The Single Lesson of Mumbai by Meenakshi Ganguly

The Single Lesson of Mumbai
by Meenakshi Ganguly

Info RSS Meenakshi Ganguly is Senior Researcher for South Asia with Human Rights Watch


After the Mumbai attacks the Indian and Pakistani governments moved to the brink of nuclear war. But only cooperation to defeat terrorism will offer the peace they both crave.

Mumbai – Pakistanis woke up to fighter jets circling their cities last month. There were reports of troops being hastily moved to the India-Pakistan border. Gallows humor about nuclear fry-ups over Christmas started up, even as world leaders made urgent phone calls to try to get tempers under control.

It is now a full month since Mumbai came under attack and the mood in the subcontinent has shifted somewhat. What might have resulted in a joint effort by India and Pakistan to root out terror networks has turned into mutual recrimination.

Nothing would surprise those who sponsored the Mumbai attacks more than if the governments in Delhi and Islamabad worked together to defeat terrorism.

Each country feels persecuted. Each believes the other to be a serious threat. Each nation, armed with nukes and prodded by extreme views that spew venom and vengeance, remains at risk of being forced into hard line positions, even full scale war.

The Mumbai attacks were so well planned and so coolly carried out that it felt like a military operation. As the assaults were brought under control, allegations soon emerged that the perpetrators belonged to the Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Toiba, a terrorist organisation banned in 2002 but which has continued to operate openly (such as after the 2006 Kashmir earthquake, when it mounted a large domestic relief operation under a new name, the religious charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa).

At first, Pakistan accepted that some of its citizens may have been involved in the Mumbai outrages and promised action if evidence was provided. The government even promised to send the head of its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency – long accused of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as terrorists in Kashmir and in other parts of India -- to help with the investigation. But, as if to make clear who really holds power in Pakistan, the ISI and the Pakistan army vetoed the suggestion and the Pakistan government quickly reversed its decision.

Pakistan continues to say it will act against terrorists in their midst if provided with convincing evidence, but it asserts it has yet to be given such information either by India or the US. Nevertheless, once the United Nations Security Council listed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a terrorist organization, the Pakistani government did launch operations against some terrorist groups based in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

As pressure mounted on Pakistan, sympathy for the Mumbai victims in Pakistan turned to anger. President Asif Zardari’s government, at risk of being accused of being CIA or Indian puppets for cooperating with the investigation, changed their statements to denial and warned an edgy population to brace for war.

There is a lot of history and mutual distrust to cut through to end this cycle of mutual suspicion and blame. Pakistan accuses India of backing terrorist groups in its Balochistan province. It says India always blames Pakistan when attacks take place on its soil, forgetting that Pakistan has been an even bigger victim of terrorism and that some attacks in India have been carried out by Hindu nationalist groups. Then there are the repeated attacks on Indian Muslims, such as the notorious 2002 government-sponsored carnage in Gujarat.

India, for its part, counter-charges that many attacks within its borders emanate from Pakistan. It is beyond dispute that some in the Pakistan security establishment have sponsored attacks in Kashmir and in other parts of India. India says it does not want war, but it needs to be given reason to believe that the Pakistani government – and, more importantly, the army and ISI – will dismantle terror groups and put an end to cross-border attacks.

Until this happens, India says it has to keep its options open, not least because of strong public pressure for a military response to the violence. Fortunately, thus far the Indian government has kept its head, perhaps realizing that an attack on Pakistan will only strengthen the most nationalistic and anti-peace elements in Pakistan and weaken the Zardari government’s resolve to fight terror. (Zardari’s wife, Benazir Bhutto, was killed by terrorists on December 27, 2007.)

If either side fails to act wisely, the losers will again be ordinary people and the result may be a further diminution of human rights. In India, Muslims are at risk of arbitrary arrest and torture or are targeted by hate groups. In Pakistan, increased tensions with India are likely to lead to the recruitment of more terrorists, including children, who will be encouraged to believe that arbitrary killing serves their cause.

Unfortunately, the government in Pakistan has inherited the discredited legacy of previous military regimes in Islamabad. For instance, after 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf claimed to be acting against groups like Lashkar, but the exercise turned out to be purely cosmetic. This time, India and the international community want to ensure that temporary detentions are not used merely as a means of deflecting international pressure. Nor do they want Pakistan to use a perceived threat on its eastern border as a reason to stop assisting NATO military operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the western Afghan border.

India would like some of those detained by Pakistan to be extradited for trial in India. But the two countries have no extradition treaty. More important, perhaps, no Pakistan government would survive the tide of public anger if it were to hand over its citizens to India. Already there is criticism of the rendition of Pakistan citizens made after the 9/11 attacks on America. International human rights law already prohibits handing over anyone in danger of being tortured – which, given India’s woeful record, would be the likely case.

India knows full well that the battle against terrorist groups with deep seated grievances can be long and hard. It has struggled for decades with separatists in its northeastern states. And it has failed to end the conflict with Maoist rebels operating in more than a dozen states. It also needs to deal with the many home grown groups engaged in organized violence, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who receive support from major Indian political parties and are tolerated by law enforcement agencies.

Both countries need to remember that the only way to end terrorism is to work together and follow methods which respect human rights. As Zardari wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support network is huge. Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world.”

Nothing would surprise those who sponsored the Mumbai attacks more than if the governments in Delhi and Islamabad worked together to defeat terrorism.

Meenakshi Ganguly is Senior Researcher for South Asia with Human Rights Watch.