www.spearheadresearch.org

[Spearhead Research]

VOICES

Spearhead Analysis---12.1

The street is abuzz with talk and its voices are loud and clear. It is important that these voices be heard and their ideas understood because in the final analysis public opinion sets the outer limits on policy. Policy makers know this and that is why you have to sometimes shape opinion in support of policies. So what is the street saying?

After the dust had settled on 911 and the US President had talked of the ‘axis of evil’, the ‘smoking gun’ and the ‘Crusades’ the theory surfaced that 911 had been the brainchild of either the Israeli intelligence, the CIA or both working together. Powerful arguments were made and continue to be made in support of this theory and a recurrent theme is the ignoring of earlier intelligence, the easy to follow trail that the hijackers left behind and the skill with which they flew the aircraft into the towers---the fate of the other aircraft being clouded in mystery. This entire argument has been revived, rehashed and is being widely discussed in the context of the Mumbai attacks

A view is emerging that the event in Mumbai was staged by Indian intelligence RAW or Israeli intelligence MOSSAD or the US CIA or all three together. The motive being to bring all three heads together against the specter of ‘Islamic terrorism’---specifically Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Each of the ‘suspect’ countries has its own interests and these are supposed to converge into a single common aim. The fact that the attack came at a period of transition in the US and weakness in Pakistan, is supposed to give credence to these ideas. India is said to be the biggest gainer because it faces serious internal unrest because of Hindu dominated violence and struggles against state oppression. India wants the US and Israel on its side, and the US has been wooing India with the recently concluded nuclear technology agreement. The US Secretary of State is visiting India to show its support, after the Mumbai event. Why else (it is asked) would such a clear trail of external involvement be so easily and quickly found?

Another theory doing the rounds is that home grown Hindu terrorists drawn from the many fanatic and violent Hindu movements within the country have executed the attacks. Hindu violence has been behind the rapes of Christians and Dalits, the rape and terror in Kashmir, the killing of over 2500 Muslims in Gujerat in 2002 and of Sikhs earlier. The recent discovery of the involvement of serving Indian military personnel and the generally sympathetic and supportive role of politicians and police for Hindu extremists is cited as the reason that such a sophisticated attack could be carried out and a trail laid pointing at ‘external involvement’. The fact that the main investigator of the Samjotha Express disaster was the first one killed is said to be the work of people who wanted all such events to remain uninvestigated. It is easy to plant cell phones with SIMS, rubber dinghy’s and trawlers with murdered crews in waters where Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi fishermen operate is the clinching argument given. The hysterical outbursts of Indian media and the outpouring of venom against Pakistan through unsubstantiated allegations add to this explanation of events.

Yet another view is that this is the retaliation by Indian Muslim organizations who are disgusted by the polarization and Hindu fanaticism unleashed in Kashmir after the government bungled Shri Amarnath Land Agitation as well as the earlier Muslim carnage in Gujerat. The many overactive fundamentalist and rapid Hindu organizations that have become very visible and the treatment of Muslims in India are cited as other reasons for the spectacular Mumbai event. India has long talked of Pakistani and Bangladeshi based linkages with such movements within India. In fact one of India’s fears is that the Muslim movements within India would attract external support and become unmanageable if they link with Kashmir and the Maoist and other movements across Central and North Eastern India.

There are no takers for the view that Pakistan as a state could be involved. Even the Deputy Interior Minister of India stopped short of saying this even as he ‘identified’ all the terrorists as ‘Pakistanis’. In fact the general opinion is that Pakistan is not involved and no Pakistan based group has the expertise or the organizational ability to plan and mount such a well orchestrated attack within India. The parallels being drawn with a 1993 event and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament were qualitatively different. There is, however, a view that the powerful and resourceful Mumbai underworld with its long reaches could have funded and supported the attack on its own or with Indian Muslim organizations.

These speculations should not be a surprise and they are bound to continue. The disturbing trend is that there are voices, responsible ones, who think that a confrontation and even a conflict are inevitable. They even think that such an eventuality will bring Pakistan together and give the Taleban and the tribals their rightful place within Pakistan ending the confrontation on the western border that is only there because of US policies. A pervasive view is that India has to act for internal political and international image reasons. After the Kargil conflict India had shot down an unarmed Pakistan Navy Atlantic aircraft on routine maritime patrol well within Pakistan territory. This time, because of the seaward ingress publicized almost immediately, the Indian Navy would be smarting and under pressure to show its muscle. Any such irrational action could be the trigger for escalation. India has also tossed around ideas like ‘cold start’ operations that need not go through the usual confrontation stages-----such an action would be the first step on the escalatory ladder.

There are saner voices urging restraint and reason. Pakistan’s willingness to cooperate and its obvious situation as a target for terror are powerful arguments for a joint India-Pakistan approach to the problem. The US and UK could be influential enablers. The demand for an intelligence agency head to visit India is not reasonable nor is such a visit feasible. It cannot be productive. Such meetings are usually held in neutral third countries and never publicized. Under such an arrangement there can be positive results. India has opted for a federal homeland security type organization. Pakistan has done away with its National Security Council and recently the ‘troika’ resurfaced. There is a need to institutionalize policy formulation, decision making, policy implementation overview, crises management and intelligence coordination in the best and most acceptable manner---this is the fastest road to credibility. Pakistan and India need to come together at multiple levels and rise above the media and political rhetoric that fuels confrontation.
www.spearheadresearch.org