A Blow to War on Terror on Pak’s Eastern Side

…it is not important whether he has links to the Mumbai terror attack, or whether the evidences provided by India are enough; but that being a terrorist only is enough crime for him to be put behind the bar for rest of his life, the evidences for which are to be found in Pakistan itself …

Saurabh Dharmeshwari

Release of JuD chief Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind of Mumbai terror attack, was bound to happen; we all, India and the US and the terror-conscious world, knew it from our past experiences. As India and the US, the two darling states of Islamic terrorists, are upset and fret over the development, the Ayatollahs of Pakistan must be pleased as Punch, maybe even celebrating it in some inaccessible regions of the irregular-democratic-state. I hope you remember Tora Bora.

Suspect more terrorist strikes as it might following Saeed’s release, India is not active with a ready strategy on the expected event as usual. The familiar condemnation of Pakistan government, the loud insistence of bringing perpetrators of terror to justice, the old trick of keeping the doors to bilateral dialogue shut and counting on the US for success of India’s Islamabad mission scarcely have any taker.

Saeed’s release is not as disappointing to a victim of terrorism as the lack of Indian action that could have averted it, is. Revealing Mohammad Ajmal Kasab’s links to the JuD and getting the US get the UN ban the terrorist organization is all what we did on the matter.

Saeed’s release is not as disappointing to a victim of terrorism as the lack of Indian action that could have averted it, is. Revealing Mohammad Ajmal Kasab’s links to the JuD and getting the US get the UN ban the terrorist organization is all what we did on the matter. Handing Islamabad a dossier of evidences that proved links between Saeed, JuD and terrorists of 26/11 – Pakistan termed them as inadequate right then and sought permission to send its own team to India for accumulating further proofs – was a part of routine internal enquiry, not an effort on external affairs front.

While delivering the judgment Lahore High Court only spoke the language of its government, leaving us whining on the success of Pakistan’s ‘revolving door’ policy, the policy of acting against terrorists under international pressure and when it eases off, restoring them to previous position.

India failed to take serious note of two other factors as well – Pakistan’s army offensive on Taliban to keep hold of US goodwill on war on terror, and the annual US report on global terrorism that identified India as the worst terrorist hit state in the world in 2008 but, simultaneously, reconised that Pakistan has begun to realize that bigger threat to the country is from Taliban, not India: a statement seeking to confirm that Pakistan has mellowed stand to its arch rival. That was the second defeat of India after Pakistan’s calling Indian evidences insufficient.

In fact, Saeed’s release was secured the very day the US – which has abandoned all its morality on war on terror with regard to Pakistan – released its annual report earlier last month. Pakistan shrewdly took mileage of ambivalence of the US report.A Pakistan seeing Taliban as a threat, not India, can free Saeed without inviting any cross question from its old ally, the Uncle Sam, for it has been absolved of the charge of harbouring any grudge against India. Forget Pakistan military’s patronage of Taliban and hostility of India.

The US, though reacting oppositely to Pakistan’s expectations after Saeed’s release, is too entrapped in Af-Pak policy to lend ears to India or to act truly honestly on global war on terror in South Asia region.

Unfortunately, India, dried up of an independent foreign policy for Islamabad mission, is biding Hilary Clinton’s visit next month to make moves on the issue, thus only giving enough signals to Pakistan to be further remiss about moving to the Supreme Court to challenge Lahore High Court’s decision which it promised immediately after India and the US reacted sharply to the Saeed’s release.

Closure of bilateral dialogue and decision of not resuming it, is a failed policy, too. A successful policy of terminating a dialogue should pave the way for an international consensus against that state while not inviting any third party mediation at the same time so that the defaulter state is forced back into the dialogue and delivers what it is expected to.

Closure of bilateral dialogue and decision of not resuming it, is a failed policy, too. A successful policy of terminating a dialogue should pave the way for an international consensus against that state while not inviting any third party mediation at the same time so that the defaulter state is forced back into the dialogue and delivers what it is expected to.

Ironically, what we have in case of our neighbour is just the opposite. Pakistan, while seeking out to appease its hard core nationalist offended by action against Taliban, is also seeking to force India back into bilateral dialogue by Saeed’s release, for he might otherwise architect more terrorists strikes in India. We are now resisting against being blackmailed.

Though US is more upfront about Islamabad’s remiss to war on terror than it ever was (it is insisting for Saeed’s neck, Hilary Clinton and Pentagon agree that it is using US aide against India); though Pakistan’s jiggery-pokery has earned it a wide international reputation of not being serious on tackling terror: India needs to independently go ahead on the issue keeping in view that US has never taken a tough stand on Islamabad despite knowing everything, that the US under secretary William Burns is still reportedly exploring possibilities of resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, and that Pakistan has a ‘history’ – that is, Islamabad’s contribution to terrorism is a historical fact.

Of course, India can begin from where it stopped working, the closure of bilateral dialogue. By releasing Saeed, Pakistan has not only mocked at victims of 26/11 but handed us a very good cause of winning international opinion in our favour as well. India should do what it did not when Pakistan termed evidences related to 26/11 as inadequate.

Take up the challenge to convince the world community, of course, the one which is terror conscious and which counts, that after Saeed being declared a terrorist and his JuD banned by the UN, it is not important whether he has links to the Mumbai terror attack, or whether the evidences provided by India are enough; but that being a terrorist only is enough crime for him to be put behind the bar for rest of his life, the evidences for which are to be found in Pakistan itself for he masterminds the terror attacks from Pakistani soil and uses Pakistani nationals for the purpose, for he has Pakistani network and resources at his disposal. If Pakistan is unsuccessful to do so, it is clearly supporting terrorism. 

Yes, India needs to take the matter with the US, too, but differently, more boldly than ever, for it is US funds which Islamabad uses against India. We should broach with Uncle Sam upon the ambivalence of Washington’s foreign policy on South Asia. The US should be asked what changes it is thinking to bring in towards its policy to Pakistan after learning that it is using US funds against India, or what steps it would take if Saeed is never punished, or there are more Pakistan-sponsored terror strikes.

The US should be asked if Pentagon recongises misuse of US funds by Pakistan against India, why its annual report on global terror seeks to establish that India is in good books of Islamabad.

Pakistan cannot be condoned for sheltering terrorists only because it has played a successful drama of acting on Taliban, or because it is a key ally of US on its Afghanistan programme. The US can be made to understand that India cannot become victim of its Af-Pak policy any longer.