SACW | Dec 5-9, 2008 / Keep The Hawks at Bay in India and Pakistan

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | December 5-9, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2589 -  
Year 11 running
From: www.sacw.net

[The distinguished historian of India Romila Thapar has been named  
the recipient of prestigious Kluge Prize by the Library of Congress.  
This award is the latest among wide ranging recognition of the fine  
work by the historian, the public intellectual and a concerned  
citizen. Three cheers for Romila Thapar!]

[1] India: Romila Thapar to receive the Kluge Prize for Study of  
Humanity (Library of Congress)
[2] Sri Lanka: Government Abuses Anti-Terror Laws to Muzzle the Media  
(Human Rights watch)
[3] Pakistan: Fear of faces (Editorial, The News)
[4] Bangladesh: Disturbing signal from govt  over emergency  
withdrawal (New Age)
[5] India’s tragedy (Q. Isa Daudpota)
[6] The Terrorists Want to Destroy Pakistan, Too (Asif Ali Zardari)
[7] Concern for Zardari's Civilian Gov't Stays India (Praful Bidwai)
[8] Out of the box (M.B. Naqvi)
[9] The Hoax Phone Call Episode
    - Hoax Call Hyped by Media - Get Hostilities to Brink (Beena Sarwar)
    - Call to Zardari wasn’t a hoax, says Sherry (Naveed Miraj)
    - A hoax call that could have triggered war (Zaffar Abbas)
[10] Are Mumbai attacks a chance for peace? (Ahmed Rashid)
[11] After the Attack on Mumbai (Bernard D'Mello)
[12] Mumbai: overcoming denial (Praful Bidwai)
[13] India Wakes Up? (Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal)
[14] Moment of truth for Pakistan’s transition (Haris Gazdar)
[15] Letter To President-Elect Barack Obama from Coalition of  
Concerned Indian Americans
[16] A Public Discussion Mumbai Terror Aftermath: The Way Forward  
(New Delhi, 10 December 2008)

_____


[1]

News from the Library of Congress
Contact: Matt Raymond, (202) 707-0020; Eileen Sullivan, (212) 843-8016
Website: Kluge Prize Pressroom

December 3, 2008
HISTORIANS PETER BROWN, ROMILA THAPAR NAMED RECIPIENTS OF $1 MILLION  
2008 KLUGE PRIZE FOR STUDY OF HUMANITY
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2008/08-225.html

____


[2]

Human Rights Watch

Sri Lanka: Free Journalists Unfairly Held
GOVERNMENT ABUSES ANTI-TERROR LAWS TO MUZZLE THE MEDIA
December 2, 2008

(New York, December 3, 2008) - The Sri Lankan government should  
immediately drop charges and free J.S. Tissainayagam, a prominent  
Tamil journalist on trial for his writings, Human Rights Watch said  
today. A Tamil publisher, N. Jasiharan, and his wife, V. Valamathy,  
who were also arbitrarily arrested, should be freed immediately.

"The Sri Lankan government is shamefully using antiterrorism laws to  
silence peaceful critics in the media," said Brad Adams, Asia  
director at Human Rights Watch. "This is no way for a government that  
claims to be a rights-respecting democracy to act."

Tissainayagam, a columnist with the Sunday Times newspaper and editor  
of the Outreach website, was arrested by the Terrorist Investigation  
Division (TID) of the police on March 7, 2008. The previous day, the  
terrorist investigation unit had arrested Jasiharan, the owner of E- 
Kwality press, and Valamathy. Tissainayagam and Jasiharan are co- 
directors of the company Outreach Multimedia. Valamathy has no  
official role with the company.

On August 25, more than five months after Tissainayagam's arrest,  
prosecutors charged him under the country's Emergency Regulations and  
the Prevention of Terrorism Act for printing and distributing the  
North Eastern Monthly magazine, of which he was previously an editor,  
and for aiding and abetting terrorist organizations through raising  
money for the magazine. He is currently on trial before the High  
Court in Colombo.

Tissainayagam's indictment cites two of his writings from the North  
Eastern Monthly. In a July 2006 editorial, under the headline,  
"Providing security to Tamils now will define northeastern politics  
of the future," Tissainayagam wrote: "It is fairly obvious that the  
government is not going to offer them any protection. In fact it is  
the state security forces that are the main perpetrator of the  
killings."

The charges against Tissainayagam also include part of a November  
2006 article on the military offensive in Vaharai, in the east, which  
said:

"Such offensives against the civilians are accompanied by attempts to  
starve the population by refusing them food as well as medicines and  
fuel, with the hope of driving out the people of Vaharai and  
depopulating it. As this story is being written, Vaharai is being  
subject to intense shelling and aerial bombardment."

Human Rights Watch said that the written passages over which  
Tissainayagam has been charged reflect mere opinions about the  
conduct of the armed conflict between the government and the LTTE,  
which is seeking an independent Tamil homeland. The rights to freedom  
of opinion and expression are protected under article 19 of the  
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to  
which Sri Lanka is a party. Although the covenant allows for certain  
restrictions on freedom of expression on grounds of national  
security, the terms of any such restriction must be specific and  
narrowly tailored to prevent against arbitrariness and to ensure that  
the internationally recognized human rights of all individuals are  
protected.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern for the safety of all three  
detainees. Since November 18, the authorities have held Tissainayagam  
in the Magazine prison in Colombo, which houses 140 convicted  
criminals. Upon his transfer there, Tissainayagam was threatened by  
other inmates.

Jasiharan and Valamathy have also come under threat. On November 25  
and 26, Jasiharan's family in Batticaloa received calls demanding Rs. 
100,000 (approximately US$900) in return for his safety. The caller  
threatened that if payment was not made within three days, Jasiharan  
would be killed in prison. The family has filed a complaint with the  
police. Human Rights Watch has also learned that Valamathy is in the  
female ward in the Colombo prison with 110 other prisoners, the  
majority of whom are convicted criminals. The international covenant  
provides for the separation of accused persons from persons convicted  
of crimes.

None of the three detainees has had adequate access to counsel.  
Police officers have been present during Tissainayagam's discussions  
with his lawyers, violating his right to communicate and consult with  
a lawyer in full confidentiality. The three have filed a fundamental  
rights petition in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of  
their continued detention.

Article 14 of the Sri Lankan constitution enshrines the right to  
freedom of speech. However, since 2006 the government of President  
Mahinda Rajapakse has increasingly intimidated and tried to silence  
the media, nongovernmental organizations, and others with independent  
or dissenting views of the government's military policies and human  
rights practices. Senior government officials have attacked such  
critics as supporters of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil  
Eelam and traitors of the state.

"The government's disregard for the basic rights and well-being of  
three well-known detainees raises even greater concerns for the  
hundreds of others detained under the security laws," Adams said.

_____


[3]

The News
December 6, 2008
Editorial

FEAR OF FACES

A militant organization in Quetta has distributed pamphlets warning  
women to cover their faces before going out in public. It has also  
made threats to CD shops and other outlets that display posters of  
women. A bomb explosion at a Quetta marketplace last week was  
evidently intended by this group, calling itself the Jamaatul Tauhid  
Wal Jihad Balochistan, to show that it meant business. As we have  
seen in neighbouring Afghanistan and parts of NWFP, such outfits seem  
to fear the faces of women more than anything else. The horrible case  
involving the hurling of acid on schoolgirls in Afghanistan,  
disfiguring the faces of victims, shows how far they are capable of  
going.

There can be no doubt that such forces have nothing to do with  
religion. Indeed they represent the anti-thesis to anything that is  
good or moral. The reason why they have grown in number over the  
years is linked directly to the failure of authorities to act against  
them. In Mansehra, in Peshawar -- even in Lahore -- no measures have  
been taken to deal with elements involved in blackening the faces of  
women on billboards or meting out threats to them. In tribal areas  
and even at the campuses of some educational institutions in settled  
parts of NWFP, schoolgirls, female students and women leaving their  
homes have been forced to do veils. The messages to this effect have  
been reiterated through the illegal FM stations that continue to  
operate in many places. The fact they have not been stopped sends out  
a distinct message. It implies at least tacit support for what they  
do. It is impossible to believe that in every case the police and  
other forces are unaware as to their identity, especially as they  
have little hesitation in leaving behind pamphlets detailing the  
names of their outfits. Those involved in decision making must  
realize this lack of action will only encourage these forces and lead  
to a worsening of the situation. Those behind the latest threats in  
Quetta must be dealt with firmly, under the law so that women, and  
indeed other citizens, can go about their lives without fear in the  
city.

_____

[4] Bangladesh:

New Age, 9 December 2008

DISTURBING SIGNAL FROM GOVT  OVER EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL

THE two major political parties in the country, the Bangladesh  
Nationalist Party and the Awami League, on Saturday reiterated their  
demand for a complete withdrawal of the prevailing state of emergency  
on December 11, the last day for withdrawal of nomination papers, to  
create an environment conducive to participatory polls, so reported  
the national media on Sunday. The National Human Rights Commission  
chairman has also joined the increasingly vocal demand for a complete  
withdrawal of emergency, saying, ‘The sooner it [the state of  
emergency] is lifted the better.’ However, while the military- 
controlled interim government has severally indicated that the  
emergency would be lifted before the elections to the ninth Jatiya  
Sangsad, it has thus far refused to set a specific date as to when  
such withdrawal would take effect. Worryingly still, its decision to  
file an appeal with the Appellate Division for a stay on the December  
5 verdict of the High Court, which declared four provisions of the  
Emergency Powers Ordinance 2007 and the Emergency Powers Rules 2007  
with the concomitant observation that the state of emergency cannot  
continue for an indefinite period in a republic, tends to give rise  
to misgivings about its commitment with regard to withdrawal of the  
state of emergency.

    As the major political parties, politically conscious and  
democratically oriented sections of society and we at New Age have  
repeatedly pointed out, free elections and a state of emergency are  
mutually exclusive; the pervasive fear that emergency touches off in  
a society is not conducive for the electorate to freely exercise  
their right to adult franchise. Emergency, it has been pointed out  
time and again, restricts interaction between the people and the  
political parties, which denies the latter adequate space to put  
their agenda — political, social and economic— across and the former  
the opportunity to be equipped with an informed opinion when they go  
to the polling centre to cast their votes. Most importantly, as we  
have maintained all along, emergency is antithetical to the  
principles of democracy, at the core of which is the protection and  
promotion of freedom that remains suspended under emergency.

    In the wake of the December 5 verdict of the High Court, we  
commented in these columns that the interim government would be well- 
advised to not appeal against the verdict. Its insistence on  
challenging the verdict could very well indicate that the incumbents’  
intention is, perhaps, to prolong the emergency as long as possible.  
They should realise that any further prolongation of the emergency  
will not only tell on the eventual quality of the elections but also  
give rise to questions about their commitment to a peaceful  
transition to governance by the elected representatives of the  
people. Therefore, we once again urge the government to not dither  
over the question of lifting the state of emergency and be  
forthcoming with a specific date as to when such withdrawal would  
take effect and pave the way for reasonably free and credible elections.

____

[5]

Dawn, December 8, 2008

INDIA’S TRAGEDY

by Q. Isa Daudpota

I FAIL to be impressed by India’s ‘progress’ though by most counts it  
has done better than the country I live in. It only goes to show how  
poorly Pakistan has fared.

India’s endemic problem to create a truly pluralistic society and  
shed itself of its caste system has now been overtaken by the tragic  
events in Mumbai. The illusion of prosperity that has come to the  
middle class and the upper ranks of the privileged few masks serious  
problems of poverty and malnutrition that infests India. Its ruling  
class relies on wealth to trickle down to its teeming masses, many of  
whom are even more miserable than their poor cousins in Pakistan.

The non-stop media commentary on the unfolding events in India’s  
commercial capital have pulled to the surface latent rage, deep  
prejudices and highlighted the incompetence of the system. Not too  
long ago, the bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad made  
apparent almost identical sentiments and flaws in Pakistan’s systems.  
In our failures, it is sadly reassuring that we are the same people.

That 10 demonic men, allegedly trained in the badlands of Pakistan  
could so easily arrive by sea at the Gateway of India, bypassing the  
well-endowed navy and extensive intelligence and police apparatus,  
which had been warned of an impending attack, demonstrates this  
incompetence. Further, shrill voices have demanded that India attack  
its neighbour’s territory to destroy the training camps for jihadis.

But public memories are short-lived, with new dastardly events piling  
up to mute the sounds of previous tragedies. The media’s amnesia,  
like an aggrieved person’s, is a way of coping with agony and loss.  
In 1992-93 almost 1,000 people died in riots in Mumbai and 200,000  
Muslims fled the city in its aftermath. How many people remember  
this? In 1993 bombs exploded in hotels and the stock market killing  
over 250 people. The culprits were linked to Dawood Ibrahim, who it  
is believed lives in Dubai and Karachi, and is wanted for the present  
crime. One hundred people were convicted and several were given the  
death penalty. But this has not stopped the massacre as bombs  
followed in 2002, 2003, 2006 and now this.

It is important that India, with the full cooperation of Pakistan,  
unearth the masterminds of this latest attack and bring them to  
justice. The demand for extradition of some well-known leaders of  
terrorist groups currently said to be Pakistan is justified. Lack of  
an extradition treaty should not become the reason for blocking this  
demand. Drafting of such a treaty should begin while international  
agencies such as Interpol and the UN investigators can visit Pakistan  
to interrogate the alleged gang-leaders.

Overlooked by the dramatic events of the recent past is the far more  
damaging confrontation of the Pakistan and Indian armies in Siachen,  
the highest battleground in the world. This ridiculous confrontation  
costs both countries nearly Rs20bn per year (this just for  
maintenance — based on a 2004 joint report by Pakistani and Indian  
experts), with India bearing four times the cost of its rival due to  
its higher deployment of troops. Exact figures for total costs remain  
unknown.

Meanwhile the glacier, which is critical for supplying water to the  
Indus, is reducing in length by over 100 metres each year, a  
phenomenally high rate. This not only has serious implications for  
the future water supply in the Indus, such man-made melting will  
worsen the sea-rise problem due to global warming.

An international peace park at Siachen as proposed some time ago with  
a guaranteed water supply for Pakistan should be all that is needed  
for the two armies to vacate this area. One hopes that there will be  
sufficient international pressure in the New Year for the countries  
to disentangle. Thereafter, the money which went into maintaining the  
troops should be used for improving the life of the people of Kashmir.

Finally, let’s come to the mother of all problems in South Asia: the  
Kashmir issue. Neither side is wishing to admit that at its core it  
is an issue about what would make the people of that region contented  
and in control of their destiny. This control is denied to them by  
the two rival countries. Military expenditure incurred by both has  
only increased the misery of the people. An international commission  
needs to assess the cost of what Pakistan spends on its army, which  
is largely justified by the Kashmir conflict, and the sums wasted by  
India in quelling the insurgency, whether indigenous or instigated.

The two countries should instead use this money to improve the life  
of the people of this region. With the water from the rivers assured  
for Pakistan, it should not demand anything more than the welfare of  
the Kashmiris. Soft borders allowing ease of travel and trade should  
be the only step necessary at the moment. In the decades to come, the  
empowered people of Kashmir can decide if they wish to continue as  
suggested, be independent or become part of a confederation of South  
Asian countries.

It may seem strange to talk about these larger issues when people are  
still hurting from the current tragedy. Pakistan too has barely  
recovered from the Marriott bombing. But it is precisely when a  
family is hurt due to a death within that warring factions often come  
together and adopt a reconciliatory approach. With so much lost by  
both sides and the prospect of terrorism wreaking further damage, it  
is essential that saner elements on both sides of the border come up  
with a peace plan that solves the core problem. The funds saved and  
the human resources released from the war effort can be channelled to  
enhance the potential of our peoples. In Zardari, a man who lost his  
wife to violence, India may find a willing partner wishing to work  
for peace. Can these tragedies bind us in our sorrow and lead to a  
peaceful future?

The author is a physicist and environmentalist in Islamabad.

____

[6]

New York Times
December 9, 2008 (page A35 of the New York edition)

THE TERRORISTS WANT TO DESTROY PAKISTAN, TOO

by Asif Ali Zardari

Islamabad, Pakistan

THE recent death and destruction in Mumbai, India, brought to my mind  
the death and destruction in Karachi on Oct. 18, 2007, when  
terrorists attacked a festive homecoming rally for my wife, Benazir  
Bhutto. Nearly 150 Pakistanis were killed and more than 450 were  
injured. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai may be a news story for most  
of the world. For me it is a painful reality of shared experience.  
Having seen my wife escape death by a hairbreadth on that day in  
Karachi, I lost her in a second, unfortunately successful, attempt  
two months later.

The Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at  
Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India  
that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan  
and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict  
do not want change in Pakistan to take root.

To foil the designs of the terrorists, the two great nations of  
Pakistan and India, born together from the same revolution and  
mandate in 1947, must continue to move forward with the peace  
process. Pakistan is shocked at the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. We  
can identify with India’s pain. I am especially empathetic. I feel  
this pain every time I look into the eyes of my children.

Pakistan is committed to the pursuit, arrest, trial and punishment of  
anyone involved in these heinous attacks. But we caution against  
hasty judgments and inflammatory statements. As was demonstrated in  
Sunday’s raids, which resulted in the arrest of militants, Pakistan  
will take action against the non-state actors found within our  
territory, treating them as criminals, terrorists and murderers. Not  
only are the terrorists not linked to the government of Pakistan in  
any way, we are their targets and we continue to be their victims.

India is a mature nation and a stable democracy. Pakistanis  
appreciate India’s democratic contributions. But as rage fueled by  
the Mumbai attacks catches on, Indians must pause and take a breath.  
India and Pakistan — and the rest of the world — must work together  
to track down the terrorists who caused mayhem in Mumbai, attacked  
New York, London and Madrid in the past, and destroyed the Marriott  
Hotel in Islamabad in September. The terrorists who killed my wife  
are connected by ideology to these enemies of civilization.

These militants did not arise from whole cloth. Pakistan was an ally  
of the West throughout the cold war. The world worked to exploit  
religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the  
most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a  
superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of  
an extremist militia with its own dynamic.

Pakistan continues to pay the price: the legacy of dictatorship, the  
fatigue of fanaticism, the dismemberment of civil society and the  
destruction of our democratic infrastructure. The resulting poverty  
continues to fuel the extremists and has created a culture of  
grievance and victimhood.

The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support  
network is huge; Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the  
rest of the world. We are on the frontlines of the war on terrorism.  
We have 150,000 soldiers fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their  
extremist allies along the border with Afghanistan — far more troops  
than NATO has in Afghanistan.

Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives to terrorism in this  
year alone, including 1,400 civilians and 600 security personnel  
ranging in rank from ordinary soldier to three-star general. There  
have been more than 600 terrorism-related incidents in Pakistan this  
year. The terrorists have been set back by our aggressive war against  
them in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Pashtun- 
majority areas bordering Afghanistan. Six hundred militants have been  
killed in recent attacks, hundreds by Pakistani F-16 jet strikes in  
the last two months.

Terrorism is a regional as well as a global threat, and it needs to  
be battled collectively. We understand the domestic political  
considerations in India in the aftermath of Mumbai. Nevertheless,  
accusations of complicity on Pakistan’s part only complicate the  
already complex situation.

For India, Pakistan and the United States, the best response to the  
Mumbai carnage is to coordinate in counteracting the scourge of  
terrorism. The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and  
democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law  
enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to  
fight the terrorists effectively.

Benazir Bhutto once said that democracy is the best revenge against  
the abuses of dictatorship. In the current environment,  
reconciliation and rapprochement is the best revenge against the dark  
forces that are trying to provoke a confrontation between Pakistan  
and India, and ultimately a clash of civilizations.

Asif Ali Zardari is the president of Pakistan.

____


[7]

Inter Press Service

CONCERN FOR ZARDARI'S CIVILIAN GOV'T STAYS INDIA
Analysis by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Dec 7 (IPS) - After United States Secretary of State  
Condoleezza Rice’s visit to New Delhi and Islamabad, in the wake of  
the Mumbai terrorist attacks, India has added a new rationale for  
stepping up pressure on Pakistan for taking decisive action against  
jehadi extremists operating from its soil.

However, India has still not determined what approach to adopt to  
achieve its objective, and is wary of using means which might  
escalate hostility with Pakistan in ways which would "play into the  
hands" of those responsible for acts of terrorism against its citizens.

In a special background briefing for the media, a senior Indian  
official only identifiable under briefing rules as "authoritative  
source" said India has proof of the involvement of Pakistan's Inter- 
Services Intelligence (ISI) agency in the Mumbai attacks, which left  
nearly 200 people dead.

But India will not make this accusation publicly for fear that that  
would escalate tensions and weaken the civilian government of  
President Asif Ali Zardari, which it regards as favourably disposed  
towards the peace process with India.

This is the first time since last week's attacks that India has named  
the ISI for its role in them. By implication, the unnamed official  
also suggested that the Pakistan army was aware of the ISI's links  
with the attackers, because "it would be surprising" if the agency  
were able to operate independently and without the military  
leadership's knowledge.

The official did not share specific details of the evidence that  
Indian investigators claim to have found of the ISI's role in the  
attacks, but said they had "the names of the handlers and trainers  
[of the attackers], the locations where the training was held, and  
some of their communication[s]".

The messages he referred to were sent using Voice-over-Internet- 
Protocol to "addresses that have been used by known ISI people before’’.

The attackers are believed to belong to an extremist group called  
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the military wing of a fundamentalist  
organisation, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, headed by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. LeT is  
formally banned, but continues to be active under a different guise.

U.S. intelligence agencies too claim to have intercepts of the  
attackers' conversations on satellite and mobile telephones during  
the 60 hour-long operation launched by Indian security and police  
agencies to overpower them. But it is not known if they have compared  
this information with the details gathered by Indian agencies.

A U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation team is currently in India, as  
are British and Israeli agencies. They are sharing intelligence and  
coordinating their investigations with Indian agencies.

As New Delhi formulates its strategy amidst domestic public and  
political pressure to show that it "means business", it makes a sharp  
distinction between Pakistan's elected civilian government and the army.

Indian officials believe the Pakistan army would want a military  
crisis on its eastern border, so that it could have a reason for  
redeploying the 100,000 thousand troops that are currently on the  
western border with Afghanistan, where they are engaged in a highly  
unpopular war supporting U.S.-led troops of the International  
Security Assistance Force.

But India does not want to "play their game" and wants the Pakistan  
army "to continue being engaged in the fight against terrorism" along  
the Afghan border, "because that's also our war’’.

This is the closest that India has come to in endorsing and  
associating itself with the ISAF operation in Afghanistan and along  
its extremely volatile areas bordering Pakistan.

"In some ways, this is a subtle departure from India's earlier  
position, which did not vocally declare the U.S.-led anti-al-Qaeda  
Taleban operation as 'our war'," says Achin Vanaik, professor of  
international relations and global politics at Delhi University.

"This shift seems to be related both to Indian leaders' discussions  
with Rice, and their desire to keep open the option of persuading  
U.S.-led forces to undertake military operations against the  
strongholds of jehadi militants operating against India from within  
Pakistan,’’ Vanaik said.

In her talks here during what may be one of her last forays into  
South Asia before she demits office, Condoleezza Rice promised all  
"cooperation, support and solidarity" to India in its fight against  
terrorists originating in Pakistan, but said it was primarily  
Pakistan's responsibility to act against them.

Reacting to President Zardari's statement that the perpetrators of  
the Mumbai attack were "non-state actors", Rice also said: "Non-state  
actors sometimes act in the confines of the state and there has to be  
strong action against them... it's a matter of responsibility."

However, Rice made it clear that U.S. support for India is premised  
upon the assumption that India will not escalate tensions with  
Pakistan and offer it an excuse to divert its troops from the  
Afghanistan border. Their deployment at that border, and their  
cooperation with ISAF, are top priorities for the U.S. in a war that  
it is not winning.

Rice emphasised this in response to Indian Foreign Minister Pranab  
Mukherjee's statement and their joint press conference. Mukherjee  
said New Delhi is determined to take whatever action is necessary "to  
protect India's territorial integrity". She responded: "Any response  
[by India] has to be judged in terms of prevention and not by  
creating unintended consequences or difficulties."

In Islamabad, Rice extracted from Zardari a promise of "strong  
action" against any Pakistani elements found involved in the Mumbai  
attacks. She underlined the "urgency" of such action and emphasised  
the American nationals were killed in Mumbai.

The unnamed Indian official's briefing made clear that India's  
response to the Mumbai attacks would not replicate the strategy it  
adopted in December 2001 after India's Parliament House was attacked,  
allegedly by Pakistani terrorists.

India broke off or downgraded diplomatic and transportation links  
with Pakistan, and mobilised 700,000 troops at the border in an  
attempt to compel Pakistan to surrender "20 wanted fugitives" living  
on its soil, including the chief of the terrorist group Jaish-i- 
Mohammed, Massod Azhar, who had been exchanged for hostages in a 1999  
hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane.

Pakistan responded by mobilising 300,000 troops. The eyeball-to- 
eyeball confrontation continued for 10 long months, during which  
India and Pakistan at least twice came close to actual combat with a  
real potential for escalation to the nuclear level.

At his briefing, the anonymous Indian official said today's situation  
in Pakistan, with a divided or fragmented power structure, is not  
comparable to 2001: "Then, we were dealing with one Pakistan. There  
was Musharraf (the former president and army chief), and that was it.  
Today, the situation is different."

Some Indian officials are worried at the possible consequences of  
coercive diplomacy and any strategy of ratcheting up pressure on  
Pakistan to act against groups like LeT.

A senior diplomat who insisted on anonymity said: "We are acutely  
aware that the Pakistan situation is extremely fragile, and the state  
could disintegrate or unravel. The army could stage a coup citing a  
national crisis."

Vanaik argues that "excessive pressure from India, and especially any  
move towards deploying the military option, would impel the pro- 
Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in the border areas near Afghanistan  
to offer to join hands with the Pakistan army to unitedly fight  
India, which they now regard as a major ally of the U.S. and part of  
what they describe as the Christian-Zionist-Hindu global axis".

Former Pakistan foreign minister Gauhar Ayub Khan confirmed this  
assessment during a television debate on an Indian channel. He said:  
"These elements are strongly anti-India and joined wars against India  
in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. They will do it again if India exercises  
the military option."

Some of these groups have already offered a ceasefire if Pakistan  
allows them to fight India on the eastern border.

As they try to fashion a coherent strategy to deal with the fallout  
of the Mumbai attacks, Indian officials are balancing different  
factors, including pressure from the domestic rightwing for tough  
action, their concern to keep the Western powers, especially the  
U.S., on board, and their anxiety not to further weaken the Zardari  
government.

As the unnamed "authoritative source" says: "The perpetrators have to  
be fixed", but we face a "dilemma".

(END/2008)

____

[8]

The Daily Star, December 5, 2008

OUT OF THE BOX

by M.B. Naqvi

PRESIDENT Zardari shocked the Indians by his reversal of the  
traditional Pakistani stance on nuclear deterrence, but has also  
drawn flak from rightwing bigwigs, both religious and military-linked.

Zardari has left many wondering why he chose to speak so  
unexpectedly. He said he hated atomic weapons and wanted a nuclear  
weapons-free South Asia; and that Pakistan would never use nukes first.

Few are sure that his reversal of stance is to please the Americans.  
This could be the overture for new high-level talks with president- 
elect Obama and the next Indian government. Even so, Zardari has  
violated many Pakistani taboos.

Everybody knows that the military's opinion matters in Pakistan, and  
any departure from the military high command's ideas can doom the  
government. Pakistan's strategic thinking has been the army high  
command's monopoly. It had laid down the first-strike doctrine. It  
should go on speculating on what Pakistan will and will not do in any  
crisis.

How far will the disquiet among the military-led elites go on the  
proposed strategic doctrine? It's true that Pakistan's traditional  
policies vis-à-vis Kashmir, India, and even the West, have met with  
scant success.

Is the army high command on board? Does it share Zardari's ideas? The  
association of retired military officers, or those who have headed  
ISI in the past, have come out strongly against these ideas. The pro- 
PPP media has projected Zardari's thinking without serious comment,  
but the opposition has mounted a media offensive against it.

Many think that these ideas are nothing more than Musharraf's out-of- 
the-box thinking forced by Washington. Zardari's critics say he is an  
elected dictator because the "democratic" government runs the way he  
dictates.

Islamabad has certainly not organised any national "thinkathon" to  
evolve a new national consensus. It is likely that he is simply  
parroting a line calculated to be acceptable to the Obama team.  
People expect an elected government to be able to evolve its own  
policies.

No change has been made in Musharraf's policies by this government.  
It has only been forced to seek IMF help, which too seems to have  
been masterminded by Washington.

There is no evidence of any institutional examination of the issues  
facing this government; all are content to follow Musharraf's  
policies. Why? This has taken Pakistanis by surprise. Thus, the new  
ideas may be Zardari's personal views.

An ideological clash is shaping up between old quasi-religious  
ideologues, those who had helped evolve Pakistan military's basic  
policies, and Zardari.

Their position is contrary to Zardari's new position. Anti-nuclear  
campaigners are not absent from Pakistan. The government has not  
sought their support. Traditionalists are having a field day  
demolishing Zardari's new proposals.

Pakistan's security establishment doesn't seem to approve of this  
departure from its established views. This conclusion also emerges  
from the fact that Jamaat-e-Islami(JI) and Jamiate Ulmai Islam (JUI),  
who differ from Maulana Fazlur Rehman, have thrown down the gauntlet.

They have spoken through JI chief, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, and many  
retired military officers. They have threatened to disrupt the  
logistics of supplying the over 67,000 western troops in Afghanistan.  
This is a serious challenge.

This is coming to a head of the two strong schools of thought in  
Pakistan politics. On one side is the old military-mullah alliance  
that is speaking strongly against what has become fashionable to call  
moderate Islam.

Sure, there is a small section of society in Pakistan that can be  
called liberal and modernistic, but can it resist the powerful  
military-mullah alliance? It is doubtful. There are Pakistanis and  
Indians who stand for peace between the two countries and nuclear  
disarmament.

Why not mobilise them if Islamic or other religious extremists are to  
be countered; neither India nor Pakistan wants to touch them. Why?  
The need for new thinking is urgent in Pakistan. That old policy of  
ambiguity deterring India has not worked.

In January 2002 India, under BJP, threatened to invade Pakistan. The  
rest of the world thought this was it. In the first few months  
Pakistan had to threaten nuking India 13 times if it aggressed. But  
the Indians threatened to march in. If Pakistan did not do what India  
was demanding, the former was dared into nuking populous India. What  
happened?

Anglo-American diplomacy somehow defused the crisis. But the Pakistan  
president had to promise that he would not let Pakistan territory be  
used against India. And, for good measure, the Indian defence  
minister broke new ground in daring Pakistan to use its nuclear  
weapons first and then wait for the India riposte.

That was a real life drama with everything at stake. India prevailed  
and the un-workability of Pakistan's deterrence was exposed. Vajpayee  
only ordered the troops back much after he got Pakistan's pledge not  
to support jihad in Kashmir. This was a less than glorious hour for  
Pakistan. That was the basis of Musharraf's out-of-the-box thinking,  
which seems to be continuing.

M.B. Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.

_____


[9]


Inter Press Service
Hoax Call Hyped by Media - Get Hostilities to Brink

by Beena Sarwar

KARACHI, Dec 7 (IPS) - A hoax phone call from India to Pakistan’s  
President threatening military reprisals in the aftermath of the  
terrorist attack on Mumbai city, hyped up by media, brought the  
nuclear-armed neighbours close to conflict.

However, analysts believe that the hostilities arising from the  
attack and the media hype can still be contained.

The three-day standoff in Mumbai was barely over on Nov. 28 when the  
late-evening phone call was made, supposedly from India’s External  
Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, to Pakistan President Asif Ali  
Zardari. Because of the heightened tensions, his staff bypassed  
routine procedures and transferred the call to Zardari.

The imposter "directly threatened to take military action if  
Islamabad failed to immediately act against the supposed perpetrators  
of the Mumbai killings" according to a report in the daily Dawn,  
Pakistan of Dec. 6, which reveals that the call was a hoax that sent  
Pakistan into a state of ‘high alert’ last weekend, "eyeing India for  
possible signs of military aggression".

The "aggressive" call, as the news trickled out, created grounds for  
anger in Pakistan and was used to create public opinion against  
sending the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to  
India as the Pakistan government had agreed to do.

A tussle over the issue between the Pakistan army and the civilian  
government ended with the government reneging on its promise and  
saying that only a ‘representative’ of the ISI would be sent.

Hostilities had already been exacerbated by the Indian media playing  
up the Pakistan angle and indignant Pakistanis responding by poking  
holes in the claim that there were Pakistani links to the Mumbai  
attacks.

Pakistani media also highlighted hostile Indian commentary and  
programming, which does not help, as Nirupama Subramaniam, Islamabad- 
based correspondent of the respected Indian daily ‘The Hindu’ pointed  
out as a guest on one of the several talk shows she wasw invited to  
after the Mumbai carnage began.

Asma Shirzai, ARY Television’s host, asked her to comment on a clip  
from an Indian channel in the ‘movie trailer’ mode bringing in the  
Pakistan angle. "This channel, ‘India TV’, is not one that most  
Indians watch. It has no credibility," said Subramaniam, "But if you  
guys play up such clips on your channels, it’s only going to increase  
hostilities by giving the impression that this is [official] India’s  
view. It’s not."

‘Nationalism’ trumping journalistic ethics is neither new nor  
restricted to India and Pakistan, note analysts.

Journalists in the United States fell into this trap when al-Qaeda  
carried out aerial attacks on that country on September 11, 2001.  
Their unquestioning over-reliance on a blinkered establishment  
prepared the ground for bombing Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.  
The information provided by the security apparatus turned out to be  
false, but by then, it was too late.

In contrast British and Spanish media, say observers, dealt more  
maturely with the situation following terror attacks on their  
countries, keeping matters from spinning out of control.

After Mumbai, Western media have also been accused of playing up  
hostilities. "Right off the bat they have been saying that this is a  
problem that has emerged from Pakistan (without making a) distinction  
between the role of the state and those who are outside the state,"  
Tariq Amin-Khan, a Toronto-based college professor told ‘The Real  
News’, Canada, a web-based television channel in an interview on Dec. 4.

"They have also talked about the idea of war, and these are  
responsible outlets such as the BBC and CNN. Of course they’re saying  
that’s the word on the street but I thought they should have been a  
bit more careful."

The viewership of India’s 24-hour news channels jumped 180 percent  
thanks to the live coverage that began with the first assault on the  
night of Nov. 26, according to Television Audience Measurement data  
for the week ending Nov. 29, reports the Dawn’s New Delhi  
correspondent Jawed Naqvi.

There has been widespread criticism in India of how the live coverage  
of the 60-hour-long battle between commandos and the 10-odd gunmen  
was handled. "Fears have been expressed that a few of the victims  
died because TV anchors identified their locations and the gunmen  
used the information to direct their fire with precision," wrote Naqvi.

"But the government is evidently also worried about social  
repercussions in a communally charged situation the attacks have  
created."

The Indian information ministry has now sent an advisory to all TV  
channels with guidelines regarding coverage of the Mumbai terror  
attacks, that seeks "an assurance that channels would avoid running  
stories pertaining to the recent attacks, which might make the  
terrorists feel that their operation was successful,’’ wrote Naqvi.

So will saner voices prevail over public anger and the Indian  
government’s need to act ‘tough’ in this situation, given that this  
is an election year with huge political pressures?

Siddharth Varadarajan, deputy editor of the respected Indian daily  
‘The Hindu’ believes that, despite the setbacks, it will be the  
former. "I am not pessimistic about relations," he said in an  
interview with ‘The Real News’ on Dec. 3. "I don’t subscribe to the  
idea that relations will take a nose dive and there’ll be a conflict."

Pointing out the "unprecedented advances" over the past five years,  
he noted that Indian authorities have been careful not to blame the  
Pakistan government, but "elements from Pakistan" for the Mumbai  
attacks.

And, despite the political opposition’s attempts to "ratchet up their  
rhetoric and to paint the government into a corner,’’ he stressed the  
need to appreciate the depth of the unprecedented public sentiment  
"against politicisation of this tragedy".

In the end, international pressure on Pakistan to cooperate with the  
probe will prevail, believes Varadarajan. "We have this curious  
situation where if the Pakistan government and Pakistan army are  
serious about the long term survival and viability of Pakistan as a  
nation state they’ll find it in their interest to fight these groups."

(END/2008)

o o o

The Post - December 7, 2008
	
CALL TO ZARDARI WASN’T A HOAX, SAYS SHERRY

Indian diplomatic circles deny Parnab made any call to president

by Naveed Miraj

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has seen a burgeoning media in the last few  
years. Whether its role has been positive or negative the posterity  
will definitely give a judgment on that.

But there are some obvious signs that our media is sometimes driven  
by very petty interests. One of the prime interests for any  
journalist is that he should file a story that is exclusive and  
shattering to say the least. But this prime interest turns into petty  
one when the issue is of national importance and when the source and  
his intent is not truly understood by the journalist.

The story that kept the media abuzz the whole of Saturday was that  
the call from Indian Foreign Minister Parnab Mukhurjee received by  
President Zardari On November 28, 2008 was a hoax. The purported call  
contained very threatening words was in fact a hoax and the security  
and defence alert by Pakistan was unnecessary in the follow up of the  
call.

Government of Pakistan has though denied that the call was  
transferred to the president without verification. The federal  
information minister in her statement said all calls received in the  
presidency are processed in accordance with an intricately laid down  
procedure. It is not possible for any call to come through to the  
president without multiple caller identity verifications. She said  
this while commenting on reports in a section of the press about a so  
called hoax call to the president on November 28. The call under  
reference too was processed verified and crosschecked under the same  
procedure, she added.

"In fact the identity of this particular call, as evident from the  
CLI device, showed that the call was placed from a verified official  
phone number of the Indian ministry of External Affairs", said Ms  
Rehman.

According to Indian diplomatic sources Indian Foreign Minister Parnab  
Mukhurjee did not make any phone call to President Zardari on  
November 28.

Ms Rehman said "Some of the press comments were based on a briefing  
given to a few journalists by a responsible senior official of a  
neighbouring country based in Islamabad". "The government of Pakistan  
condemns such efforts aimed at using the media for negative diplomacy  
at a time when tensions are running high between the two countries"  
she added.

It is interesting that the source of the story now appears to be an  
Indian diplomat who met some journalist Friday night. It is amazing  
how the Indian diplomat was able to use some very senior journalists  
for his own purpose. The only purpose that seems apparent in the  
attempt to plant the story is that the credibility of the president,  
the prime minister and the government is undermined. Once this  
purpose is achieved it become easier to shift the blame on the Inter  
Services Intelligence (ISI) that it was involved in the Mumbai affair  
and that since the government is not in control therefore it has no  
clue of the things happening right under its nose.

While this is obvious that India is trying to put a lot of pressure  
on Pakistan and trying to destabilise it, but what has gone wrong  
with some of the sane elements in the media is the real question.

The compulsion of Indians now to try and walk away from their  
intransigent attitude is also apparent. Despite all their attempts to  
paint Pakistan's security agencies black they have not been able to  
provide proofs that can test complete scrutiny of the independent  
investigation.

Pakistan has already offered joint investigation if the proofs  
available are provided fully and transparently. But this again has  
not been proven and the knee jerk reaction of Indians has not been  
appreciated in much of the world. Their own media barring some of the  
newspapers and TV channels that are trying to play a jingoistic role  
has started to question the capacity and capability of the Indian  
security agencies. India also needs to divert attention from the  
incident now as increasing evidence is now available that some home  
grown Indian groups may be behind the whole incident.

Pakistani media however needs to be cautious and should not be part  
of any games and negative diplomacy being carried out by India.

o o o

Dawn
December 6, 2008

A HOAX CALL THAT COULD HAVE TRIGGERED WAR

by Zaffar Abbas

ISLAMABAD, Dec 5: Nuclear-armed Pakistan went into a state of ‘high  
alert’ last weekend and was eyeing India for possible signs of  
military aggression, after a threatening phone call made to President  
Asif Ali Zardari by someone from Delhi who posed himself as the  
Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Whether it was mere mischief or a sinister move by someone in the  
Indian external affairs ministry, or the call came from within  
Pakistan, remains unclear, and is still a matter of investigation.  
But several political, diplomatic and security sources have confirmed  
to Dawn that for nearly 24 hours over the weekend the incident  
continued to send jitters across the world. To some world leaders the  
probability of an accidental war appeared very high.

It all started late on Friday, November 28. Because of the heightened  
tension over the Mumbai carnage, some senior members of the  
presidential staff decided to bypass the standard procedures meant  
for such occasions, including verification of the caller and  
involvement of the diplomatic missions, and transferred the late- 
evening call to Mr Zardari. The caller introduced himself as Pranab  
Mukherjee and, while ignoring the conciliatory language of the  
president, directly threatened to take military action if Islamabad  
failed to immediately act against the supposed perpetrators of the  
Mumbai killings.

As the telephone call ended many in the Presidency were convinced  
that the Indians had started beating the war drums. Within no time  
intense diplomatic and security activity started in Islamabad.  
Signals were sent to everyone who mattered about how the rapidly  
deteriorating situation may spiral out of control. Prime Minister  
Yousuf Raza Gilani was advised to immediately return to the capital  
from Lahore, and a special plane (PAF chief’s) was sent to Delhi to  
bring back the visiting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi early  
in the morning on Nov 29 even when he was already booked to return by  
a scheduled PIA flight the same evening.

It was against this backdrop that some top Pakistani security  
officials briefed a few media persons on Saturday afternoon about a  
“threatening phone call” by the Indian external affairs minister to  
“someone” at the top in Islamabad. They also talked of Delhi’s  
decision to put its air force in a state of “high alert”, and  
described the following 24 to 48 hours as extremely critical. One of  
the top security officials even announced the possibility of shifting  
tens of thousands of troops from its western border with Afghanistan  
to its eastern frontier with India.

Sources said that during this period the Pakistan air force was at  
the highest alert. Among the citizens of Rawalpindi and Islamabad,  
who may have noticed fighter jets screaming overhead on Saturday  
morning, none would have known that the warplanes were mounting  
patrols with live ammunition. One senior official refused to call it  
a panic decision. “War may not have been imminent, but it was not  
possible to take any chances,” he told Dawn.

Intense diplomatic efforts that started late on Friday went on  
throughout the following day. During this period phone calls were  
made from Islamabad to some of the top officials and diplomats in  
Washington, including Condoleezza Rice, and the US Secretary of State  
called Mr Mukherjee and others in India in a night-long effort to  
understand what might have gone wrong, and to persuade the two sides  
to bring down the temperature.

During this time, it was also revealed, an attempt was also made by  
the mysterious caller, claiming to be the Indian external affairs  
minister, to speak to the US Secretary of State, but due to specific  
checks laid down by the Americans, the call couldn’t get through to  
Dr Rice.

These sources said that when Condoleezza Rice contacted Mr Mukherjee  
in the middle of the night to inquire about the reasons for hurling  
such threats at Pakistan he reportedly denied having any such  
conversation with President Zardari. The Indian minister reportedly  
told Dr Rice that the only telephonic conversation he had was with  
his Pakistani counterpart on Friday when Mr Qureshi was still in  
Delhi. And, according to him, the tone of that discussion was quite  
cordial --- a fact later confirmed by the Pakistani foreign minister  
at a news conference in Islamabad on Saturday.

As the international effort to defuse the tension intensified,  
matters started to clear up and by late Saturday evening calm began  
to prevail. But sources admit that those 24 hours made many people in  
Islamabad and Delhi and, perhaps in Washington, quite anxious.  
Perhaps for this reason, the Americans decided against taking any  
further chances, and Condoleezza Rice was asked to travel to the  
region to personally ensure the return from the brink.

Since then investigators have tried to track down the number from  
where the call was made. Some of the senior diplomats and  
intelligence officials are convinced the source of the mischief was  
someone in the Indian external affairs ministry. They base their case  
on the Caller ID, which established a Delhi number. On the other  
hand, the Indians have told the Americans that no call was made from  
any of the numbers of the external affairs ministry, and have hinted  
at the possibility of manipulation in the caller ID.

But, as admitted by a top official in Islamabad, the more serious  
issue was the by-passing of the standard operating procedure to put  
such a call through to the President almost directly without even  
verifying the identity of the caller. In such a situation, the  
procedure is to take down the number and the message, consult the  
foreign ministry, involve the high commission, and then to call back  
on the given number. The sources said none of this was done.

As a result, the hoax call to the presidency triggered a major  
diplomatic crisis. Since then, the authorities have reworked the  
procedures by putting enough checks and filters for such high-level  
contacts in order to avoid embarrassment in the future.

____


[10 ] BBC News - 4 December 2008

Are Mumbai attacks a chance for peace?

The attacks could have been carried out as a diversionary tactic

Guest columnist Ahmed Rashid in Lahore argues that rising tension  
between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks might provide the  
two countries with an opportunity to extract a more lasting peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7764475.stm

_____

[11]

After the Attack on Mumbai
by Bernard D'Mello

Why do young men in the prime of their lives choose to carry out  
brutal acts of vengeance, organised but senseless acts of violence,  
which they perceive as the only possible means of redressing deeply  
felt injustice, knowing full well that, as a consequence, a macabre  
death awaits them?
[. . .]
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/dmello061208.html

_____

[12]

The News, December 6, 2008

  Mumbai: overcoming denial

by Praful Bidwai

No words can fully capture the horror and revulsion caused globally  
by the Mumbai terror attacks, which killed 180 people, in a  
meticulously planned military-style operation executed with ruthless  
precision. The Indian and Pakistani public is deeply shocked at this  
butchery of innocent civilians, which cannot be justified as  
retribution for the gravest of injustices, and wasn't so rationalised.

Yet, the revulsion hasn't produced spontaneous people-to-people  
mutual solidarity, nor a civil-society discussion on how we can  
jointly fight terrorism, which menaces both countries. Rather,  
there's a retreat into the shell of nationalism. A competitive blame- 
game has broken out to accuse "the other side" of jingoism, while  
practising it oneself in some measure or other.
[. . .]
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=150897


_____

[13]

Kashmir Times
December 7, 2008

INDIA WAKES UP?

by Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal

One consequence of the Mumbai attacks has been that citizens have  
begun to be more conscious of their lack of security and of the  
complacent politicians who they blame for the present crisis and many  
have begun speaking out, organising peace rallies or taking part in  
discussions. The buzzwords are: 'Wake up India' or taking cue from a  
television channel 'Enough is enough'. It's all for the sake of  
peace, the rage against terror attacks and violence. Most demands  
however defy any sense of 'peace' with much noise about attacking  
terror networks in Pakistan and gearing up the security and  
intelligence networks with more and more police and intelligence  
sleuths. Militarised civilian spaces and war with Pakistan; is that  
what the Wake up India call is all about? And pray how do conflicts  
usher in peace?

It is apparent that such calls for peace are only inspired by myths.  
Myth number 1: that if terror camps in Pakistan are busted, all will  
be well in India. Certainly the entire nation cannot be suffering  
from a sudden bout of amnesia as to forget the recent revelation of  
homegrown terror within the territories of India for which neither  
Pakistan, nor global Islamic militant groups can be held responsible.  
Besides, where is the substantial evidence against Pakistan? If the  
terrorists involved in the attack were Pakistani citizens, something  
that Pakistan government has so far denied, how does that make the  
Pakistan State or its entire people tacit supporters? Even if there  
is some indication of some ISI logistical support there is no sense  
in blaming the entire State for various reasons. First, that Pakistan  
itself is reeling under a far greater threat of terror attacks of  
such magnitude in all its major cities, leave alone the north west  
frontier province or Wazirstan areas. Obviously, the State does not  
want so much terror within its own territories but is unable to  
control the monster it may have unleashed decades ago. A nation that  
is itself in jeopardy cannot be blamed, instead this is time for  
joint efforts to check the growth of terror lest it consumes the  
entire sub-continent.

Secondly, if at all there is ISI, Navy or Pakistan army support to  
the terror groups that were operating in Mumbai, it is not known at  
what level this existed. After all, it is equally a fact that  
elements within Indian intelligence agencies and security forces,  
many at higher levels, have been involved in not just creating  
disturbance across the border but also within Indian territories. How  
can one forget the recent revelations about Malegaon, about stories  
on Kargil war or how mass infiltration at J&K borders was taking  
place in the early nineties? The Kandhar hijacking has been a subject  
of enigma for many, though some blind 'patriots' who feel that  
pushing everything under the carpet would make the country a better  
place to live in have happily looked the other way. Or take the  
parliament attack case. What makes people shut their ears and eyes to  
Afzal Guru's story, about working for some security force officers?  
The blunders of 2001-2002 that cost the nation dearly and played  
havoc with the lives of the people on the borders should not be  
repeated. Obviously, there is a rot that needs to be dealt with on  
this side, as should Pakistan deal with miscreants within its own  
agencies and forces. But the point is that much of terror, if not  
sponsored by these agencies is certainly being abetted, for reasons  
that need to be grappled with, instead of beginning shadow boxing and  
finding, rather creating an 'Enemy' outside. Homegrown terror appears  
to be as much out of control of India, as it is in Pakistan, if it is  
not the case of lack of an initiative. And terror is not just to do  
with jihadi groups. India's home-grown terror comes in varied forms  
like anti-Sikh riots, Gujarat holocaust, Orissa, besides SIMI and the  
militarized saffron brigade. So, the enemy inside needs to be fought  
before India forgets that those who live in glass houses should not  
throw stones at others.

Much of the focus of the suddenly 'awakened' Indians is also pivoted  
around the demand for gearing up the intelligence and security  
networks by recruiting more sleuths and personnel. It is being argued  
that one police or security personnel for every 1000 people is not  
enough. Perhaps, they should visit Jammu and Kashmir, or the north- 
east, where the ratio of one personnel for every 25 people has done  
precious little to stop grenade attacks. Rather this extreme  
militarization has played havoc with the lives of the people - gross  
violation of human rights abuse, cross-firings and rapes are things  
that have become routine in these parts of the world. Besides, the  
intelligence networks have co-opted civilians to a great extent in  
playing the role of informers and spies that has not only vitiated  
the atmosphere, but has also badly polluted the social and cultural  
ethos. The awakened citizens must remember that more is not merrier,  
neither does it define efficiency. Efficiency comes with cleansing  
the rot, rooting out corruption from within the intelligence and  
security agencies, making them accountable and transparent, but the  
problems are just being brushed under the carpet.
Consciousness about issues facing the nation is a must and citizens  
must make the government including the politicians at the top  
accountable by asking questions. But a consciousness bereft of a  
sense of history, politics or the knowledge of facts can only make  
this awakening more dangerous. Let us reflect a little on facts  
before we start pouring out on the streets in rage and be doomed to a  
fate where no government can ensure the safety of its citizens.

_____

[14]

The Hindu
December 5, 2008

MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR PAKISTAN’S TRANSITION

by Haris Gazdar

India might now do well to resist the temptation to behave as the  
U.S. did after 9/11, and show the world how a responsible and  
confident Asian power carries itself even when in pain.

Asif Ali Zardari’s conciliatory approaches to Afghanistan and India  
have become anathema to opinion-makers who see jihadi militants as  
legitimate resistance in Afghanistan, Kashmir and elsewhere.

Not falling in love with Mumbai betrays a character flaw in my book.  
Visiting harm upon the queen of cities cannot bring good to anyone,  
no matter how just the cause or urgent its remit. She sustains  
millions, keeps hope alive among tens of millions others, nurtures a  
freedom of the spirit, and retains an original urban charm through  
the fastest rat-race in Asia. For all this and more she is to be  
cherished, not brutalised.

It is fitting that the bruised Mumbai of Jinnah should now ask if the  
state he helped create is willing to pass its sternest test yet.  
Politically it matters little if Pakistan, its government, its  
military, rogue elements within the secret apparatus, or jihadi  
militant groups based there had a hand in the carnage or not. Whether  
there were ships or boats, satellite phone calls, Punjabi accents,  
Deccan Mujahideen, a Lashkar-e-Taiba trademark, Al-Qaeda links, or  
home-grown Indian insurgents are also details. The deed is already  
done. What matters now is what happens next. Crises are pregnant with  
opportunities for survivors, and this one is no exception.

Pakistan’s tentative transition to democracy has been under fire from  
all sides. The focus is on the elected government — not merely for  
its ability but also on its intent. This is as it ought to be in a  
democracy, except that the whole point of a transition is that  
democracy cannot be taken for granted. For the transition to work,  
two other partners have to be fully and responsibly on board. First,  
the transition is premised on the willingness of the Pakistani  
military to hand over office and to share power with elected  
civilians on a durable basis. For democrats this risky compromise  
becomes defensible only because revolution is not an option.

Second, the prospects of the transition seem promising only because  
of the current configuration in regional politics. Foreign powers  
including the U.S., but not only the U.S., are expected to play a  
helpful role because they at long last share common ground with  
Pakistani democrats. This shared goal is that the state in Pakistan  
must become a genuine factor for ensuring regional stability rather  
than promoting instability. Elements in the Pakistani state that  
openly — sometimes under U.S. sponsorship — exported terrorist  
violence abroad are the same ones that for decades conspired  
successfully against democracy at home.

But now Mumbai must have urgent answers to her questions. Will the  
Pakistani military actually share power with the civilians? Will the  
Pakistani state demonstrably draw a line under jihadi militancy? Will  
foreign governments share some of the political cost of the  
transition with Pakistan’s fledgling democrats? The queen will not be  
denied her answers, but her questions offer rare opportunities for  
the protagonists to credibly reveal their intent, courage and wisdom.

Pakistan’s elected government has been embattled from the start. It  
enjoys de jure power, but is cautious about testing its actual  
authority over the military. An economic crisis inherited from the  
previous regime has left elected parties with no space to satisfy  
their constituents. Inflation and currency depreciation threatened to  
spiral out of control until stabilisation measures and signing up  
with an International Monetary Fund programme last week eased the  
crisis somewhat. Better news is expected in the next quarter as  
pressures subside.

There is mixed news on the war in the north against jihadi militants,  
too. The civilian leadership publicly praises the military for doing  
its bit, but party cadres remain privately sceptical. The Awami  
National Party (ANP) leads the coalition government in the North West  
Frontier Province, and its leaders and supporters, along with members  
of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), are under constant threat of  
assassination by jihadi militants. Local ANP and PPP supporters in  
the north suspect that the military is still in cahoots with the  
jihadis. The concerted military action in Bajaur suggests that the  
corner might have been turned, but the distrust on the ground makes  
it difficult to be sure.

Meanwhile, unmanned U.S. drones routinely violate Pakistani air space  
to target militants, but inevitably also kill civilians. There is a  
rising chorus led by the right that the elected government should  
stop the war against jihadi militants, confront the U.S. frontally  
over the drone attacks, or simply slink away to make room for more  
robust Pakistani and Islamic nationalists to take over.

Asif Ali Zardari’s government presents an easy target to an educated  
elite that substitutes conspiracy theories for analysis. His  
conciliatory approaches to Afghanistan and India have become anathema  
to opinion-makers who see jihadi militants as legitimate resistance  
in Afghanistan, Kashmir and elsewhere. These jihad sympathisers are  
joined by those on the left who, amazingly, believe that the Taliban- 
Al-Qaeda will become a normal political party once the American  
troops go home. A web of right and left conspiracy theories —  
involving various combinations of the U.S., Israel, and India —  
creates a comfort zone that hard facts cannot penetrate. Talk-show  
hosts on private television channels “prove” how India itself was  
responsible for the attack on Mumbai, and former generals rally  
people for war with India which jihadi brothers will join.

The rightist campaign is encouraged by the speculation that the  
military has no intention to go through with the transition, and that  
“patriotism” will prevail over Mr. Zardari’s diplomatic overtures.  
Whether the military leadership itself is involved in the propaganda  
effort to undermine its potential power-sharer is unknown. But sooner  
or later the question of the military’s willingness to share power  
was going to be put to the test. The skill with which the elected  
politicians handled Pervez Musharraf’s departure in August should  
have alerted the top brass that a stable civilian government will be  
no walk-over. Senate elections in March will have contributed to  
consolidation, as would have the administration changeover in the  
U.S. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are famously committed to bifurcating  
military cooperation and assistance to the democratic process.

But the test has come sooner rather than later. Who knows if the  
timing of Mumbai had anything to do with the struggle within the  
Pakistani state, but it is worth remembering that Mr. Musharraf’s  
coup followed Kargil, which followed Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s bus yatra  
to Lahore. Mumbai is relevant to Pakistan’s transition because  
regardless of any evidence of Pakistani complicity, the policy of  
reconciliation with India requires that assistance requested should  
be rendered. The civilian leadership was right to respond positively  
to India’s request for high-level representation of Pakistan’s secret  
agencies, and it was wrong to wriggle out of its commitment. The  
rethink may have been forced by the military’s displeasure.

Nevertheless, the ball is now in the court of the military. By  
falling in line with the civilian government’s diplomatic effort they  
will reveal their intention to be on board in the transition.  
Moreover, they will send out a credible signal that jihad is no  
longer an option they will support, even against India. If the  
opportunity is not grasped now, the transition is as good as over  
even if the civilian government is allowed to limp along for a while.  
Signals that the military receives from the outgoing Bush  
administration over the next few days will be critical in shaping its  
attitude to the current crisis and the transition.

For its part, India might do well to resist the temptation to behave  
like the U.S. after 9/11. Beating the war drums may or may not  
distract attention from India’s own security lapses and political  
failures, but it will certainly corner the civilian government in  
Pakistan into irrelevance pending execution. A politicised response  
will allow the culprits off the hook, while a diplomatic, legal and  
institutional approach can help to pin them down, besides moving the  
transition along in Pakistan. Why should an angry India care either  
way? Because it may want to show the world how a responsible and  
confident power in Asia carries itself even when in pain.

(Haris Gazdar works as a Senior Researcher with the Karachi-based  
Collective for Social Science Research. A longer version of this  
article will be published in the Economic and Political Weekly of  
December 6, 2008.)

_____


[15]


LETTER TO PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA FROM COALITION OF CONCERNED  
INDIAN AMERICANS
Re: US Policy on Hindu Nationalist Groups in India and the US

http://www.sacw.net/article393.html

_____


[16]

Anveshan and Students' Federation Of India
invite you to
A Public Discussion Mumbai Terror Aftermath: The Way Forward
Wednesday, 10th December 2008

4.00 p.m.

Muktadhara Auditorium,
18-19 Bhai Veer Singh Marg (Near Gole Market), New Delhi

Chair

Aijaz Ahmad
Literary Theorist and Political Commentator

Speakers

Siddharth Varadarajan
Deputy Editor, The Hindu

Jayati Ghosh
Professor of Economics, JNU

Md. Salim
Deputy Leader of CPI (M), Lok Sabha


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.