged people in the fight. However, he requested that we dig in and be at the most advanced defense-lines (Khat ad-Difa` al-Awwal) to defend those persecuted.
* "The rest of the Ulema support Jihad by any means (defensive or offensive). You must understand that - militarily speaking - the number of those killed in defense is (far) higher than those killed in attack. This is due to the fact that in attack, clashes and skirmishes take place between Mujahideen and Kuffar (non-believers).The Kafir (unbeliever) does not throw himself arbitrarily in the cross-fire for fear of killing his companions. This fact lowers the number of the dead and this is the most important fact of the matter.
* "Jihad in Kashmir is still going on. It is healthy. Our Kashmiri brothers have achieved a lot. Some of our Mujahideen brethren, whether Arab or (Ajam non-Arab), such as the Pakistanis and our brethren from South-East Asia, have also helped. Their actions have been very successful, especially in the lands under Indian government control. Mujahideen execute hit-and-run operations. However there is a lack of support by Islamic governments and a lack of media coverage by Islamic outlets, on the level of atrocity and destruction by the non-believers in those lands."
10. Subsequently, this Abu Abdel Aziz appeared at a conference of the LET (Lashkar-e-Toiba) at its headquarters in Muridke, near Lahore, in November,1994. He was introduced to the audience as an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia, who was playing a heroic role in helping the Muslims of Bosnia in their fight against the Christian Serbs and in helping the Kashmiris fighting against the Government of India.
11. Other reports indicated that in May 1995, like-minded jihadi groups had formed a "Rapid Deployment Force" called "Katiba (Kateebat?) al Mujahideen" (Batallion of the Mujahideen) at a meeting held in the Philippines. The meeting was attended among others by "al-Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz," described as the Chief Commander of the 7th Brigade of Muslim forces in Bosnia, Salamat Hashan, the Chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (Philippines), Abdul Karim, Chairman of the Islamic Front (Eritrea) and Prof. Hafiz Mohd Saeed, Amir MDI (Markaz Dawa Al Irshad, as the political wing of the LET was then known), Pakistan. "Al-Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz" and Abu Abdel Aziz were probably identical, but one was not certain on the basis of available evidence.
12. The meeting reportedly agreed on the following (a) nationalities and frontiers on the basis of races was an un-Islamic perception; (b) to work in support of Muslims in all those parts of the world where action was being taken against them; (c) the Mujahideen of the newly formed Kateebat Al-Mujahideen would carry out militant operations and fight in Kashmir to eliminate un-Islamic perceptions of nationalities and frontiers.
13. Till 1997, Abu Abdel Aziz either used to attend the annual conventions of the LET at Muridke or his recorded speeches used to be telecast or he used to speak over phone. He disappeared from public view thereafter. There were rumours in Islamic circles in Pakistan that he had been arrested by the Saudi authorities, apparently because of his suspected links with Osama bin Laden, who is against the Saudi monarchy. In August, 2001, the police of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh claimed to have arrested one Abdul Aziz alias Ashrafi, who had fought in Bosnia and Chechnya. From published reports, it was not clear whether they had questioned him about the identity of Abu Abdel Aziz and other Indian Muslims from the Gulf, who had allegedly fought in Bosnia and their subsequent whereabouts.
14. The real identity of Abu Abdel Aziz still remains a mystery. If he was an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia, as claimed by the LET, what was his real name, to which part of India he belonged, what was his political affiliation, did he have any links with the SIMI? All that one could conjecture was that Basheer could not be operating under the alias Abu Abdel Aziz because the Pakistani Urdu media projected him as operating from Saudi Arabia since the early 1980s, whereas Basheer was reported to have moved over to Saudi Arabia only in the early 1990s, possibly after the Babri masjid demolition.
15. From the various reports received, one could make the following surmise:
* There were at least two Indian Muslims operating from Saudi Arabia and associated with jihadi terrorism.
* One of them referred to by Pakistani jihadis as Abu Abdel Aziz was linked to the LET. He had played what the jihadis considered as a legendary role in organising jihad in Bosnia and was also closely involved in assisting the jihadis in J&K.
* Basheer co-ordinated the activities of the SIMI in India and the Gulf from Saudi Arabia.
16. After the Gujarat riots of 2002 and coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, reports started circulating in Pakistan that some of the Indian and Pakistani Muslims working in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, had started a drive for the collection of funds to be utilised for assisting the Muslim victims of the riots and for mounting acts of punishment terrorism in India to avenge the killings of Muslims in Gujarat. Compilations of Indian media reports about the anti-Muslim atrocities in Gujarat and video recordings of these atrocities were used as part of this fund collection drive.
17. In December 2002, the Tamil Nadu Police claimed to have unearthed a new organisation, apparently inspired and controlled by jihadi elements in Saudi Arabia, called the Muslim Defence Force (MDF). It was not clear whether this was identical with the Muslim Development Force of Basheer. Published reports about the Tamil Nadu Police's detection indicated as follows:
* One Abu Hamsa, alias Abdul Bari, an Indian Muslim living in Saudi Arabia and associated with the LET, and one Abu Omar, a Pakistani Muslim working there, had together formed the MDF after the Gujarat riots. They had also met a Muslim leader from Tamil Nadu who had gone to Saudi Arabia on haj pilgrimage.
* On his return to Tamil Nadu, this leader held a clandestine meeting at Tenkasi in Tiruvelveli district, which was attended by about 30 Muslims. At this meeting, plans for organising MDF activities in India were discussed.
* Subsequently, two of those, who had attended the Tenkasi meeting, went to Sri Lanka (the Eastern Province?), where they were to have another meeting with Abu Hamsa, but he did not turn up from Saudi Arabia. They, therefore, returned to Tamil Nadu without meeting him.
* Abu Hamsa alias Abdul Bari was wanted in connection with an explosion in Andhra Pradesh. He had given instructions to his contacts in Tamil Nadu to organise the activities of the MDF and also to float another organisation called New Vision to propagate Islam amongst the so-called backward classes of the Hindu community and recruit them for jihad.
* The associates of Abu Hamsa in Tamil Nadu were instructed to form an elite force to establish hide-outs and protect jihadi terrorists visiting Tamil Nadu and to recruit youth for training in jihad at an undisclosed destination in the Gulf.
* Amongst those arrested by the Tamil Nadu police during their investigation into the activities of the MDF was Noohu Thambi Hamid Bakri, an alleged sympathiser of the LET. He was stated to be the principal of the Ayesha Siddique Arabic College for Women at Kayalpattinam and also the President of the All-India Tauhid Jamath Federation. He also used to be associated with an organisation called the Kayal Islamic Defence Force, which is now believed to be dormant.
* It was Hamid Bakri, accompanied by one Zakkaria, who had met Abu Hamsa in Saudi Arabia and subsequently gone to Sri Lanka for another meeting, which did not materialise.In November, 2002, Zakkaria was allegedly in receipt of Rs.1,50,000 from Abu Hamsa in Saudi Arabia through hawala.
18. None of the reports relating to the unearthing of the activities of the MDF in Tamil Nadu had referred to any role of Basheer in this connection. However, his name again cropped up as possibly amongst the dramatis personae associated with the series of explosions in Mumbai since December, 2002.
19.For some years now there have been indicators of the clandestine creation of a jihadi web in Mumbai, south India and possibly in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, with the SIMI and the LET playing an active role in this matter, either in tandem or separately of each other. Much of the inspiration and financial support for this came from Indian and Pakistani jihadi activists in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.
20. The LET receives funds from the so-called charity organizations in Saudi Arabia. It has an office in Saudi Arabia to make recruitment of jihadis from the Indian Muslim community living in Saudi Arabia. It also recruits from Muslims of other countries visiting Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.
21. It would have been more useful if the Prime Minister had taken up with the Saudi authorities the question of their acting against the LET activities from Saudi territory and stopping the flow of funds to the LET from Saudi organizations. He should have also raised the issue of the activities of absconding SIMI elements from Saudi Arabia. ( 2-3-10)
( 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, February 28, 2010
THE NEW FRONT IN THE JIHAD AGAINST INDIA
* FEBRUARY 28, 2010, 12:39 P.M. ET
Pakistan's Proxy War on India
Saturday's Kabul bombing is part of a disturbing pattern of attacks on Delhi's interests.
( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092522586039704.html )
*
By BAHUKUTUMI RAMAN
There's a new front in the Pakistan-based jihad being waged against India: Afghanistan. Friday saw the third major Taliban bomb attack against an Indian target in Kabul within the last two years. These attacks are not only testing Delhi's commitment to its presence in Afghanistan, but also the resolve of the United States to support India's interests.
India has emerged as an important source of development aid for Afghanistan. It has invested about $1.2 billion in projects to improve roads, communications and medical facilities. Delhi also provides scholarships to Afghan students, assists widows and orphans, and advises the government on improving governance.
India's efforts have an ideological dimension: to strengthen the secular and democratic sectors of Afghan society and to counter the fundamentalist trends spread by the Taliban. They also have a political dimension: to reassert India's pre-1992 role as a traditional ally of Afghanistan. (The Afghan Mujahideen-led government ended this relationship in 1992 with the help of the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment.) Afghanistan's current leader, Hamid Karzai, studied in India as a young man and has embraced Delhi's more activist role.
Both the Taliban and Pakistan oppose this warming relationship. The former sees the revived Indian role as detrimental to its attempts to run the country according to Islamic law. The latter wants to regain its political and military influence in Afghanistan should NATO forces eventually withdraw. Pakistan also blames the Indian presence in Afghanistan—without any evidence—for its increasing internal security problems in the southwestern state of Baluchistan. (These allegations are denied by New Delhi.)
Thus the Taliban and Islamabad have a shared interest in making India bleed in Afghanistan. Friday's attack on two Kabul guest houses and a hotel killed at least 17 people, six of them Indians. The evidence available so far points to the involvement of the Taliban's Jalaluddin Haqqani faction, based in North Waziristan, and the Al Qaeda-linked Lashkar-i-Taiba, based in Muridke. Both groups are closely linked to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. A Taliban spokesmen said the attacks were directed at foreigners.
Pakistan's possible involvement creates a dilemma for India. Friday's attack underlines the vulnerability of Indian nationals working in Afghanistan, despite the induction of Indian security guards and the strengthening of physical security led by Afghan authorities. It is unlikely Delhi will scale back its development programs, especially since the intensified U.S.-led offensive now underway may weaken Taliban insurgents and reduce the Indian vulnerability.
The Obama administration faces an even trickier balancing act. The U.S. has invested blood and treasure in Afghanistan, and has a stake in seeing the war succeed. India's development program is a crucial part of this effort. At the same time, Washington's dependence on Pakistan for its war against the Taliban and al Qaeda makes it amenable to Pakistani pressure. For a start, Islamabad would like Delhi to reduce its diplomatic and consular presence in Afghanistan, which it sees as a direct threat to Pakistan's interests. So far the U.S. hasn't succumbed to this pressure to curb India's program or presence in the country.
Nor should it. India and the U.S. have a common interest in working together to build a sustainable democracy in Afghanistan. The ideological battle of ideas is just as important as the military battles waged on the ground, and in this respect India brings much experience to bear. American and Indian policy makers can't allow Friday's bombing to derail their partnership.
Mr. Raman served in India's external intelligence agency from 1968 to 1994 and on the government of India's National Security Advisory Board from 2000 to 2002. He is currently director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
Pakistan's Proxy War on India
Saturday's Kabul bombing is part of a disturbing pattern of attacks on Delhi's interests.
( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092522586039704.html )
*
By BAHUKUTUMI RAMAN
There's a new front in the Pakistan-based jihad being waged against India: Afghanistan. Friday saw the third major Taliban bomb attack against an Indian target in Kabul within the last two years. These attacks are not only testing Delhi's commitment to its presence in Afghanistan, but also the resolve of the United States to support India's interests.
India has emerged as an important source of development aid for Afghanistan. It has invested about $1.2 billion in projects to improve roads, communications and medical facilities. Delhi also provides scholarships to Afghan students, assists widows and orphans, and advises the government on improving governance.
India's efforts have an ideological dimension: to strengthen the secular and democratic sectors of Afghan society and to counter the fundamentalist trends spread by the Taliban. They also have a political dimension: to reassert India's pre-1992 role as a traditional ally of Afghanistan. (The Afghan Mujahideen-led government ended this relationship in 1992 with the help of the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment.) Afghanistan's current leader, Hamid Karzai, studied in India as a young man and has embraced Delhi's more activist role.
Both the Taliban and Pakistan oppose this warming relationship. The former sees the revived Indian role as detrimental to its attempts to run the country according to Islamic law. The latter wants to regain its political and military influence in Afghanistan should NATO forces eventually withdraw. Pakistan also blames the Indian presence in Afghanistan—without any evidence—for its increasing internal security problems in the southwestern state of Baluchistan. (These allegations are denied by New Delhi.)
Thus the Taliban and Islamabad have a shared interest in making India bleed in Afghanistan. Friday's attack on two Kabul guest houses and a hotel killed at least 17 people, six of them Indians. The evidence available so far points to the involvement of the Taliban's Jalaluddin Haqqani faction, based in North Waziristan, and the Al Qaeda-linked Lashkar-i-Taiba, based in Muridke. Both groups are closely linked to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. A Taliban spokesmen said the attacks were directed at foreigners.
Pakistan's possible involvement creates a dilemma for India. Friday's attack underlines the vulnerability of Indian nationals working in Afghanistan, despite the induction of Indian security guards and the strengthening of physical security led by Afghan authorities. It is unlikely Delhi will scale back its development programs, especially since the intensified U.S.-led offensive now underway may weaken Taliban insurgents and reduce the Indian vulnerability.
The Obama administration faces an even trickier balancing act. The U.S. has invested blood and treasure in Afghanistan, and has a stake in seeing the war succeed. India's development program is a crucial part of this effort. At the same time, Washington's dependence on Pakistan for its war against the Taliban and al Qaeda makes it amenable to Pakistani pressure. For a start, Islamabad would like Delhi to reduce its diplomatic and consular presence in Afghanistan, which it sees as a direct threat to Pakistan's interests. So far the U.S. hasn't succumbed to this pressure to curb India's program or presence in the country.
Nor should it. India and the U.S. have a common interest in working together to build a sustainable democracy in Afghanistan. The ideological battle of ideas is just as important as the military battles waged on the ground, and in this respect India brings much experience to bear. American and Indian policy makers can't allow Friday's bombing to derail their partnership.
Mr. Raman served in India's external intelligence agency from 1968 to 1994 and on the government of India's National Security Advisory Board from 2000 to 2002. He is currently director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
Friday, February 26, 2010
INDIAN FATALITIES IN KABUL BLASTS
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR----PAPER NO.623
B.RAMAN
According to media reports from Kabul, there were at least six Indian fatalities among 17 persons killed by two terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26,2010. The two attacks were directed against private guest houses patronised by nationals of India, the US and the UK working in Kabul.
2. The Indian fatalities were sustained in a car bomb explosion outside a guest house normally used by Indians working in Kabul. There were two suicide blasts carried out by human bombers outside another guest house normally used by US and British nationals. These blasts were followed by an exchange of fire with Afghan security personnel that lasted about an hour.
3. According to a despatch from the local correspondent of the "New York Times", Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said in a claim over the telephone that suicide bombers of the Afghan Taliban targeted two sites in the Shari Now district "where the foreign people are staying." He added: "The actual targets are foreign people."
4. Thus, he did not specify that the Indians were the targets. On October 8, 2009, a suicide car bomber had detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 17 people. Whereas the October 8 blast specifically targeted Indian nationals and was suspected to have had the sponsorship of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the February 26 attack seemed to have been an initiative by the Afghan Taliban meant to convey a message to the international community that the operational capabilities of the Afghan Taliban remained unimpaired despite the current offensive by US-led forces in the Helmand province and the arrests of nearly about 15 Afghan Taliban leaders by the ISI in different cities of Pakistan under US pressure.
5. While there is so far no evidence to show that Indians were exclusively targeted on February 26, the fact that of the two targets attacked by the Taliban one was known to have been the preferred place of stay of Indian nationals would indicate that it wanted to kill and intimidate Indian nationals in addition to other foreign nationals.
6. The fact that the Afghan Taliban has claimed the responsibility for the two attacks should not rule out the possibility of the involvement of anti-India Punjabi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) in the attack----- either for orchestrating it or for motivating and facilitating it.
7. Speculative media reports from Kabul have highlighted the fact that the Kabul attacks occurred a day after the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan at New Delhi on February 25. There are no convincing indicators of a link between the two.
8. A more relevant and worrisome question for the Indian intelligence will be whether the Kabul attack of February 26 could have been a follow-up to the Pune blast of February 13. The investigation into the Pune blast has not yet made much headway. It has not yet been clearly established who carried it out. The LET is among the suspects. The possibility of a linkage between the Pune and Kabul incidents has to be kept in view during the investigation. If such a linkage ultimately emerges, that would indicate a new jihadi offensive by the LET against Indian nationals and interests not only in India, but also in Afghanistan and possibly in Bangladesh and the Maldives too in the months to come.
9. Our counter-LET strategy has to be given a regional dimension through stepped-up monitoring, intelligence-sharing and operational co-ordination with the intelligence agencies of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. ( 27-2-10)
( 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
According to media reports from Kabul, there were at least six Indian fatalities among 17 persons killed by two terrorist attacks in Kabul on February 26,2010. The two attacks were directed against private guest houses patronised by nationals of India, the US and the UK working in Kabul.
2. The Indian fatalities were sustained in a car bomb explosion outside a guest house normally used by Indians working in Kabul. There were two suicide blasts carried out by human bombers outside another guest house normally used by US and British nationals. These blasts were followed by an exchange of fire with Afghan security personnel that lasted about an hour.
3. According to a despatch from the local correspondent of the "New York Times", Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said in a claim over the telephone that suicide bombers of the Afghan Taliban targeted two sites in the Shari Now district "where the foreign people are staying." He added: "The actual targets are foreign people."
4. Thus, he did not specify that the Indians were the targets. On October 8, 2009, a suicide car bomber had detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 17 people. Whereas the October 8 blast specifically targeted Indian nationals and was suspected to have had the sponsorship of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the February 26 attack seemed to have been an initiative by the Afghan Taliban meant to convey a message to the international community that the operational capabilities of the Afghan Taliban remained unimpaired despite the current offensive by US-led forces in the Helmand province and the arrests of nearly about 15 Afghan Taliban leaders by the ISI in different cities of Pakistan under US pressure.
5. While there is so far no evidence to show that Indians were exclusively targeted on February 26, the fact that of the two targets attacked by the Taliban one was known to have been the preferred place of stay of Indian nationals would indicate that it wanted to kill and intimidate Indian nationals in addition to other foreign nationals.
6. The fact that the Afghan Taliban has claimed the responsibility for the two attacks should not rule out the possibility of the involvement of anti-India Punjabi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) in the attack----- either for orchestrating it or for motivating and facilitating it.
7. Speculative media reports from Kabul have highlighted the fact that the Kabul attacks occurred a day after the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan at New Delhi on February 25. There are no convincing indicators of a link between the two.
8. A more relevant and worrisome question for the Indian intelligence will be whether the Kabul attack of February 26 could have been a follow-up to the Pune blast of February 13. The investigation into the Pune blast has not yet made much headway. It has not yet been clearly established who carried it out. The LET is among the suspects. The possibility of a linkage between the Pune and Kabul incidents has to be kept in view during the investigation. If such a linkage ultimately emerges, that would indicate a new jihadi offensive by the LET against Indian nationals and interests not only in India, but also in Afghanistan and possibly in Bangladesh and the Maldives too in the months to come.
9. Our counter-LET strategy has to be given a regional dimension through stepped-up monitoring, intelligence-sharing and operational co-ordination with the intelligence agencies of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. ( 27-2-10)
( 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, February 25, 2010
INDIA-PAKISTAN: WHAT NEXT?
B.RAMAN
At the end of her talks with Mr.Salman Bashir, her Pakistani counterpart, at New Delhi on February 25,2010, Mrs.Nirupama Rao, the Indian Foreign Secretary, projected the initiative taken by India in proposing this meeting as meant to reduce the post-26/11 trust deficit between the two countries as a prelude to a wider dialogue at different levels on the various contentious issues----though not necessarily in the form of a reversion to the composite dialogue process to which Pakistan continues to be attached.
2. Her projection was positive and sought to convey two messages to the Indian audience whom she was addressing. Firstly, India had kept the focus of the meeting largely on terrorism. There were references to other issues such as Kashmir, the river waters, Pakistani allegations relating to Balochistan etc by the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, but these references did not detract from the fact that it was a meeting largely about India's expectations of Pakistani action against terrorism. Secondly, the meeting was the beginning of a process of re-building the trust between the two countries and she kept open the possibility of more such meetings to follow before there was a resumption of formal negotiations between the two countries.
3.This positive picture which emerged from her media briefing was damaged by the media briefing by Mr.Bashir in the Pakistani High Commission, which followed about two hours after her briefing. He and his Government in Islamabad knew by then the way India sought to project the meeting to its own people and to the international community and they were under an understandable compulsion to convince their people that India had not succeeded in keeping the focus of the meeting largely on terrorism as the Indian Foreign Secretary had claimed and that Pakistan had succeeded in giving the meeting a much larger content by raising various other issues.
4. In his understandable attempt to convince his own people that Pakistan had frustrated Indian attempts to keep the meeting confined to a single-issue agenda, Mr.Bashir used language, which was often sarcastic and dismissive and devoid of the politeness and diplomatic finesse which characterised Mrs. Rao's media interaction throughout. He showed a lack of sensitivity to India's concerns on terrorism-related issues except its concern regarding Pakistani action against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strikes. His media briefing gave an unmistakable impression that while Pakistan was somewhat serious about action against the 26/11 conspirators in Pakistan, it was not prepared to consider other Indian demands relating to action against Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), and the Pakistan-based terrorist infrastructure directed against India. Action in specific cases such as the 26/11 terrorist strikes, yes, but action against the terrorist infrastructure, no. That was his clear message.
5. The kind of language used by Mr.Bashir and his ridiculing of many of Indian concerns relating to terrorism have given rise to two questions----Was the meeting worthwhile? Is it necessary to follow it up with more such meetings as India had intended?
6.Mr.Bashir's actions are bound to strengthen the arguments of the skeptics in India who believe in the futility of any dialogue with Pakistan and embarrass those who are arguing otherwise. Instead of contributing to a reduction of the trust deficit, he has strengthened it. The resulting dilemma could be attributed to the over-haste with which the initiative for the meeting was pushed through by the Government of India without wider consultations at the inter and intra-party levels and the failure to work for a certain convergence with Islamabad before the meeting on its format, agenda and the briefing of the media in the two countries even if it was not intended to issue a joint statement.
7. What we had was one meeting, two agendas, two media briefings disseminating two contradictory versions of what transpired and more confusion and distruct after the meeting than there was before it.
8. What are the lessons from the unfortunate experience? Lesson No.1: While anxiety for a dialogue with an adversary such as Pakistan is understandable, over-anxiety for a dialogue and over-haste in organising it could be counter-productve. Lesson No.2: Any meeting at any level---political or bureaucratic--- which is not preceded by careful preparations could prove a meaningless exercise.
9. In spite of what happened at New Delhi on February 25,2010, Mr.P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, should go ahead with his visit to Islamabad next month to attend the SAARC Home Ministers' conference and his discussions with Mr.Rehman Malik, his Pakistani counterpart, in the margins of the conference to work out a modicum of a mechanism for mutual legal assistance in all criminal cases, including those relating to terrorism. If he succeeds, that could pave the way for a fruitful visit by our Foreign Secretasry to Pakistan in response to the invitation extended by Mr.Bashir.
10. In the meanwhile, it is important for Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh to initiate a process of wider political consulations on our relations with Pakistan in order to convince other political parties that the Government would not sacrifice our core concerns on Pakistan's continued use of terrorism against India to force a change in the status quo in Kashmir while re-starting the dialogue process. His tendency to maintain unwarranted secrecy in such matters and his habit of avoiding wider consultations continue to give rise to an impression that American interests and perceptions are playing a larger than desirable role in influencing our policies vis-a-vis Pakistan. ( 26-2-10)
( 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 )
At the end of her talks with Mr.Salman Bashir, her Pakistani counterpart, at New Delhi on February 25,2010, Mrs.Nirupama Rao, the Indian Foreign Secretary, projected the initiative taken by India in proposing this meeting as meant to reduce the post-26/11 trust deficit between the two countries as a prelude to a wider dialogue at different levels on the various contentious issues----though not necessarily in the form of a reversion to the composite dialogue process to which Pakistan continues to be attached.
2. Her projection was positive and sought to convey two messages to the Indian audience whom she was addressing. Firstly, India had kept the focus of the meeting largely on terrorism. There were references to other issues such as Kashmir, the river waters, Pakistani allegations relating to Balochistan etc by the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, but these references did not detract from the fact that it was a meeting largely about India's expectations of Pakistani action against terrorism. Secondly, the meeting was the beginning of a process of re-building the trust between the two countries and she kept open the possibility of more such meetings to follow before there was a resumption of formal negotiations between the two countries.
3.This positive picture which emerged from her media briefing was damaged by the media briefing by Mr.Bashir in the Pakistani High Commission, which followed about two hours after her briefing. He and his Government in Islamabad knew by then the way India sought to project the meeting to its own people and to the international community and they were under an understandable compulsion to convince their people that India had not succeeded in keeping the focus of the meeting largely on terrorism as the Indian Foreign Secretary had claimed and that Pakistan had succeeded in giving the meeting a much larger content by raising various other issues.
4. In his understandable attempt to convince his own people that Pakistan had frustrated Indian attempts to keep the meeting confined to a single-issue agenda, Mr.Bashir used language, which was often sarcastic and dismissive and devoid of the politeness and diplomatic finesse which characterised Mrs. Rao's media interaction throughout. He showed a lack of sensitivity to India's concerns on terrorism-related issues except its concern regarding Pakistani action against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strikes. His media briefing gave an unmistakable impression that while Pakistan was somewhat serious about action against the 26/11 conspirators in Pakistan, it was not prepared to consider other Indian demands relating to action against Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), and the Pakistan-based terrorist infrastructure directed against India. Action in specific cases such as the 26/11 terrorist strikes, yes, but action against the terrorist infrastructure, no. That was his clear message.
5. The kind of language used by Mr.Bashir and his ridiculing of many of Indian concerns relating to terrorism have given rise to two questions----Was the meeting worthwhile? Is it necessary to follow it up with more such meetings as India had intended?
6.Mr.Bashir's actions are bound to strengthen the arguments of the skeptics in India who believe in the futility of any dialogue with Pakistan and embarrass those who are arguing otherwise. Instead of contributing to a reduction of the trust deficit, he has strengthened it. The resulting dilemma could be attributed to the over-haste with which the initiative for the meeting was pushed through by the Government of India without wider consultations at the inter and intra-party levels and the failure to work for a certain convergence with Islamabad before the meeting on its format, agenda and the briefing of the media in the two countries even if it was not intended to issue a joint statement.
7. What we had was one meeting, two agendas, two media briefings disseminating two contradictory versions of what transpired and more confusion and distruct after the meeting than there was before it.
8. What are the lessons from the unfortunate experience? Lesson No.1: While anxiety for a dialogue with an adversary such as Pakistan is understandable, over-anxiety for a dialogue and over-haste in organising it could be counter-productve. Lesson No.2: Any meeting at any level---political or bureaucratic--- which is not preceded by careful preparations could prove a meaningless exercise.
9. In spite of what happened at New Delhi on February 25,2010, Mr.P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, should go ahead with his visit to Islamabad next month to attend the SAARC Home Ministers' conference and his discussions with Mr.Rehman Malik, his Pakistani counterpart, in the margins of the conference to work out a modicum of a mechanism for mutual legal assistance in all criminal cases, including those relating to terrorism. If he succeeds, that could pave the way for a fruitful visit by our Foreign Secretasry to Pakistan in response to the invitation extended by Mr.Bashir.
10. In the meanwhile, it is important for Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh to initiate a process of wider political consulations on our relations with Pakistan in order to convince other political parties that the Government would not sacrifice our core concerns on Pakistan's continued use of terrorism against India to force a change in the status quo in Kashmir while re-starting the dialogue process. His tendency to maintain unwarranted secrecy in such matters and his habit of avoiding wider consultations continue to give rise to an impression that American interests and perceptions are playing a larger than desirable role in influencing our policies vis-a-vis Pakistan. ( 26-2-10)
( 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)