Musharraf and our national shame

DMajor Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD, commanded an Engineer Regiment on the Siachen Glacier, the most hostile battlefield in the world. A highly qualified officer (B Tech, MA (Public Administration), MSc (Defence Studies) and a Doctorate in Public Administration), General Suman was also the Task Force Commander at Pokhran and was responsible for designing and sinking shafts for the nuclear tests of May 1998.

One of the most disgusting sights seen in recent times was media coverage of General Pervez Musharraf's visit to India. A leading magazine had invited him as a distinguished speaker.

It was repugnant to see media personnel attempting to outdo each other in fawning over him. He was treated as a peace loving and moderate leader who is a well wisher of India. One TV personality went to the extent of eulogizing him as a beacon of peace for the sub-continent. Another correspondent had no hesitation in calling him as the most erudite Pakistani leader who is held in high esteem in India.

Not one media personality questioned him for initiating Kargil aggression, lest he be offended. No one cared to ask him about numerous Indian prisoners of war rotting in Pakistani jails. Nor was he asked to explain reasons for his failure to stop terrorist training camps and infiltration of jehadis into India. Worst, he was never castigated for the most barbaric and inhuman treatment meted out to Lt Saurabh Kalia and his patrol.

One wonders what thoughts must have passed through the minds of the parents of the late Lt Saurabh Kalia when they saw Indian media going overboard in lauding Musharraf as a sagacious leader and a man whom India can trust. Lt Saurabh Kalia of 4 JAT Regiment was just 22 years old when he was captured by the Pakistani Army on 15 May 1999 along with five other Indian soldiers. Saurabh's patrol was on the Indian side of Line of Control and was the first to detect Pak intrusions in the Kargil area. The patrol was kept in captivity for three weeks and their bodies were handed over to India on 9 June 1999. The state of their bodies bore testimony to the brutal torture which they had been subjected to.

The Pakistanis had indulged in dastardly acts of inflicting burn injuries on them with cigarettes, piercing their ears with hot rods, removing their eyes before puncturing them and breaking most of the bones and teeth. They even chopped off various limbs and private organs of the hapless Indian soldiers besides inflicting unimaginable physical and mental torture. After 22 days of torture, the brave soldiers were ultimately shot dead. A detailed post-mortem report is with the Indian Army.

Pakistan is a signatory to Geneva Convention that governs treatment of Prisoners of War. Article 13 mandates - "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest." Article 17 further stipulates that no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

Musharaf was never asked by the media to explain as to why the perpetrators of such heinous acts have not been brought to book to date. But, why blame media alone? Shockingly, inhuman and dastardly ill-treatment of gallant Indian soldiers has not stirred the conscious of India as a self-respecting country. The Government's response has been totally muted and apathetic. No political party has considered it worthwhile to pressurise the Government to demand explanation from Pakistan or take up the issue with international bodies for crimes against humanity. Although Indian human rights activists and bodies never tire themselves of crying hoarse over trivial and even concocted allegations against the Indian security forces, they did not find the abominable conduct of Pakistani soldiers worth condemning. As regards the Indian public, initial anger, indignation and revulsion have given way to indifference.

Instead of hauling Musharraf before international law commissions for crimes against humanity, India allows him to roam free in India to propagate his anti-Indian views. Even in the recent conclave, he humiliated India by calling terrorists as freedom fighters. It was nauseating, to say the least, to watch the media grovel before a vicious and remorseless enemy. Worse, the media scrupulously avoided asking him any discomfiting question, lest he be embarrassed.

Great nations are distinguished by their self-confidence and self-respect. India fares miserably on both counts. Had such treatment been meted out to Israeli soldiers, Israel would have made Pakistan pay dearly for it. In case US soldiers were brutalized in this manner, the US would have obtained custody of the guilty and tried them in the US for war crimes.

Our response to a matter of national shame has been indifferent and apathetic. It is only a soft state like India that utters a few protesting murmurs and thereafter receives the main perpetrator as a guest of India. It is inconceivable how Indian media could honour a man who dishonoured its soldiers.

Inviting Musharraf to participate in conclave of statesmen and thereafter giving him prime time coverage should make every Indian hang his head in shame.

A soldier is always prepared for the supreme sacrifice. Despite the immense pain of losing a son/husband/father, the family members of every martyr draw consolation from the belief that dying for the country is the ultimate honour for a soldier. However, they expect countrymen to remember and value their contribution to nation's security. Soldiers draw strength from the recognition received from their countrymen.

Special Series: Unsung Heroes : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

When the nation shows apathy to the fate of Saurabh's party or for the soldiers in Pakistani jails who are still clinging to the hope that India would secure their release, the complete soldier fraternity and their families start wondering whether the country cares for them at all or even whether it is worth dying for it. The nation owes an answer to Saurabh's and the parents of other martyrs for its abject apathy and failure to punish the guilty. A nation has to prove itself worthy of its soldiers' supreme sacrifice.

The glorification of Musharaf has certainly insulted the memory of innumerable soldiers who died for India's future. The media needs to do serious introspection. Not withstanding its desperation for sensational news, Indian media must remember that it owes allegiance to India and its interests.

Major General Mrinal Suman, (retd) AVSM, VSM, PhD directs the Defence Acquisition Management Course for Confederation of Indian Industry and heads its Defence Technical Assessment and Advisory Service. A prolific writer, he is often consulted by policy makers and the Parliamentary Committee on Defence, and is regularly invited to address various industrial chambers in India and abroad. The views expressed here are his own.)

New York Times reader comment on India going to the polls, "The world's biggest exercise in democracy"

April 15, 2009 It is truly the greatest show on Earth, an ode to a diverse and democratic ethos, where 700 million + of humanity vote, providing their small part in directing their ancient civilization into the future. It is no less impressive when done in a neighborhood which includes de-stabilizing and violent Pakistan, China, and Burma.

Its challenges are immense, more so probably than anywhere else, particularly in development and fending off terrorism -- but considering these challenges and its neighbors, it is even more astounding that the most diverse nation on Earth, with hundreds of languages, all religions and cultures, is not only surviving, but thriving.

The nation where Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism were born, which is the second largest Muslim nation on Earth; where Christianity has existed for 2000 years; where the oldest Jewish synagogues and Jewish communities have resided since the Romans burnt their 2nd temple; where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile reside; where the Zorostrians from Persia have thrived since being thrown out of their ancient homeland; where Armenians and Syrians and many others have to come live; where the Paris-based OECD said was the largest economy on Earth 1500 of the last 2000 years, including the 2nd largest only 200 years ago; where 3 Muslim Presidents have been elected, where a Sikh is Prime Minister and the head of the ruling party a Catholic Italian woman, where the President is also a woman, succeeding a Muslim President who as a rocket scientist was a hero in the nation; where a booming economy is lifting 40 million out of poverty each year and is expected to have the majority of its population in the middle class, already equal to the entire US population, by 2025; where its optimism and vibrancy is manifested in its movies, arts, economic growth, and voting, despite all the incredible challenges and hardships; where all the great powers are vying for influence, as it itself finds its place in the world.

Where all of this is happening, is India, and as greater than 1/10 of humanity gets ready to vote, it is an inspiration to all the World.


V Mitchell, New York, NY

AR Antulay on ISI and Dawood Ibrahim's pay role !

If Pakistani/Muslim Terrorist Or any other Idiot talks this non-sense and rubbish, that is understandable, but if a union minister talks like this, he should be asked to explain this serious charge or should be kicked on ass, shunted out of ministry with his face blackened and put in jail for misleading the nation.

In the light of full media attention and international investigations, even UNO is pointing somewhere, but Antulay would not like to see it because either he is on the pay role of Dawood Ibrahim or is sympathizing with his Muslim brothers.


Idiot AR Antulay's statement is foolish enough to suggest the following:

-First Hindu militants killed Karkare and then handed over the charge to Lashkar to kill other innocents.

-Or Hindu Militants killed Karkare at one spot and Pakistani Muslim Terrorists did the random shooting at Busy markets, Railway Station and Airport.

-Or whole operation was done by Muslim terrorists at the behest of Pakistani involvement.

-Or whole operation was done by Hindu militants.

So, it is your pick who was behind the whole episode.

Pakistan is totally exposed; naked, liar and shameless country

S Gurumurthy
First Published : 13 Dec 2008 02:34:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 13 Dec 2008 10:50:37 AM IST

NON-STATE Actors”. This new clone from the US diplomatic thesaurus has occupied the centrestage in the Indo-US dialogue on the jihad that maimed Mumbai on November 26-28.

Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, managed to smuggle some anonymous “non-state actors” into the diplomatic theatre of US and India when she came to Delhi on December 3.

By “non-state actors” she meant not just the 10 jihadis who killed 200 and injured 300 in three days, but all those who had conspired, trained, equipped, financed, transported and guided them into Mumbai all the way from Karachi.

India has evidence, says the media, to prove that the 10 jihadis who were Pakistanis came from Karachi; that through sat-phone, they had kept their masters in Pakistan informed of their movement and action; that the Pakistan navy and the ISI were involved in training them and hundreds more like them who are still in reserve for future jihads on India.

Indian intelligence claims to have more evidence of the guilt of Pakistan as a state. The US intelligence, reports the US media, has even better proof of the ISI role in the jihad on Mumbai. Yet for Condoleezza Rice “non-state actors”, not the state of Pakistan, was guilty of the jihad on India.

As Rice spoke of “non-state actors”, on the same day in Islamabad, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari blamed some anonymous ‘stateless actors’ - so, not Pakistanis - for the jihad on Mumbai. He said that, as India itself says, Pakistan was as much a victim of jihadis as India.

Which Indian said Pakistan was a terror victim? Believe it. It was the Indian Prime Minister who declared last year that Pakistan too was a terror victim. By this self-goal against India, Manmohan Singh totally destroyed the credible case that India had built over two decades that Pakistan was a merchant of jihad and India, its principal victim.

More. In neither of his two speeches on Mumbai terror, did Manmohan Singh have the guts to say that while the hands that hit India might have been non-state actors’, the brain that directed the jihad was the ISI’s. Even an adversary of India would not have damaged the nation’s interest like the Prime Minister himself has.

Even Pranab Mukherjee would hold the ISI as the brain behind the attack when he addressed the Lok Sabha on December 11. Was this restraint part of the deal with the US that India would not blame Pakistan as terror sponsor? Back to Rice. When she landed in Delhi, the Indian establishment was almost sure - on what basis, God knows - that the US would exert to tell Pakistan to confess its guilt and surrender the 20 fugitive jihadis hiding in Pakistan and what not.

But see what happened. It did not need a seer to say that the mission of Rice was chiefly to console the grieving Indians, clam their anger and finally defuse the rising tension between the hurt India and the guilty Pakistan. Her mission met with total success, thanks to a government that is impotent even in the choice of words. She made ‘the right noises’ and praised our media. She declared that ‘Pakistan needed to mount a robust response’, ‘investigate the role of the nonstate actors in the terror’ against India, and assured Indians that ‘Pakistan would co-operate with India’ in tracking down the jihadi conspiracy.

But see what she did on the very next day, December 4, in Islamabad. She said she was ‘satisfied with Pakistan’s readiness to help India to probe the Mumbai terror attackers’. And on this self-serving satisfaction, she even certified that the ‘Pakistani leadership is focussed and committed to act’. Act against whom? The faceless ‘non-state actors’? More. A day before she visited Islamabad, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was in Pakistan’s capital. He had reportedly told the Pakistan government that the US itself had proof of the involvement of the ISI in the attack. Yet Rice talked about ‘nonstate actors’ as the culprits! Why will the state of Pakistan act against the jihadis when, despite its own ISI and Army being involved in jihad on Mumbai, Rice exonerates them both? Most experts on terrorism are stunned at the sophisticated jihad on Mumbai and the original thinking and complicated planning that had gone into it. No one is left in doubt that the logistics for this kind of jihad could only have been provided by Pakistan’s state apparatus. But Pakistan is, as it has always been, in lies and denials. It has even refused to accept the bodies of the killed jihadis, as that may amount to part confession of guilt.

Remember. It had refused to take the bodies of the soldiers in the Kargil war, because it would prove what it was denying, namely that it was the aggressor.

That Pakistan always lies, including now, is not unknown to the US. It suffers Pakistan’s lies. Why? The US needs, so forces, Pakistan to battle the al-Qaeda and Taliban on the western front. Pakistan is keen to escape this forced obligation.

The US can’t talk about it as that would expose the super power’s weakness.

Now, if the US forced Pakistan on India’s behalf on Mumbai jihad, the Islamic ally of US might refuse to do the US bidding on the western front.

The US is keen that Pakistan is not engaged on the east by India as that will give Pakistan an acceptable alibi to escape its obligation to the US to fight the jihadis on the west. The US cannot like it nor afford it. It is virtually held to ransom by its Islamic military ally. Because, for the US, Pakistan fighting the Taliban is more important than preventing Pakistan from doing stealthy jihads on India.

This is the reality. And India must face it.

The ban on Jamat-ud-Dawah in the name of which the banned LeT was functioning, or the house arrest of the LeT chief or declaring Hamid Gul and others as terrorists are just a theatrical show.

The truth is not so well hidden if the history of Islamist terror is recapitulated.

The US encouraged Pakistan’s ISI and its Army to forge the ‘Taliban’ to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Actually, the Taliban is the joint product of the US and Pakistan. As the ISI and Pakistan’s army Talibanised the youth of Pakistan, they too got Talibanised with jihadi mindset. The al-Qaeda is the grandchild through the Taliban.

The Hindu legend of Bhasmasura says that once such a force is created the creator becomes its first victim. So, the Taliban and the al-Qaeda tested their skills on the US on 9/11. The US knows that jihadis constitute a half of Pakistan establishment. It does not mind if that half of Pakistan state targets India in the east, so long as the other half battles the Taliban-al-Qaeda in the west.

QED: Pakistan is sufficiently exposed as a terror merchant. It is the US which needs to be exposed as trader in terror.

comment@gurumurthy.net

Can we count on Pakistan?

14 Dec 2008, 0220 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
Farhana Ali is a former counterterrorism expert, first with the CIA and then with the defence think-tank, Rand Corporation. At a panel discussion
post-26/11 she said, “A few days after the attacks, I received an email from a source in Pakistan who meets with...the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD). He wrote, ‘According to two senior sources within jihadi outfits and as many in the intelligence agencies, the recent terror attacks in different parts of Mumbai...were masterminded by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI... The Lashkar leaders are not accepting the responsibility at official level but they are taking pride in claiming it among their trusted people.’... I think it is very clear that if you look at LeT’s strategy, it is to weaken India and to help establish the caliphate which is part of their ideological programme...My sources say at least 23 (attackers were involved).”

Ali’s remarks may show, more than anything else, the new face of jihad with Pakistan its epicentre and India in its crosshairs.

The Mumbai attacks have many lessons for the world, particularly Indian policy makers. It is clear that global jihad’s goals are now enmeshed in the India-Pakistan dynamic. It is equally obvious that multiple weapons, including coercive diplomacy, are needed to wage this war on terror. We also need a reality check on where India fits into the global jihad matrix, given the sophisticated planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks.

In the days following the attacks, a traumatized India lashed out at everything it could. Predictably, the terrorist threat became an extension of Indo-Pak relations, with all the attendant nuances of war and a hostile nuclear-armed neighbour.

But despite the cumulative anger, war is not really regarded as an option at this point. And yet India needs to do something. So does Pakistan and the wider world.

What should Pakistan do?
That’s the easy part. Take action against ALL terrorist groups on its soil, not just the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Reform and purge the ISI of Taliban and al- Qaida-friendly elements. Most important, rewire its strategic thinking in relation to India and Afghanistan. At a more fundamental level, Pakistan has to be taught to stop using terrorism as a foreign policy tool. For that to happen, there has to be a way for its newly elected civilian government to retain control of foreign policy, rather than being forced to farm it out to the army-ISI combine.

Under international pressure and driven by fears of Indian military action, Pakistan’s civilian government ignored a sullen military-intelligence establishment and took the first steps against the JuD, which had morphed from LeT into an al-Qaida clone using its charitable activities as a front. Pakistan created its own nemesis by allowing the outfit to assume the avatar of a socio-political organization. But there appears to be no realization of this in much of Pakistan, considering the first protests on Friday against the JuD ban resounded with pro-Lashkar chants.

The question for India is: Can President Zardari’s fragile civilian government deliver? Security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, author of Military Inc, says that while the government wants to root out militancy, it’s not yet clear how much support there is for this enterprise in the military. “The political government is serious. The political government knows that it will get no space to operate if the radical right is in partnership with the military. So it wants to crack down,” she is quoted to say. There is institutional support for these groups within the army. Though American pressure is forcing it to withdraw its most overt support, but for how long?

What are India's options?
The choices are fairly limited. Short of exercising the military option, there’s little it can do to impose its will on Pakistan on its own.

India can freeze bilateral trade and diplomatic and people-to-people contact, such as travel and cricket tournaments. But all of this will affect the very constituency in Pakistan that India wants to engage. Besides, a belligerent and muscular Indian response will weaken the civilian government’s tenuous hold on Pakistan and create space for the military to take centrestage. That cannot be good for India in the long term. Yet, if it does nothing, it runs the risk of being seen as a weak state, not just domestically but internationally. India’s real problem with the Pakistani state is the lack of a well-defined source of power. The civilian government, the army-ISI complex, the jihadis — all appear to be participants in the Pakistani power structure.

Fortunately, what India needs to do most at this juncture is to strengthen internal security rather than hoping Pakistan can be forced to change its ways. Even after terrorist groups are banned and driven underground (like the United Jihad Council, which has wiped out all traces of its existence after the crackdown), the terrorist threat from Pakistan will remain for the foreseeable future. India’s best hope would be to create the kind of dynamic defences that can address a constant and unrelenting threat. This is where the international community can do a great deal.

What can the world do?
There is general consensus that the Mumbai carnage could spawn copycat attacks by al-Qaida affiliates in other parts of the world, and that terrorism from Pakistan needs to be addressed urgently and comprehensively. Accordingly, the international community needs to use Pakistan’s precarious financial position to force its establishment to take the necessary steps. The US needs to use its considerable military clout to weed out Talibanism and Taliban-ites within the Pakistani army. Pakistan should be pushed to reorient its strategic thinking. Military and other aid should be conditional. Pakistan will act only if pushed to the precipice. The world must make it clear that this is the precipice.

Pakistan should be made to pay the price for terror

Satish Chandra- former deputy National Security Advisor.

The terrorist attacks on Mumbai are nothing short of an act of war against India. There is incontrovertible evidence that the terrorists were Pakistani Lashkar-e-Tayiba operatives, who had been meticulously trained by military personnel, former or serving over several months for this operation.

They came to Mumbai by boat from Karachi and much of the material recovered from them, from toilet paper to grenades, had its origins in Pakistan. Given the Inter Services Intelligence's close links with and patronage of the LeT, as well as the commando style in which it was conducted, leaves no doubt that Pakistan was behind this action.

This incident must sadden every Indian not merely because of its terrible toll on life and property but because it is a scathing indictment of our leadership. We do not enjoy the luxury of explaining it away on grounds of surprise. The 1993 Mumbai blasts were our 9/11 with a casualty toll around double that in the present incident. Since then, with increasing frequency in the last three years, there have been several major terrorist incidents in India undertaken from Pakistan.

The government's inability to prevent such incidents is testimony to its abject failure both, to compel Pakistan to desist from exporting terrorism to India and, to appropriately upgrade its intelligence and security systems, including at the local level, so that the impact of such incidents is minimised.

It is well documented that Pakistan, since its very inception, has been involved in terrorist activities directed against India. The use of terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy against India was progressively refined into a fine art from Zia-ul Haq's time. While under Zia Pakistan fomented Sikh terrorism, subsequently, it guided and supported terrorist outfits, like the LeT, Harkat-ul Mujahideen [Images], Jaish-e-Mohammad, etc, as well as the Bangladesh's Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, in terrorist actions in India.

Successive governments in India have been complicit in emboldening Pakistan to use terrorism against our country by failing to penalise it for so doing. Pakistan's use of razakars in 1947 prompted India to merely engage in a defensive war, which was fought not in Pakistan, but on our soil, resulting in a substantial part of Kashmir being left under illegal Pakistani occupation.

Its covert operations in Kashmir in 1965 evoked a firmer response by way of an attack across the international border but the outcome was no more than a stalemate. Its actions in support of the Sikh and Kashmiri insurgency as well as terrorism elsewhere in the country saw no retaliatory action. The best that the then National Democratic Alliance government could muster up in response to the attack on Parliament was coercive diplomacy which resulted in Pakistan repeatedly promising to ensure that its territory would not be used for terrorism against India and that it would maintain a ceasefire along the LoC.

While the ceasefire held till recently Pakistan never stopped using terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy against India. The United Progressive Alliance government's record in this regard has been even worse. Far from chastising Pakistan, it projected it as a "victim" of terror, argued that we must distinguish between actions taken by terrorist groups which are not in the control of Pakistan and those undertaken by the state, and went so far as to set up a joint anti terror mechanism with it thereby undermining the possibility of mounting concerted international pressure on Pakistan for its actions in support of terrorism.

Even Afghanistan has been more forthright than India in criticising Pakistan for its involvement in terrorist activities. In this background, is it any surprise, therefore, that Pakistan continues to bleed us with a thousand cuts confident that a pusillanimous India will only bleat, not bite? Indeed, unless India adopts a much more proactive policy designed to make the use of terror painful for Pakistan there will be many more Mumbai like incidents.

If the UPA government's management of relations with Pakistan has left much to be desired, its management of our intelligence and security systems, essential to our having been able to foresee the Mumbai incident and deal with it effectively, has been abysmal. This is particularly regrettable as more had been done in India for security, from April 1999 to December 2004, than ever before in terms of establishing systems and structures and charting out a comprehensive reform of the national security system in its entirety. Indeed, execution of nearly 350 recommendations emanating from the Group of Ministers Report of 2001 on national security reform was well underway when the UPA government assumed office.

These reforms, evolved on the basis of advice given by our best experts in the field were inter alia designed precisely to forestall the possibility of our being taken by surprise, as we had been at Kargil [Images], either from land, from the air or by sea. Many of the structures and systems created, as a result of the reform process, have not been nurtured, or have been undone, and such reforms as are being pursued are progressing at a snail's pace. Tardy implementation of security related reforms such as the setting up of marine police in our coastal states, strengthening of the coast guard, modernisation of state police forces etc are, to an extent, responsible for our inability to minimize the impact of the terrorist actions in Mumbai.

It is common knowledge that the National Security Council Secretariat, which was functioning as the apex intelligence agency, has been gutted, with the revival of the Joint Intelligence Committee, whose functions had, in 1999, been subsumed within the NSCS, and with the appointment of three superannuated secretary level officers at its head. This has inevitably impacted negatively on its role as a coordinator of intelligence, as the key player in tasking and evaluating the agencies, and as the final assessor of the threat advisories put out by the intelligence collecting agencies.

It is well known that intelligence collecting agencies issue innumerable warnings, many of which are not actionable and in most cases the projected threat does not materialise. If each of these was taken at face value the country would be in a state of nervous breakdown! It is up to the final assessment agency, in India's case the NSCS, (now possibly once again the JIC?) with access to inputs from all the agencies as well as open sources, to join the dots, validate the advisories issued, spell out the nature of the threat and call for remedial action. This clearly did not happen and hence we were caught napping at Mumbai.

The government's criminal neglect in addressing the terrorist threat from Pakistan was matched by its casual management of the crisis as it unfolded in Mumbai. The errors were innumerable and indicative of the absence of a firm hand at the wheel. The 12-hour delay in deployment of the NSG is, perhaps, the most glaring. The inability to take out the terrorists quickly raises questions about adequacy of training, drills, tactics, protocols, weapons etc of the forces deployed. Media management was non existent. The media should not have been allowed access to within a mile of the affected area and individuals from the various organisations involved in the operations should not have been permitted to interact with it. Instead, frequent media briefings should have been organised through a team of designated spokespersons. This would have starved the terrorists of much useful information through the incessant media chatter. Crowd management also left much to be desired. In fact, the terrorists could have inflicted much higher casualties had they simply opened fired upon the mass of humanity milling around Nariman House.

India's response to the Mumbai attacks is still in a state of evolution, influenced, at one extreme by the enormous public anger against Pakistan and, at the other by the UPA government's peacenik mindset and reluctance to move beyond the US prescribed lakshman rekha of "restraint". Symbolic of the latter was the harebrained idea, modelled on the now discredited joint terror mechanism set up in the aftermath of the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts apparently to mollify the public, to call the Pakistani DG ISI for discussions.

Apparently, the government, after each Pakistani inspired terrorist incident has the inexplicable urge to get into bed again with its rapist! Rather than squarely blaming Pakistan for its involvement in the Mumbai attacks it still adheres to the US dictated line that the attack was not a Pakistani state inspired exercise but came only from elements in that country and that they must be brought to book. Such a mild approach is irrational as it ignores the well documented symbiotic relationship between terrorism and the Pakistani state which has been cultivated over the decades. As long as Indian leaders do not recognise this a meaningful response to Pakistani terrorist actions against us cannot be fashioned.

Pakistan's involvement with terrorist activities directed against us can only be curbed by making it extremely painful to pursue such a policy. This can be achieved only through use of all the instrumentalities of state power and could entail the following specific measures:

* Suspension of the composite dialogue process in order to make it clear that there can be no business as usual with Pakistan till it mends its ways;
* Undertaking of a sustained and well prepared campaign to project Pakistan as it is, notably a terrorist state, so that harsh international sanctions are imposed on it;
* Termination of many of the CBMs, particularly those designed to help Pakistan economically. In fact, we should not hesitate to take actions that undermine Pakistan's economy
* Exploitation of the faultlines of Pakistan as it has consistently done vis a vis India;
* Serve notice for the renegotiation of the Indus Waters Treaty, thus indicating our resolve to use water as a pressure point against Pakistan; in the meantime minimise the release of Indus waters to Pakistan through maximum use of water in India as permitted under the Treaty
* Address terrorist outfits through covert action and if need be through focused military strikes.

Some of the arguments adduced against such robust action are that the US will force Pakistan to give us satisfaction, that we need to distinguish between the civilian regime and the military in Pakistan and not penalise the former, and that Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state. In this context, the following may be mentioned:

* We should not expect the US to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. Their record hardly inspires confidence. The US promises much and delivers little. We must not be satisfied by the cosmetic measures that Pakistan may take such as the arrest of the odd LeT commander or a raid on a LeT camp in PoK. India must ensure the complete shutdown of the infrastructure of terror in Pakistan.
* While there is some merit in making a distinction between the military and the civilian regime in the ultimate analysis reactions to Pakistan have to be dictated by what its government, whether civilian or military, does. Everyone knows that, in the instant case, the military calls the shots in Pakistan and, therefore, the regime in that country is civilian only in name. The civilians in Pakistan can hardly expect India to fight their battles for them against their military. It is up to them to tell the military to refrain from patronising terrorists not only because it hurts India but Pakistan as well.
* Pakistan's nuclear capability should not push us into a paralysis of action. India, too, is a nuclear weapon state and use of such weapons against us is unlikely because of our deterrent capabilities.

Finally, let us recognise that no one is going to fight our battles for us, that only we can safeguard our security and integrity through our own actions, and that any outside help, whether by a super power or the international community, can only be supplementary to our own efforts.

Pak on track to being named terrorist state

7 Dec 2008, 0052 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Single page view Text:
WASHINGTON: The United States is dusting off a long-discarded proposal to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. But with the Bush
administration now in its final six weeks in office, a decision in this regard is being left to the incoming Obama government, sources said, contingent on corrective actions taken in the meantime by Islamabad to the satisfaction of India, US and other countries affected by Pakistan's toxic export of death.

US intelligence circles are now re-evaluating Pakistan's contribution to the war on terror, and the ISI's dominant role in the country and its ties with jihadi outfits, at the behest of the Bush administration. The White House itself lost faith in the Pakistan Army's bonafides several months ago which led to Washington's decision to withdraw support to military ruler Pervez Musharraf and back a new civilian government, officials and congressional aides who spoke on background explained. The decision to dump Musharraf was taken at vice-president Dick Cheney recommendation, they added, because of evidence that Pakistan was continuing to help Taliban elements attacking Nato forces.

Now the Bush administration is even more convinced that the Pakistani Army and its intelligence arm ISI, who still calls the shots in Islamabad, are continuing their toxic policies. But firm action against them is constrained by both the transition phase in Washington and the US dependence on Pakistan to maintain supply lines to its troops in land-locked Afghanistan. Officials are now re-examining options in this regard, particularly US leverage against Islamabad if Pakistan considers interdiction strategies.

Pakistan came close to being named a state sponsor of terrorism in 1992 when then Secretary of State James Baker charged then prime minister Nawaz Sharif of supporting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. The then US envoy in Islamabad Nicholas Platt conveyed to Sharif that "we (US) are very confident of our information that your intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, and elements of the Army are supporting Kashmiri and Sikh militants who carry out acts of terrorism... This support takes the form of providing weapons, training and assistance in infiltration ... We're talking about direct, covert support from the Government of Pakistan."

In his talking points, Platt continued: "Our information is certain. It does not come from the Indian Government. Please consider the serious consequences to our relationship if this support continues... If the situation persists, the Secretary of State may find himself required by law to place Pakistan in the U.S.G. [United States Government] State sponsors of terrorism list... You must take concrete steps to curtail assistance to militants and not allow their training camps to operate in Pakistan or Azad Kashmir."

The situation was defused by Sharif government removing then D-G of ISI Javed Nasir even as Washington was going through a transition phase (from Bush Sr to Clinton).

But it now appears that the ISI has cranked up its policy from mere infiltration and support to outright commando style attacks.

Despite a soft-line adopted by Bush administration in public to the benefit of doubt to Pakistan's civilian government and spur it into action, Washington has little doubt that the terrorist attack on Mumbai was sponsored and planned with state support, US officials are saying privately. One things is certain; this was not a run-of-the mill LeT operation.

"I think this event looks a lot more like a classical Special Forces or commando-style raid than it does like any terrorist attack we've seen before," David Kilcullen, a counter insurgency military analyst who served as an advisor to Gen. Davis Petraeus tells Fareed Zakaria in the upcoming edition of his program GPS, articulating what US officials are saying in private. "No al-Qaida-linked terrorist group and certainly never Lashkar-e-Taiba has mounted a maritime raid of this type or complexity."

The US intelligence community believes that hijacking a fishing vessel, infiltrating via the sea, via inflatable boat, launching diversionary attacks designed to pull the first responders out of the way of the subsequent follow on groups that struck the Oberoi, the Taj Mahal, the Nariman Center and the equipment the terrorists carried and their attire were all in the vein of a covert special-forces raid rather than a traditional terrorist attack.

US sets stage for strikes if Pak does not act

3 Dec 2008, 2304 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN

WASHINGTON: The United States has set the stage for punitive internationally-backed strikes by India against terrorist camps in Pakistan, if

Islamabad does not act first to dismantle them, by rejecting President Zardari’s alibi that non-state actors were responsible for the last week’s carnage in Mumbai.

The game-changer, outlined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, robs Islamabad of the fig leaf that Zardari used in his interview on Larry King Live that ''stateless actors'' are holding the whole world hostage and Pakistan was not to blame. Rice said in effect that the excuse does not absolve Pakistan responsibility for terrorist acts that originate from its territory.

Although US officials have not outright approved immediate punitive Indian strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan, it is clear Rice has bought time for Islamabad to prove its bonafides and promise of cooperation. Pakistan has a ''special responsibility'' and needs to act ''urgently'' she said, even as India has indicated it will wait for a Pakistani response to its demands before any punitive action.

In Washington, experts pressed the administration to expand the scope of punitive strikes to an international level to avoid making it an India-Pakistan issue, particularly since the death toll included citizens of 10 countries.

''Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalise the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security,'' Robert Kagan, an influential analyst with the Carnegie Endowment, said.

''Would such an action (strikes) violate Pakistan's sovereignty?'' Kagan asked in an op-ed, and answered, ''Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched.''

Rice echoed this outlook more discreetly and cautiously.

Pakistan's civilian government has sought to portray its helplessness in governing its own territory. In fact, in a startling slip noted by the Economist, Zardari said in a television interview last week that ''if any evidence points towards any individual or group in MY PART OF THE COUNTRY,'' he would take action. The implication, it said, was Pakistan was already severed if with parts of the country out of federal control.

While US position towards Pakistan has hardened perceptibly after the Mumbai attack, Indian officials are still leery about Washington’s approach. The hard part to swallow for New Delhi is that the Bush administration, while pushing for a strategic relationship with India, has bankrolled what some are already dubbing a terrorist state to the tune of $ 10 billion since 2002. Most of the money, according to the US government’s own audit, has gone towards building Pakistan's military muscle against India.

On Tuesday, even as Rice counselled patience and restraint in New Delhi, India’s Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon made the rounds in Washington, explaining India’s position and the growing anger across the country after Pakistan’s latest provocation.

Menon packed more than a dozen meetings, including with former intelligence czar and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State William Burns, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and several top lawmakers as Washington struggled to contain Indian outrage. New Delhi’s message was uniform: India’s patience is wearing thin.

The Indian Embassy said later that ''unequivocal condemnation of the (Mumbai) incident and the need for the perpetrators to be held accountable was reiterated,'' at the meetings. It was also indicated that there would be full cooperation and support at various levels, including government, from the US to India as it dealt with the consequences of the incident, it added.

From all accounts, India too appears to be preparing ground for punitive action if Pakistan fails to respond and act adequately.

Rice will proceed to Islamabad on Thursday to read the riot act while U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen is expected to arrive in New Delhi as part of U.S playbook to keep a stream of visitors in the region in order to prevent outbreak of immediate hostilities.