Geopolitical Analysis

By K.N. Pandita

Some circles, including members in opposition, have accused the Prime Minister of inadequate response to Pakistan’s abetment of Mumbai carnage on 26 November 2008.  Obviously, they expected a bizarre retaliation keeping in mind the magnitude of loss of human life and property inflicted on the nation. The contention is that our national pride is not only challenged but also badly bruised.

However, despite cogent substance in these comments, we need to understand that it was and continues to be a very sensitive and critical situation into which the government has been dragged. Thanks to the matured statesmanship of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues that the entire matter has been handled with utmost caution and wisdom, and also with unusual show of courage and decisiveness.

Re-visiting the sequence of events, we find that the government has reacted promptly and considerately to the catastrophe. With the input coming from agencies that irrefutably proved ISI’s involvement in the carnage, New Delhi adopted a two-pronged strategy. It got into urgent contact with the heads of big powers especially US, UK and Russia, and conveyed to them the magnitude of the attacks and the involvement of ISI.  Simultaneously, it decided to launch a blitzkrieg at the terrorist training camps and the headquarters of anti-India radical Islamist organizations in Pakistan. New Delhi’s demand that Pakistan send the chief of ISI urgently to New Delhi was an indirect message to Pakistan that India meant business.  PM’s critics should not jump to the conclusion that Islamabad snubbed him for making a pretentious move.

As this forceful demand reached Islamabad, the Americans rang the bell of alarm and found sense in the proposition that two security chiefs discuss ground situation. Not nursing hawkish intentions and essentially interested in de-escalation of tension in the region, Pakistani President under persuasion by the Americans, agreed to the Indian demand. In the meanwhile, Indian media, unnecessarily trying to be too smart, overdid its part and rushed to attribute right or wrong disclosures to the lone captive Ajmal Amir. Finding that India had irrefutable evidence in the form of a captured terrorist in her custody, ISI chief realized that he would have to cut a sorry figure when his Indian counterpart showed him the video recording. He would have got trapped in either way. If he accepted evidence then his country had to answer involvement in its covert support to terrorism. If he rejected, he would be exposed before the international community. This would land him and his country into disrepute. Thus within hours of President Zardari agreeing to send his ISI chief to New Delhi, there was a U-turn in Islamabad on the issue.

While messages were being exchanged between the two capitals, Islamabad sensed the fragility of its denial and at the same time received increasingly threatening messages from Washington saying it might not be able to contain New Delhi. All that New Delhi was prepared to do was to wait for the urgent visit of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In New Delhi, Rice was stunned to observe the tense and threatening stance of the Indian foreign minister as well as the prime minister who told her in no ambiguous words that with the clear proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the carnage, the US had to be either on the side of India or against it. She was jolted to see the blue print of New Delhi’s strike-plan for terrorist training camps in PoK and elsewhere in Pakistan. She pleaded for restraint, the usual reaction of a mediator but was confronted with yet another demarche from Indian side. New Delhi allowed her only 48 hours within which Islamabad was to show that it acted against those who were at the root of Mumbai mayhem.  Stunned Condoleezza made a detour to Islamabad, summoned the hawks and delivered the Indian ultimatum adding that Washington could not stand in the way of India exercising her right to defend her sovereignty and integrity including hot pursuit of Pakistan-based anti-India terrorists clusters. US CJCS Admiral Mullen had already indicted ISI.

The message was delivered, and Islamabad began getting its act together. Zaki’ur-Rahman, the mastermind of the suicide attack plan was arrested at a terrorist training camp near Muzaffarabad after a brief shoot out, and Jaysh-e Muhammad chief Maulana Azhar was detained somewhere in Punjab. India has given a list of 20 terrorists hiding in Pakistan and demanded their arrest and extradition to India.  The situation has become very embarrassing for Pakistan because India has asked the Security Council to declare LET and Jamaat’d-Dawa as terrorist organizations. Will Islamabad try to defend them?

These developments bring to light some important indicators of far-reaching consequences. The first is that the elected government in Pakistan is powerless against the dominance of the Army and ISI combine. Secondly, Washington has second thoughts about its traditional policy of protecting Pakistan against dismemberment. Maybe it is not averse if that justifiable dismemberment comes through the instrumentality of India. Thirdly, the whole world has come to know that Pakistan continues to abet and sponsor terrorism on her soil and thus has become the cradle of international terrorism. By stating that the Mumbai suicide attackers were not Pakistanis or that the captured terrorist may not be a Pakistani national, Pakistani President has smashed his credibility in the eyes of world leaders. Lastly rupture between the Army-ISI combines and the civilian government of Islamabad is on the cards, which is likely to lead to wide-spread civil disturbance in that country.

As far as the question of an all out war is concerned, India cannot avoid taking a calculated risk if Islamabad continues suffering from hate-India disease. In all probability, Pakistan and particularly its Army and ISI who rule the roost, are now convinced that a repetition of this dastardly act would mean a disaster for Pakistan from which it may or may not recover.  The hoax telephone call alleged to have been made by the Indian foreign minister to the president of Pakistan is the handiwork of ISI. A foreign minister is not supposed to convey threat messages telephonically to the President of another country. Declaration of war against any foreign country is a cabinet decision and is announced by the head of the government only after the supreme commander of defence forces (meaning President of India) gives his/her assent. The purpose of ISI in this subversive act was to pressurize Pakistani President into succumbing to the diktat of the Army and ISI chiefs.

In final analysis, the Mumbai carnage and its aftermath have closed the book of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India and opened a new chapter of diplomacy and regional strategy in South Asian region. Congressman Pallone has demanded that US aid to Pakistan is linked with Pakistan’s ability of winding up terror training camps and organizations on her soil. More voices will be added to this demand and Washington will be forced to revisit its overall policy towards Pakistan. It could also lead to anti-terror solidarity between India, Israel and the US to be further strengthened by Russia and France supporting this solidarity. In desperation Pakistan will use the weapon of mass destruction either directly or through the conduit of Islamic fidayeen.  India has to be prepared for any eventuality.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).