An International Failure

Re: Stuka

``… The same reason that the West deals with Arafat. Actually I take that back. It`s unfair to Musaharraf to be compared to Arafat…``

Actually, the West has almost given up on Arafat. He is facing ultimatums now, and Gen. Zinni has returned to where he came from. Check out Dennis Ross` op/ed piece in this Sunday`s edition of the Washington Post

``… The fact that the Pakistani general staff did not visualize the extent of the Indian reaction…``

That was precisely my point - that they took a reckless decision. How COULD they have not estimated Indian or the international reaction? Tell me, will Bangladesh sit by idly if we went and occupied a village? NO - so, why would it have been any different? If the Parliament attack succeeded even more `brilliantly`, the global condemnation would have been worse on Pakistan.

``… However, it is better than a sea blockade, which is tantamount to a formal declaration of war…``

I agree that evidence of some sort should be presented in order to give the General a reason to crack down on the 2 organizations, failing which a sea blockade could be one of the options to be considered.

Crossing the LoC is also a declaration of war, as is launching covert operations. I think that if Musharraf refuses to take any action against the 2 organizations (LeT and JeM) India should seek political cover under the recently passed UN resolution that calls for states to stop support for terror, or else face sanctions. And until the world figures out a way to deploy `surgical` sanctions against the rogue elite in a totalitarian regime, a sea blockade will shed the least blood (or no blood at all) while delivering clear choices to the General, and give him time to crack down on the 2 organizations, while also making clear India`s intentions. Given Pakistan`s precarious finances, a blockage of imports or exports should facilitate a cracking down on 2 organizations, and will present the choices to the General quite starkly.

A hot border war and a covert war will kill many on both sides, and should be a last resort - the gains are going to be temporary unless India is willing to permanently occupy PoK - I do not think that that is India`s priority. I think that all actions (presenting evidence to taking action) should be above board and in the open (w/ covert actions only as an add-on to overt actions, but not alone).

``… We have a problem controlling Naxalites, sundry Islamic groups etc….``

But we make no bones about the fact that Naxalites and the ULFA and you-name-it organization is the scum of the earth. They get no patronage from the President of India or his forces. Look at it another way, if Musharraf had made Pakistan inhospitable to the LeT and JeM, would India have been upset with him, even if the attack had succeeded? They would have been viewed just as the organizations that you mentioned are - rogue organizations, and not worthy of souring Indo-Pak relations. Sri Lanka knows that India is dead set against the LTTE, but India knows that Musharraf considers the JeM and the LeT as freedom fighters.

ref: Ferozek #222

Dear Feroze,

I very much fear that the civil war that you want in Pakistan might be closer that you imagined it to be. It seems highly probable that Pres. Musharraf`s hold on power is slipping. If Indian assertions about ISI involvement in the Parliament attack have some basis, and it is clear that the General gains nothing from such attacks, it follows that his hold on the ISI is weakening (despite the recent change of the ISI`s top leadership), and that this agency is following its own agenda. Now combine this with the missing Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, their potentially hundreds of armed footsoldiers who have allegedly crossed over to Pakistan and are looking for a base, their close relationship with the ISI, and you have all the ingredients for a bomb waiting to explode.

-narain

Even if one were to accept the theory that Gen. Musharraf is not completely in control of the Jehadi operations that his organization sponsors, no one can claim that he has NO control. Then the question is : Has he done enough to control the jehadis?

It is clear that controlling these elements involves some costly and painful decisions on the General`s part. The only way he can be induced to take these actions is if it is shown to him, beyond all doubt, that the cost of not controlling these jehadis is even higher. That is where I think Indian policy has failed for the past two decades. Despite making angry noises, India has done little to make Pakistan`s support for terrorism costly for it. Note the continuous reference to Pakistan`s ``low cost`` options of bleeding India.

I support any action by India which would make Pakistan realize that this is no longer true, and that supporting terrorism in India is not just costly, but potentially devastating for it. Overt action is acceptable if we are sure that we can inflict high enough damages with minimum costs to ourselves. Since this is unlikely, a better option would be to use covert operations.

For a long time Indian policymakers have lived under the myth that a prosperous and stable Pakistan is in India`s interests. This needs to be re-examined. History has shown it to be not true in the past, and it is unlikely to become true in the future. It is correct that we need prosperous and stable neighbours, but size does matter. Smaller neighbours are more acceptable than Pakistan sized ones, and it is time that Indian policy becomes sensitive to this.

But first India should present compelling evidence to show the complicity of Pakistan based organizations in the attack to both the Indian and the international audience. If the case is as open and shut as Mr. Advani would like us to believe, then we should let the current international mood work for us, force Pakistan`s hand and see how far this takes us before thinking about other alternatives.

-narain

Stuka # 226

Amriki thi.

Syuka, Akash and Shammi: You are either with us (people of Pakistan) or our enemy. You can not support of Mush while he is quite unpopular with Pakistanis (according to a study by an NGO, he is at 9 percent, much lower than BB or NS. Ras Siddiqui posted the details of the study somewhere). Better improve relations with these two than a person who would have been considered a traitor if not power. He has made only one right decision (supporting US against Taliban) because there was no other option under the conditions. All his devolution plan is an exercise to stay in power through back chanels like Ayub Khan`s Basic Democracy. With 9 percent popularity rating, he is adamant in staying as president on the heels of power derived from COAS position. You are expecting him to change his policies about terrorism. How can you expect such a man to deliver anything material. Don`t you see he still has Hamid Gul`s buddy with similar ideas as his foreign minister. Abdus Sattar should have never been FM on the first place. The guy is a bridge between ISI, Islamists and establishment. Just follow few of his statements. Then he has another minister, Qazi something whose job is just to keep appeasing mullahs and jehadis. This guy goes around pleading to Mulla Awan to not march on Islamabad, pleading Mulla Azhar and Maulvi Saeed not to carry out jehad operations without the approval from ISI and does nothing, not even criticizing sectarian jehadi mullahs.

So how many culprits government of Pakistan or government of Sindh have in custody for the murder of almost 60 doctors? None. If I was member of the families of one of those murderes, I would have filed a case at least naming ISI, Jaish, SSP and LeT as primr suspects. These names must appear somewgere in the FIR as murder suspects or party to aid murderers.

It really does not matter if ISI or Mush knew or helped jehadis to carry out attack on Parliament building; they are guilty by association.

contd from previous post
Stuka #227
``After all they are responsible for a lot more in Sri Lanka, as compared to LeT and JeM in India.````

What is your defination of ``more``? And why are you discounting Let/JeM attacks in J&K? These attacks have claimed lives of both civilians and security forces, and the violence has made any Indian government-initiated normalization of the situation in Kashmir and reparations to Indian Kashmiris, hostage to Pakistani intent. Is the Indian government supposed to ignore this or keep waiting till Musharraf feels the same urgency to end jihad? Well it took Sept 11 in one case.

``The same reason that the West deals with Arafat``

You are assuming Musharraf doesnot approve of the jihad policy. I think this is too optimistic. In either case, Musharraf is our man only if he can deliver. By accusing India of engineering this incident or shielding the perpetuators, he is setting himself up to be called a sellout by the very same jihadi elements and his countrymen at large when he does make peace.

If he is so interested in cultivating peace, why is he painting himself into a corner and making a future change in direction more difficult? Ans: he doesnot see the need for a change in direction.

I think part of the problem here is we are lacking information.

For eg one of the 5? objectives listed in his reasons for joining the US in its war in Afghanistan was protecting the Kashmir cause of Pakistan. Someone needs to ask him clearly what he meant by it.

I also wish someone would take a poll and find out how many %age of Pakistanis think India is behind the Srinagar and N. Delhi incidents.

Stuka #227
``Even the LTTE uses the Indian coastline in remote areas of Tamil Nadu to gain supplies etc. Often times, there are helped by Indian Tamil sympathizers. Should we then allow the Sri Lankans a free reign to come inside Indian territory. After all they are responsible for a lot more in Sri Lanka, as compared to LeT and JeM in India.``

Stuka, flawed comparison. LTTE are Sri Lankan Tamils fighting Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka. India has ceased to extend any official patronage to LTTE or material or moral support. `remote coastline` is despite mainstream Indian opposition, not with mainstream Indian support even among Tamils. I don`t know when was the last time LTTE issued a statement from Indian soil, if anything their cadres were hunted down after Rajiv Gandhi`s assassination. I even remember it was hard to get a house to rent in some localities in Bangalore if one was a Tamil and even vehicles with Tamil number plates were often stopped by the police after LTTE was found to have taken refuge in Bangalore. For my passport I had to make a number of trips to the local police station and submit extra papers because of new procedures put in place after the crackdown on LTTE(and because I refused to bribe them).


LeT and JeM are Pakistani organisations recruiting, funding, training Pakistanis in major cities in Pakistan and fighting India in India, with official patronage from the government and freedom fighter status/religious war status among ordinary Pakistanis who donate money to assist them. Their innocence is argued to the world by no less than the President of Pakistan. Do you see a difference ?

Ref Ferozk #: 204

[India`s experince should not be equated with Pakistan and what needs to be done, because that is a flawed analysis.]

Why should India`s experience not be equated with that of Pakistan? In what way is it a flawed comparison?

Let me remind you that during the Emergency, the middle class was very much in support of the dictatorship. They thought that with no elections in the foreseeable future and with dissent suppressed by the police and newspapers under censorship, India was on the road to setting things staright. After all, the trains finally did run on time!

Yet the poor voted overwhelmingly to reject such arguments and removed Indira Gandhi from power.

Indian democracy is flawed. Political democracy without economic equality, as many like to say, is meaningless. Yet, it was political democracy that removed Indira Gandhi, that removed the Communist governments in the USSR and various East European countries. It is economic development that permits China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore to justify their politics of repression.

[As to Pakistani blind hatred of India, I strongly believe as long as India continues to threaten Pakistan without living up to its threats, Pakistanis will hate India. Pakistanis are tired from listening to all the Indian threats and allegations.]

What threats? Really! Any reference in India to Pakistan is for the purpose of getting votes. Any reference in Pakistan to India is for the purpose of getting more money for the Army. There IS a difference.

I really hope you didn`t mean what you said about a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ylh:

``Any aggression against Pakistan will be answered in a proper fashion.``

Yeah, thanks for stating the obvious. We all thought you guys were gonna role over and play dead.

Sadna

1. If Musharraf can do nothing to stop violence against India, why should we waste time dealing with him? Indian leaders wasted enough time and political space on Nawaz Sharif and Lahore and all to no purpose.

The same reason that the West deals with Arafat. Actually I take that back. It`s unfair to Musaharraf to be compared to Arafat. The fact remains there is a difference between total control and absolute lack of control. I am not a dove by any means. Being a hawk has to be productive, and right now, unless the country is prepared for total war, I see no reason to raise expectations.

2. If Musharraf is so beleagured by out-of-control rogue elements who are working against Pakistani national interests, he and other Pakistanis should have no problem if another country like India uses an outrageous incident like this to go after them.

We have a problem controlling Naxalites, sundry Islamic groups etc. Even the LTTE uses the Indian coastline in remote areas of Tamil Nadu to gain supplies etc. Often times, there are helped by Indian Tamil sympathizers. Should we then allow the Sri Lankans a free reign to come inside Indian territory. After all they are responsible for a lot more in Sri Lanka, as compared to LeT and JeM in India.

Prem,`` she had said, ``never use a concept that you have not first fully explained to your readers. She surely knew one of my faults well.

Did you then say `` Prem naam hai mera, Prem Chopra`` LOL Sorry couldn`t resist.

Shammi:

`` think that if logic alone dictated the flow of events, then Kargil would never have happened. But, it did. I think that one needs to factor in `strategic stupidity/recklessness` as well. ``

Kargil, from the Pakistani perspective, was logical in conception. The ``liberation of Kashmir`` was a feint. The real target was the Indian presence in Siachen. The fact that the Pakistani general staff did not visualize the extent of the Indian reaction, nor the outpouring of international support for India, reflects upon their weakness in macroplanning, not the conception of the military operation itself.

``Crossing the LoC is not the only option. Pakistan is now dutybound (as a signatory of the recent UN resolution on counter terrorism) to stop it. If it does not, then sanctions can be applied on it. Likewise, a sea embargo is not out of the question either.``

I`m not saying it is the only option either. However, it is better than a sea blockade, which is tantamount to a formal declaration of war. IMO, best opinion has been offered by Powell. Present formal evidence to Pakistan, make it open and above board, wait for them to take action and if they don`t, launch covert ops. Croosing the LOC, and a blockade, are both paths of war. The situation does not warrant war at the moment.

re: ylh

``Any aggression against Pakistan will be answered in a proper fashion.``

...yeah, like in 1971?...get a reality check..

Alright, Stuka, let me go over this. I hope you will see that there are no contradictions between what I suggested and what you (and anNy) wrote, except that my post also draws attention to some basic problems that your argument overlooks. IMO your argument is not wrong, just incomplete; and if Pakistan (or, for that matter, India) is to come out of this sorry mess, for God`s sake, truths, even if hard, have to be faced...Otherwise, there is NO hope of things getting better. We should rather tell/listen to the truth and, if wrong, be ready to correct ourselves, than be mealy-mouthed and weak-hearted about these things.

Before taking up my post # 206 let me state my opinion on some things -

1. I do NOT for a moment believe or suggest that Musharraf was in any way involved with or had any knowledge of this attack.

2. I do NOT believe that any Pakistani agencies were directly involved in this either.

3. I do believe that, most likely, the attack was carried out by a group that is not fully under the control of, or whose activities are not fully coordinated by, Pakistani agencies. Their purpose could be to hurt India, Pakistan, or both. If you want to call them `rouge` groups, I have no problem with that except that that will be avoiding a major issue - one that is the source of many of these problems in the first place.

My contention is that we can discuss those real issues, and THEN be optimistic and confident, rather than brush things under the carpet and pray to God that the situation will somehow turn around because some hero of ours is a nice guy. Now, let us consider # 206.

Doctrine of distance and deniability

``Musharraf brushed aside questions about whether he would rein in armed Islamic groups that support fighters in Kashmir, insisting that

the Kashmiri insurgency is ``indigenous``. (1)



``An open policy toward jihad in Kashmir by the new military-led government of Pakistan has emboldened Lashkar. The group boasts 2,500 recruiting offices in Pakistan and reportedly trains more than 40,000 men a year in guerrilla warfare and infiltration tactics`` (2)

``A few years ago no one talked of jihad, and my friends weren`t interested,`` says Islami. ``But now I definitely expect it to intensify. There is a lot more talk about it, and weapons are much more available.`` (3)

``Pakistan`s new chief executive] Gen. Musharraf says there is only one point to make - Kashmir. We agree,`` Lashkar-e-Toiba (4)

``Vajpayee`s throat will be cut in front of Lal Qila (Red Fort Dehli), Bal Thakrey will be dragged in Pattiyala, and Advani will be broken into pieces in Amritsar.`` (5)

``The Musharraf model seeks to covertly ally with the jehadi groups while overtly keeping the mainstream religious parties out of the power loop. This is to enhance and sustain its covert external agenda, while internally maintaining an overtly moderate anti fundamentalist stance for the comfort of the international community whose economic support is critical to Pakistan’s financial viability.`` (6)

``For years, successive governments have been denying military support for Kashmiri militants while jehadi outfits have been openly collecting funds to buy arms and train infiltrators at camps established in Punjab and Azad Kashmir. In these efforts, these groups have received more than a wink and a nod from shadowy agencies that have sought to keep the Kashmir pot on the boil while preserving official deniability.`` (7)

``Hard think on the total deniability policy is required. After all increased Mujahideen political and guerilla activity will be necessary to force India to address the Kashmir question.`` (8)

I can provide scores of additional examples and references to ``further open`` the open secret that Pakistan has tried to follow a policy of ``plausible deniability`` in both Afghanistan and Kashmir.

In a technical sense -

Plausible deniability refer(s) to the security properties of a mechanism that allows parties to claim to others (e.g. a judge) that some information is not in their possession, or that some transaction has not taken place (9)

Pakistani authorities have sought to actively engage themselves in the affairs of Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir while claiming that they have no information about the training and funding of international terrorists within Pakistani borders, and that no such training camps even exist - a piece of fiction that nobody believes.

As McDonald and Kuhn (2000) point out, schemes of plausible deniability work only for SHORT MESSAGES! That has been the basic problem - what could have been an effective short-term tactic, Pakistani leaders have tried to turn into a life-long strategy, and that just doesnt work...No wonder Pakistanis get so mad and upset that nobody believes them.

If one wants to help Pakistan, then one has to face this real credibility problem created by the messed up policies of past leaders. No point in running away from it, just to feel good for a day or two, or even a year.

That was the traditional ``doctrine of deniability``, which is well-understood. By the doctrine of distance and deniability, however, I implied far more. I wrote -

``Musharraf provides them with moral and political support. He winks at the activities of those of his supporters who read his moral and political support as a clear green light to supporting and funding the supporters, financiars, and planners of terrorists.``

I am suggesting a hierarchical, fragmented system, in which the apex is far removed from the operational nitty-gritty at the bottom; and the relationship between the top and the bottom is mediated by multiple intervening leyers, thus by no means seamless. There is a huge amount of autonomy at the bottom, which offers both systemic advantages (increased deniability) and disadvantages (decreased control).

So the Lashkar-e- Toiba man standing in Muridke feel energized and emboldened to think that Musharraf (rather than say, Nawaz Sharif) is at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, even though there is no communication between the two. Musharraf has nothing to do with how the Lashkar man goes about doing his job, or even what job the latter does, except that he (1) propounds and defends ``Jihad`` and (2) supports someone who supports someone else who then supports the supporter of the Laskhar character.

Under such diffused and distanced arrangements, the Lashkar fellow will invariably do a great many things that Musharraf might not have on his own agenda. That in itself does not make Mr. L (our Lashkar man) a rouge. Mr. L will be a rogue ONLY if he goes against CLEARLY ARTICULATED wishes, demands, and policies of Musharraf, and (2) Musharraf actively seeks to punish (crack down on, in anNy`s terms) Mr. L for his transgression. If that doesnt happen, if there is a continued effort ot deny and defend, then Mr. L is by no means a rogue...just a natural part of the fragmented system.

What all this means is that in order to get out of the rat hole (sorry, that is what it is), Musharraf has to -

1. lay out CLEAR policy - basic rules of behavior that NOBODY will be allowed to violate. That is all the more important because, as I showed earlier, Musharraf himself has been in bed with Jihadis until recently. Better to recognize that and deal with it honestly, if the good of Pakistan is what we are after.

2. recognize that just because Musharraf doesnt want to play the Jihadi game now (or, not anymore), that doesn`t mean that Jihadi groups at the bottom wont want to either. So be EXTRA ALERT for ``rogue`` behavior even after the new policy has been CLEARLY articulated and communicated.

3. actively ENFORCE that policy - that is, when there are suspicions of violations, INVESTIGATE, SEEK and PUNISH.

4. recognize that a policy change implies that he may have a whole NEW SET OF ALLIES. Among these new allies will be all decent Pakistanis and Indians who anyways are far far closer to each other than they are to the fringe elements of their own so-called societies. Genuinely REACH OUT to these new and potential allies.

Finally, I do agree that India should give Musharraf a chance to prove that he means business now. As an Indian, I must confess, it is not easy to trust to him. But then, this is the best time for Musharraf to do whatever he wants to do. Jihadis are most discredited. Their tall tales of conquering America and flying Pakistani flags on the Red Fort have turned them into universal laughing stocks, even if demented and dangerous. Musharraf enjoys more power than Pakistani any leader in recent memory. Most important, if Musharraf has really changed his long-term policy and vision, then for the first time in many years, India and Pakistan have exactly the same interest in getting rid of these Jihadi groups...that are so terribly harming both nations.

anNy is right again: if Musharraf fails to act now, it may be too late. He is one hell of an intelligent guy. I hope he also has the vision to do what he must to turn things around.

(1) Pamela Constable, writing in the Washington Post just before the Musharraf Agra visit.

(2, 3, 4) Kashmir dispute as a jihad: Pakistan`s open support of `holy war` emboldens a new cadre of militants. Christian Science Monitor; Boston, Mass.; Mar 6, 2000.

(5) Professor Hafiz Muhammad Saeed of Markaz Ad-Dawa Wal Irshad Lashkar-e-Taiba.`` http://www.markazdawa.org/English/newsandmedia/NEWS/ENGLISH/may2001/may2001.htm

(6) Najam Sethi, the distinguished Editor, wrote in the ``Friday Times`` ( May 18 to 24,2001)

(7) Mazdak http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20010303.htm

(8) Nasim Zahra http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/post-kargil.htm



(9) Roe, Michael. Cryptography and Evidence. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1997

(10) McDonald, Andew, and Kuhn, Markus. StegFS: A steganographic File System for Linux. A Fitzmann (ed.): IH `99. LNCS 1768, 463-477, 2000

Re: SameerJB

Yes, that was my mistake. It was a typo and there should have been a ``not`` in that sentence. Thanks for correcting me! :)

Re: Prem

As far as evidence is concerned, anything tangible, which proves who the attackers were would suffice. Do not take this personally, but this matter is too serious just to base a decision on India`s words as to who the attackers were. If there is evidence, let it be judged by an independent third party and the evidence must be presented before the world. India having ``technical evidence`` is just not good enough, but requires concrete evidence to prove her case.

Pakistan needs a bitter pill of reality to wake up and realize the mess its domestic house is in. For too long Pakistanis have ignored the reality, but events are racing beyond their control and sooner, rather than later, Pakistanis will have to confront reality and deal with it. Mere allegations, even with past precedents, is not enough. If the organizations you mentioned are responsible for this act, let a third party investigate and hold them responsible. India has nothing to lose in this sense, but an independent investigation will merely strenghten its case and India should ask for one. If India is really convinced about the strenght of its evidence, it should feel secure and confident to let the world judge the merits of its case.

These people, who committed this terrorist attack should be exposed to the world!

Pakistanis need to know and understand how they are being maligned in the world. Pakistan, as a nation, has been asleep at the helm too long and it is time it was confronted with facts, and not allegations.

Re: Shammi

First of all, I hope and pray that things never come to the situation, which I dread and mentioned in my post. I will be honest with you and tell you that I see no scope for peace between India and Pakistan and this mutual hatred will one day create disaster for both nations.

I may sound a bit down cast, but it seems that it is the destiny of both these nations to remain mired in conflict. If you see hope for the future, please tell me, because I see nothing worth while on the horizon.

As to your other question, I think that it will be a religious civil war. The jehadi groups and all the religious minded political interest groups in Pakistan have done more to damage Pakistan than its worst enemies combined. Pakistan will have to fight these groups and there can be no future for Pakistan unless it ends the cancerous influence of these groups in its deomestic politics. I do think that this Battle for Pakistan will be won with words, but it will be fought with blood and more blood. I do not want such a situation from becoming a reality, but I see no other option than a confrontation with these groups, if Pakistan wants to progress with the rest of the world.

I understand the implications of this nightmare; I surely do.

A lot of Indians have expressed disappointment in Musharraf, but what you have to remember is that it will take more than a demarche from the Indian government to reverse the last 20 years rot in Pakistani politics and bring the levels of tolerance, which once existed in Pakistan. I am disappointed, but I also know that these things, systematic changes in a nation, do not happen within a news cycle no matter how much we may wish it!

Re: Srisdar

Your nation`s allegations without the presentation of any evidence does create the impression that India wants a pretext to attack Pakistan.

Lets admit one truism. India and Pakistan have never liked each other and the mutual recriminations, on both sides, does not help the overall situation. :)

Ciao