Author: V. Sudarshan
Publication: Outlook
Date: August 28, 2006
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060828&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=7
Introduction: Sadly, the US and UK still gloss
over terrorist attacks in India
Contrary to popular belief, the Indian government
has reliably learnt from Western interlocutors that Pakistan didn't tip off
British intelligence agencies about the plot to simultaneously blow up planes
over the Atlantic.
In fact, it was the other way around: Britain had been monitoring the terrorist
module for months, listening to conversations and exchange of messages among
its members. On the basis of this intelligence, Britain asked Pakistan to
arrest the seven suspects-five Pakistanis and two British nationals. "Britain
provided the lead and Pakistan only acted on the lead," a senior government
source told Outlook. Pakistan was consequently making a virtue out of necessity
when it claimed credit for helping bust the plot to blow up planes.
Government officials say last week's London
incident is a reconfirmation, if any was needed, that "the crucible of
terrorism is still Pakistan". But they doubt whether the linking of the
terror plot to British citizens of Pakistani origin will dissuade the West
from pursuing a segmented approach to the war on terror-turning a blind eye
to terror attacks against India and insisting on a crackdown on only those
groups targeting US, British or European interests.
For long, Indian officials have argued that
Al Qaeda, Taliban, and the militant groups operating in Kashmir-the LeT, the
Hizbul Mujahideen or the JeM-are part of the same terror network, albeit operating
under banners of different organisations.
Senior
officials claim that the US and the UK mask the terrifying reality that Pakistan
presents, glossing over terrorism emanating from there that doesn't target
them. "This is the same instinct that led them to distinguish between
'good' Taliban and 'bad' Taliban. That myopia continues, and is deliberate,"
says a senior source.
Three questions arise: Is the West asking
Pakistan to also act against terror groups targeting India? If yes, what emboldens
Musharraf to disregard this advice? Is it just diplomatic doublespeak?
It isn't that the West is unaware of what
is transpiring in Pakistan, insist officials. They draw attention to a speech
delivered by British PM Tony Blair on August 1 to the Los Angeles World Affairs
Council. Calling for a renaissance in the West's foreign policy, Blair had
said, "Of course, the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and reactionary
view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for years before September 11.
In Chechnya, India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim nations,
atrocities were occurring. But we didn't feel the impact. So we were not bending
our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had barely heard of the Taliban.
We were rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps
it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned. We
were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents.
They were part of a growing movement." This is an elaboration of a theme
Blair had enunciated in March this year. Then he had said, "In Chechnya
and Kashmir, political causes that could have been resolved became brutally
incapable of resolution under the pressure of terrorism."
Notwithstanding Blair-speak, there have been
instances of the West being deliberately insensitive to India's plight. Take
US assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher's comments after the Mumbai
blasts. He suggested that the US had not seen any evidence of Pakistan's involvement
in the blasts. "I think we need to be led by the evidence before we start
drawing conclusions and make policy pronouncements on it (Mumbai blasts).
So that will be our attitude, and I think that should be the attitude of others
as well," Boucher reportedly said.
His statement sparked diplomatic sniping.
Responding to the scepticism expressed by
the senior US official, government spokesman Navtej Sarna said, "The
US was part of the St Petersburg (G-8) statement. If you see any inherent
contradiction in any statements coming out of that (US) government, you have
to address that government."
Some days later, a normally reticent and media-wary
national security advisor M.K. Narayanan tore into the sentiments Boucher
had expressed. "It was one of the most unfortunate statements that could
happen after the Mumbai blasts," Narayanan fumed on a TV programme, Devil's
Advocate, on July 30. He added, "I think what we have at this point is
definitely stronger than what America had when 9/11 took place or immediately
thereafter.... The question is, are you willing to believe it? If you are
willing to believe it, I think we will provide the same kind of story."
Narayanan went on to say that Boucher had made the statement before consulting
New Delhi about the evidence it had.
Although there has been a marked change in
the West's ostrich-like attitude regarding India's concerns, officials say
that there is, even in the most recent conversations, a steadfast refusal
by Western interlocutors to acknowledge that Musharraf has to be pushed to
root out the terror network that still flourishes in Pakistan, without making
any distinction between the Lashkar-e-Jahangvi, the LeT or Al Qaeda. New Delhi
comes away from these meetings with the distinct and disturbing impression
that neither the US nor the UK want to prod Musharraf to the point where he
can make a real difference in India's fight against terror.
For the moment, it seems the existing policy
of the West towards Musharraf will continue. It stems, senior officials say,
from a feeling in Washington and London that
* Musharraf is, in the circumstances prevailing
in Pakistan, their only hope there;
* In the war against terror Musharraf does
deliver, even if it is partial and only under compulsion;
* The West sees Pakistan's future as being
more secure with Musharraf as both president and chief of the armed forces;
* Both Washington and London have a large
troop presence in Afghanistan. British troops have moved into Afghanistan's
tribal badlands that border Pakistan. The Pakistan army's cooperation has,
therefore, become a critical factor.
* Considering the unrest in the region-from
Lebanon to Iraq to Palestine to Afghanistan to the looming crisis in Iran-the
West feels there's no sense in complicating their relationship with Pakistan
any more than it already is.
Officials say that not once has Pakistan passed
on any information or intelligence or any tip-off alerting New Delhi to any
threat against India. All indicators-the level of infiltration, electronic
chatter from handlers across the LoC, violence in the Valley-suggest that
Pakistan has either turned a deliberate blind eye to anti-India/Kashmir-related
activities or is tacitly encouraging it. These activities had reduced during
the days after Musharraf's visit to Delhi last April. Then it had seemed as
if a switch had been turned off.
Senior Indian security planners are also worried
that there has been irresponsible analyses in the country that Indian Muslims
are getting increasingly snared in the web of terrorism. This worry cannot
be understated: it is just a couple of steps short of tarnishing the entire
community, creating a veritable circle of alienation and anger.
