The public mood in India is undoubtedly anti-Pakistan and the central government is under considerable pressure to make Pakistan pay for the Mumbai outrage. The normally measured Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh talked about the involvement of "external elements" responsible for the Mumbai attacks. In his Thursday address to the nation, the Prime Minister warned neighbouring countries that “there would be a cost if suitable measures are not taken by them” to prevent use of their territory for attacks against India. This was part of his "talk tough" speech where he declared: “We will go after these individuals and organisations and make sure that every perpetrator, organiser and supporter of terror, whatever his affiliations or religion may be, pays a heavy price for these cowardly and horrific acts against our people.” Although he did not specifically mention Pakistan, everybody knew which neighbour he was referring to.
The Indian Foreign Minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, on Friday clarified that the government had information suggesting that the militants involved were from Pakistan. He urged the Pakistani government to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in their country. Subsequently, media reports quoting intelligence sources said that the interrogation of one captured terrorist had revealed that the whole lot were from Pakistan and belonged to the extremist Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation, which is believed to have been created by the ISI in the 1990s to fight in Kashmir and other parts of India.
Pakistan responded immediately by calling it a knee jerk reaction and urging the Indian government not to engage in a blame game. The Pakistani Foreign Minister, Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who was visiting India when the terrorist attacks took place, went on to insist that there were no terrorist camps in Pakistan and there was no evidence that the terrorists had indeed come from Pakistan. He hinted that pulling up Pakistan for the outrage was motivated by domestic political compulsions. Qureshi went on to add that " There are extreme and rogue elements in every society. In February the people of Pakistan spoke and rejected extreme fringe elements.” He asserted that the Pakistani people had rejected terrorism by voting in a democratically elected government, which was taking on terrorists. He concluded that such incidents were aimed at disrupting the India-Pakistan dialogue process.
Later, the Indian government demanded that Pakistan send its top spy, the chief of the notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate to New Delhi to help with investigations. The ISI has often been accused of masterminding terrorist assaults on India. This was tantamount to telling the Pakistani government that if it was serious, then it should be prepared to send the person most likely to know about the attack to India for grilling by its secret services. The demand was meant to humiliate the Pakistani establishment which initially agreed to the demand and then backed out. The ISI said it would not send its chief but a representative to New Delhi.
Clearly, this latest terrorist outrage was once again destined to lead to a severe strain the relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. According to most analysts, the Indian government would be under intense pressure in the days to come to take on Pakistan and somehow exact a cost. More so, because the current government's domestic detractors have slammed it for being soft on terrorism and the complete failure of the authorities to prevent the Mumbai carnage has added to public disaffection. "The Mumbai attack is a slap on the face of the current government", said a high ranking retired intelligence officer, adding that "The government is seen to be weak and ineffective". According to one view, unless India can somehow make such attacks costly on Pakistan, they would keep recurring.
While anti-Pakistani sentiments are somewhat inevitable, the Indian government does not have a whole lot of options. Rupturing relations at this juncture will only further alienate Pakistan and an uncooperative Islamabad will not help the Indian cause. When Parliament was attacked in 2002, the Indian government reacted by boosting troops at the border and increasing the heat on the Pakistani Army. The borders became volatile, several soldiers on both sides died in intermittent shelling and firing, but little was achieved. At no point, for instance, could the then government contemplate hot pursuit into Pakistan or authorise commando type operations against terrorist camps within Pakistan. Similarly, even today action or utterances set off by outrage will not help. What is required is a relevant strategy to combat terrorists in South Asia as a whole. In order to chalk out such a strategy, the governments in the region need to act in concert and not unilaterally. But more important perhaps is to understand that Pakistan today is a nation divided.
The first thing to remember is that the democratically elected coalition government in Pakistan led by Asif Ali Zardari has personally been affected by terrorism. His wife, the late Benazir Bhutto, was gunned down by terrorists because she had publicly announced that her priority would be to clear Pakistan of terrorists. Zardari is working in conjunction with the United States and other Western powers to take on terrorism within his country in every possible way. He and his US sponsors have forced the Pakistani Army to launch major operations against terrorists controlling the country's lawless tribal frontiers. As a result, Zardari today is himself a potential target for terrorists. Significantly, Zardari had been one of the first to react to the Mumbai attack by offering all possible help.
In the circumstances, slamming Zardari would achieve little. If anything it would further undermine his and his government's already tenuous position in the Pakistani polity. The trouble with Zardari that he is a nobody in the Pakistani power structure and he has nothing to offer. The real power is still the Pakistani establishment where the Army has the first and last word. The Pakistani Army's world view does not necessarily match Zardari's.
At another level, Pakistani is torn between two competing political forces. The majority of Pakistanis clearly support mainstream, democratic, progressive processes while the Islamists demand a return to a pristine Islamic past. Ever since the late Pakistani dictator, Gen. Zia ul Haq, boosted Islamist elements in the country's polity to defeat mainstream political groups like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Awami National Party (NWFP) and the MQM (Sindh), a fundamental faultine has emerged in Pakistani politics. In many places, as in Sindh and the NWFP, the rift between the mainstream parties and the Islamists have led to violent confrontation.
At the same time, most Islamist parties, like the Jamaat e Islami (JEI) and the Jamaat e Ulema i Pakistan (JUI) do not necessarily espouse violence or reject the democratic process. Terrorism and overthrow of the state is considered legitimate by the more extreme groups, who are fanatics. Problem is that many of these fanatic groups have been raised by the Army to fight against India and in Afghanistan. Significantly, the Lashkar-e-Taiba was one such "sarkari jehadi tanzeem" created by the Army as a India specific terrorist outfit. This is why the Lashkar is still allowed in Pakistan, albeit under another name, and still gets patronage.
Given these deep divisions in Pakistan and the fact that several power centres exist, slamming Pakistan as if it is one single entity would be a grave mistake. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis have rejected terrorism, as has been seen in various opinion polls and anti-terrorism rallies. To hold all Pakistanis responsible for Mumbai's carnage would be grossly unfair.
The real target of India's ire should be the Pakistani Army which continues to hold relations between the two countries hostage to its own compulsions. While the Pakistani Army is fighting al Qaida and related terrorists in the frontier areas, it has done nothing against the anti-Indian groups, who have only gone underground and become more discreet in their activities in recent times. The Pakistani Army still controls key institutions, including the foreign and military policy establishments. Many experts are of the view that little will change within Pakistan as long as its polity is not de-structured, meaning that the Army is not brought under civilian control.
All evidence suggests that the Pakistani Army still calls the shots. For instance, on Kashmir, Zardari's's view was that CBMs like border opening and trade will gradually solve the problem. Gen. Kiyani's statements on Kashmir are in opposition to the peace initiatives begun during the times of General Pervez Musharraf. Syed Salahuddin, the chief of the United Jidah Council, said: "Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani has, during a visit to the Line of Control, translated the sentiments of 17 crore people by giving a statement to remain committed to the Kashmir cause.... This is a historical fact that without Kashmir Pakistan cannot remain durable, sovereign and secure.Notrt surprisingly, border incursions have increased since Kiyani took over as chief. It is significant that Kiyani is also the first ISI chief to head the Army.
If the Army is the real power in Pakistan, India strategy should be geared to punish the Army and not the civilian leadership. The question of course is how to punish the Pakistani Army and the anti-Indian groups that it covertly supports? Does New Delhi have any instruments capable of achieving this? The key to prevention lies in answering these questions and not trying to bludgeon Pakistan with plain outrage.
[This article was published in the New Delhi based weekly Current 1-7 December 2008]