Winners and losers
Saturday, 6 December 2008
Najmuddin A Shaikh
Mumbai, the commercial and financial capital of India, has suffered a horrendous terrorist attack. In a siege that lasted some 60 hours, 173 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. On the very first day, local security forces confronted two terrorists who had attacked Mumbai's principal railway station and then gone on a shooting spree in other areas. One of them died, while the other was captured alive. Initial Indian press reports said two other 'fidayeen' had been arrested but mention of them disappeared thereafter.
The normally circumspect Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the terrorist group responsible was "based outside the country", and warned that there would be a cost for these countries if "suitable measures are not taken by them".
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went further, stating that "elements from Pakistan" were responsible. Both however carefully avoided suggesting that the Pakistani government was involved, leaving open the possibility that they would genuinely seek Pakistan's cooperation in combating terrorism, the common enemy.
India has had a series of terrorist attacks in the last year, and these have claimed more lives than anywhere else except Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The Indian press has pilloried the government for the security lapses that made this attack possible and for the poor performance of the security forces that permitted just 6 people to hold out for 60 hours.
The ruling party was also contesting 6 state elections which were due to conclude on December 4, and is girding its loins for national elections which must be called at the latest by May next year. Searching for a scapegoat even before evidence is available was understandable, particularly when the leading opposition party, the BJP, was accusing the government of being soft on terrorism and on Pakistan.
Much less understandable was why the demarche presented to the Pakistani high commissioner asked for the arrest of the same people that it has been asking for since 1993 in some cases, and since 2002 in most others. Mukherjee called it a list that had been adjusted somewhat, while Pakistani officials said it was identical to the list the Indian home secretary had presented earlier in Islamabad during talks with his Pakistani counterpart. He did not dwell on what evidence they had of the involvement of Pakistan-based elements in the Mumbai carnage. And yet at this time, surely the focus should have been on presenting such evidence as the Indians had been able to gather and on seeking Pakistan's cooperation in corroborating their findings and bringing the perpetrators to trial.
Perhaps this is because the Indians do not have much hard evidence. They have officially released very little information but according to Indian press reports based on briefings from official sources, it would appear that despite three people having been arrested, only one has survived and that all the information that the Indians have gathered has come from him. Reading the Hindu, one of the more sober and professionally sound newspapers, one sees a measure of confusion in the information that has been gathered from this single source.
On December 1, the Hindu's Praveen Swami reported that the terrorist was named "Amjad Amir Kamaal, a resident of the small village of Faridkot in the Okara district of Pakistan's Punjab province. He and his colleagues had sailed from Karachi and then boarded a Merchant vessel, the Al-Husseini. After an encounter with an Indian Coast guard vessel they had abandoned the merchant vessel and taken over an Indian fishing boat called the 'Kuber'. Kamaal was said to be from a landless family and had dropped out of school after the fourth class. He had been promised a payment of Rs 1.5 lakhs for participating in the attack."
Swami also reported that a satellite telephone had been recovered from the Kuber by RAW and that several telephone calls had been made from that phone to the Lashkar's operations chief, going by the code names of Muzzamil, Yusuf and Abu Hurrera.
On December 2, Swami reported that the name was Mohammad Ajmal Amir Iman who had been trained in camps in Kashmir and who, with his partner and 4 other two-man groups, sailed out of Karachi equipped with arms and ammunition (200 rounds each), explosives, a GPS and mobile phones that had been acquired in New Delhi and Kolkata. Near Indian coastal waters, they hijacked an Indian fishing boat and then on approaching Mumbai switched to an inflatable dinghy. There is no mention of a satellite phone or of the Kuber, but Iman reportedly told his interrogators that the Lashkar headquarters remained in touch with the group, calling their phones through a voice-over-internet service. Swami surmised that these calls were intercepted and recorded by RAW.
This seems to give the lie to press reports about valuable information having become available from the monitoring of the satellite phone and from the personal belongings that the attackers had allegedly left behind in the Kuber.
The American press, primarily the New York Times, relying on a press conference by the Mumbai deputy police commissioner, Rakesh Maria, maintained that the name of the one surviving attacker was Ajmal Amir Qasab. Inspector Maria also said there were only 10 attackers in all, denying earlier suggestions by public officials that there had been more. Earlier reports in the same newspaper had, however, put the number of terrorists killed at 11 with 1 having been captured. It had asked how so much mayhem could be caused by so small a group.
Given this doubt about the size of the assault party, another report in the same newspaper talked of the landing of one party of ten men outside a fishing village in Mumbai and surmised that they were joining "a larger terrorist force, which included some attackers who, unconfirmed local news reports say, had embedded themselves in Mumbai days before the attacks."
The BBC has reported that its Urdu and English service reporters in Pakistan visited three villages called Faridkot in Southern Punjab to try and find out what they could about the man known as Iman or Kasab. They failed to find a trace of him in any of the villages.
Even while condoling with the Indians on the grievous loss they have suffered, we have to conclude that there is much more that remains to be discovered or revealed about the attackers, their motives and the remarkable security lapses. We have also to assume perhaps that evidence is not being provided because it is not available.
Let us be clear however that we do have a problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable forces in Pakistan that are intent on sabotaging any efforts at Indo-Pak reconciliation. Whether or not the Indians provide us with evidence, we should initiate inquiries ourselves. Regardless of the nationality of the attackers, the Indo-Pak process has been set back. Hardliners in India will be encouraged, ignoring India's own long-term interests to exploit Pakistan's many vulnerabilities. Both countries have lost.
The Americans, desperately anxious to ensure that Pakistan continues its present intensified effort to eliminate terrorists from the tribal areas, will do everything they can to prevent a further deterioration in Indo-Pak relations. But they will also advise - if not demand - that more be done against groups that see India as a fair target for their activities. They may concede that India's evidence is spotty but we must realise that for Washington, it is Pakistan that will in all likelihood be the venue from which the next terrorist attack will be launched on the US. It is this as much as sympathy for their strategic ally that will drive their demarches. This is the message we have probably received from Admiral Mullen and will be the message that Secretary Rice delivers. This will not be well received by the Pakistani establishment. America too will have lost.
The only people who have gained are those who desire chaos in Pakistan and in the region.
— Daily Times of Pakistan.
Mumbai, the commercial and financial capital of India, has suffered a horrendous terrorist attack. In a siege that lasted some 60 hours, 173 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. On the very first day, local security forces confronted two terrorists who had attacked Mumbai's principal railway station and then gone on a shooting spree in other areas. One of them died, while the other was captured alive. Initial Indian press reports said two other 'fidayeen' had been arrested but mention of them disappeared thereafter.
The normally circumspect Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that the terrorist group responsible was "based outside the country", and warned that there would be a cost for these countries if "suitable measures are not taken by them".
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went further, stating that "elements from Pakistan" were responsible. Both however carefully avoided suggesting that the Pakistani government was involved, leaving open the possibility that they would genuinely seek Pakistan's cooperation in combating terrorism, the common enemy.
India has had a series of terrorist attacks in the last year, and these have claimed more lives than anywhere else except Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The Indian press has pilloried the government for the security lapses that made this attack possible and for the poor performance of the security forces that permitted just 6 people to hold out for 60 hours.
The ruling party was also contesting 6 state elections which were due to conclude on December 4, and is girding its loins for national elections which must be called at the latest by May next year. Searching for a scapegoat even before evidence is available was understandable, particularly when the leading opposition party, the BJP, was accusing the government of being soft on terrorism and on Pakistan.
Much less understandable was why the demarche presented to the Pakistani high commissioner asked for the arrest of the same people that it has been asking for since 1993 in some cases, and since 2002 in most others. Mukherjee called it a list that had been adjusted somewhat, while Pakistani officials said it was identical to the list the Indian home secretary had presented earlier in Islamabad during talks with his Pakistani counterpart. He did not dwell on what evidence they had of the involvement of Pakistan-based elements in the Mumbai carnage. And yet at this time, surely the focus should have been on presenting such evidence as the Indians had been able to gather and on seeking Pakistan's cooperation in corroborating their findings and bringing the perpetrators to trial.
Perhaps this is because the Indians do not have much hard evidence. They have officially released very little information but according to Indian press reports based on briefings from official sources, it would appear that despite three people having been arrested, only one has survived and that all the information that the Indians have gathered has come from him. Reading the Hindu, one of the more sober and professionally sound newspapers, one sees a measure of confusion in the information that has been gathered from this single source.
On December 1, the Hindu's Praveen Swami reported that the terrorist was named "Amjad Amir Kamaal, a resident of the small village of Faridkot in the Okara district of Pakistan's Punjab province. He and his colleagues had sailed from Karachi and then boarded a Merchant vessel, the Al-Husseini. After an encounter with an Indian Coast guard vessel they had abandoned the merchant vessel and taken over an Indian fishing boat called the 'Kuber'. Kamaal was said to be from a landless family and had dropped out of school after the fourth class. He had been promised a payment of Rs 1.5 lakhs for participating in the attack."
Swami also reported that a satellite telephone had been recovered from the Kuber by RAW and that several telephone calls had been made from that phone to the Lashkar's operations chief, going by the code names of Muzzamil, Yusuf and Abu Hurrera.
On December 2, Swami reported that the name was Mohammad Ajmal Amir Iman who had been trained in camps in Kashmir and who, with his partner and 4 other two-man groups, sailed out of Karachi equipped with arms and ammunition (200 rounds each), explosives, a GPS and mobile phones that had been acquired in New Delhi and Kolkata. Near Indian coastal waters, they hijacked an Indian fishing boat and then on approaching Mumbai switched to an inflatable dinghy. There is no mention of a satellite phone or of the Kuber, but Iman reportedly told his interrogators that the Lashkar headquarters remained in touch with the group, calling their phones through a voice-over-internet service. Swami surmised that these calls were intercepted and recorded by RAW.
This seems to give the lie to press reports about valuable information having become available from the monitoring of the satellite phone and from the personal belongings that the attackers had allegedly left behind in the Kuber.
The American press, primarily the New York Times, relying on a press conference by the Mumbai deputy police commissioner, Rakesh Maria, maintained that the name of the one surviving attacker was Ajmal Amir Qasab. Inspector Maria also said there were only 10 attackers in all, denying earlier suggestions by public officials that there had been more. Earlier reports in the same newspaper had, however, put the number of terrorists killed at 11 with 1 having been captured. It had asked how so much mayhem could be caused by so small a group.
Given this doubt about the size of the assault party, another report in the same newspaper talked of the landing of one party of ten men outside a fishing village in Mumbai and surmised that they were joining "a larger terrorist force, which included some attackers who, unconfirmed local news reports say, had embedded themselves in Mumbai days before the attacks."
The BBC has reported that its Urdu and English service reporters in Pakistan visited three villages called Faridkot in Southern Punjab to try and find out what they could about the man known as Iman or Kasab. They failed to find a trace of him in any of the villages.
Even while condoling with the Indians on the grievous loss they have suffered, we have to conclude that there is much more that remains to be discovered or revealed about the attackers, their motives and the remarkable security lapses. We have also to assume perhaps that evidence is not being provided because it is not available.
Let us be clear however that we do have a problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable forces in Pakistan that are intent on sabotaging any efforts at Indo-Pak reconciliation. Whether or not the Indians provide us with evidence, we should initiate inquiries ourselves. Regardless of the nationality of the attackers, the Indo-Pak process has been set back. Hardliners in India will be encouraged, ignoring India's own long-term interests to exploit Pakistan's many vulnerabilities. Both countries have lost.
The Americans, desperately anxious to ensure that Pakistan continues its present intensified effort to eliminate terrorists from the tribal areas, will do everything they can to prevent a further deterioration in Indo-Pak relations. But they will also advise - if not demand - that more be done against groups that see India as a fair target for their activities. They may concede that India's evidence is spotty but we must realise that for Washington, it is Pakistan that will in all likelihood be the venue from which the next terrorist attack will be launched on the US. It is this as much as sympathy for their strategic ally that will drive their demarches. This is the message we have probably received from Admiral Mullen and will be the message that Secretary Rice delivers. This will not be well received by the Pakistani establishment. America too will have lost.
The only people who have gained are those who desire chaos in Pakistan and in the region.
— Daily Times of Pakistan.