www.spearheadresearch.org

[zahidkramet]

Non-state actors and third-party intervention

Zahid U Kramet

The vicious attack on sundry sites in India’s financial capital Mumbai by a small band of young terrorists has of most recent time been the focus of media attention worldwide -- more so in that it was reported to have primarily targeted visitors of Western extraction. The immediate reaction of India’s press and TV channels (and even India’s Prime Minister) was to parcel off blame to Pakistan. This was not surprising as a number of issues remain outstanding between the two neigbouring countries, not least the one concerning the disputed territory of Kashmir, where the Muslim majority populace continues to protest the presence of the huge contingent of Indian troops to oversee the contentious state elections in process.

As the shock-waves subside, however, it is almost universally being acknowledged that non-state actors were behind the attack which has shaken India to its core and, to India’s credit, the saner council of such luminaries as former security advisor Barjesh Misra, former foreign secretary and defence analyst K Sabramanium appeared to have prevailed. As India bristled all but threatening open confrontation, these wise men pointed out that there was inadequate evidence to substantiate Pakistan’s direct involvement and most likely the attacks were aimed at disrupting the ongoing Composite Dialogue talks, in turn tuned to address the differences that have developed between the two countries over the passage of time.

Analysts, too, seem of the view that singling out Pakistan alone falls short of addressing the problems of insurgencies India reportedly confronts in 16 of its 31 states, rings false, with Indian author Maria Misra, spelling it all out in the November 28 edition of The Guardian under the heading ‘India cannot pin all the blame on outsiders’. She expands to encompass India’s internal frictions including “Naxalites having waged guerilla war for more than 30 years; the Khalistan-Punjab crisis (having) claimed 40,000 lives, and the insurgency in Kashmir another 90,000.” But perhaps most pertinent is her frank admission that “in the late 1980s and early 1990s Hindu nationalist extremists used terrorism as a strategy”.

Add Ms Misra’s equally commendable appraisal of Muslim ‘terrorists’ being subjected to “extraordinary laws and detention and trial in special courts (while) Hindu nationalist ‘rioters’ have been tried in regular courts, or, more usually, not been punished at all”, and you have a venomous brew that must nurture seething discontent from Indian Muslims, whose status, according to the author quoting a recent report, falls even below the “Untouchable” caste of Hindus. In complement to this, columnist Gareth Williams wrote in The Times on the same day under the title ‘India’s Dilemma’, “By calling themselves the Deccan Mujahideen, the terrorists are clearly trying to stress their Indian-ness”, which of itself speaks volumes.

All of this notwithstanding, India has since lodged a formal protest, summoning Pakistan’s High Commissioner in India to the Indian External Affairs Ministry, while the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Anand Sharma has elected to openly indulge in the ‘blame Pakistan’. Fortunately only a few among the international community concur with India’s views of the subject. The journal ‘Foreign Policy’, for instance, expresses dismay at India’s knee-jerk response, warning “It’s amazing how quickly India appears to be falling into the terrorist trap…Some Indian politicians have been less than careful in saying the terrorists were sent by Pakistan, the state, rather than that they came from Pakistan, the country” -- which in any case stands unsubstantiated.

Aryn Baker writing in November 30 edition of Time magazine meanwhile notes under the caption ‘Mumbai: The perils of blaming Pakistan’, “Indian accusations of a Pakistani hand in last week’s Mumbai massacre couldn’t have come at a worse time for the government in Islamabad: As the Taliban insurgency continues to simmer on in the tribal areas along the Afghan border…clashes on Sunday between rival political groups in the southern metropolis of Karachi ... The country is on the verge of economic collapse…forcing Pakistan to accept loans from the International Monetary Fund – but these loans come with stern conditions limiting government spending, the implementation of which will risk inflaming further unrest.”

This belies the accusation of Pakistan being in any position to ferment trouble. Should India persist with forcing the issue however, almost all analysts of note have opined that this would cause the immediate withdrawal of troops from Pakistan’s north- western borders to its eastern flank. The word on Pakistan’s streets is that this would meet with public approval. It would definitely unite political and religious factions on a common platform and announcements to that effect have already been made. Pakistan has repeatedly denied any involvement in the Mumbai attacks, but, as yet, to no avail. The world stands alarmed at the grim prospects of the two nuclear armed neighbours standing at bay and third party intervention may be the only way to defuse this and all the issues that stand as barriers between the two countries. Pakistan is amenable to the thought. India, with its aspirations of great-power status, is apparently still not.