Question:
On Thursday, 18/12/2008, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry summoned the Indian Deputy High Commissioner in Islamabad and informed him of its protest against the violation of Pakistani airspace by Indian warplanes. Furthermore, US Department of Defense officials announced that Washington possesses information regarding the Indian Air Force beginning preparations for an attack.
It is noted that although nearly a month has passed since the Mumbai events, they are still evolving without the ruling Congress Party government in India being able to take a decisive resolution on the matter. At times it threatens escalation with Pakistan and demands the handover of suspects; at other times it freezes the peace process with Pakistan. Previously, it accused the group Lashkar-e-Taiba, adding that Pakistani intelligence had trained the attackers. Then the threats subside, and the matter returns to the Indian Parliament discussing the tightening of anti-terrorism laws, as happened on 17/12/2008. Then it returns to escalation by violating Pakistani airspace. This demonstrates the Indian government's hesitation in making a decisive decision regarding these events.
So, what is the reality of the matter? What makes the Indian government hesitant to take a decisive decision regarding these events? Furthermore, were these events local, regional, or international acts?
Answer:
Yes, the Indian government is in a state of hesitation regarding taking a decisive decision about the Mumbai events. The reason is that these events occurred in the pre-election phase in India, scheduled for next May. Therefore, they constitute a major factor in the Congress Party's potential loss in the elections if it does not take a certain action to make the government appear strong. Any action will not restore the government's prestige and confidence unless it is as significant as the Mumbai events, which means effective offensive actions against Pakistan. Indeed, India was on the verge of preparing for that. However, since India and Pakistan are regions of conflict between the influential major powers there—Britain and America—India's movements were placed under the spotlight. Consequently, intensive movements began from both countries in this direction. Britain is trying to portray Pakistan as the aggressor and as being behind the elements that carried out the Mumbai bombings. Meanwhile, America is trying to show that Pakistan is not involved in the events and that it is ready to cooperate in the investigation with India. At the same time, it is applying pressure to prevent India from any effective military action in the region so that the weight of Pakistani power does not shift from the west to the east.
America's intensive and immediate movements after the events, and even during them, its implicit pressure on India, and its attempt to weaken the Indian accusation against Pakistan due to the lack of evidence of its involvement—along with making Pakistan show excessive flexibility toward India to the point of humiliation (such as its readiness to arrest and try any Pakistani proven to have a hand in the events, showing total readiness to participate in the investigation, and then arresting a number of members of Jamaat-ud-Dawa on the pretext of its link to Lashkar-e-Taiba)—all of this has caused embarrassment for the Congress Party government in carrying out any attack. Yet, at the same time, it needs an action to restore its prestige and the people's confidence in its security.
Any action other than military escalation with Pakistan would not match the scale of the event. Since a major military action has currently become unlikely due to the international circumstances created by American movements, the Congress Party government is in a state of confusion. It is looking for a suitable "hot" measure to take toward Pakistan, but at the same time, it cannot. This is the reason for the hesitation.
To understand this matter well, let us return briefly to the sequence of events:
At the end of last month, specifically on 26/11/2008, attacks occurred in the Indian city of Mumbai. Clashes took place between the attackers and Indian security forces that lasted for three days. It was announced that about 200 people were killed and more than 300 wounded. It was mentioned that the number of attackers was ten and that the Indian government had arrested one of them. India accused Pakistan, claiming the attackers came from there, belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and were trained in its camps. It later increased the frequency of accusations until it claimed they were trained at the hands of Pakistani intelligence.
Following these attacks and India's accusations against Pakistan, and as relations between these two countries began to tense up, diplomatic activity intensified from the two colonialist countries that have influence in that region and compete for authority there: America and Britain. Their media and newspapers treated the event as if it were an internal matter affecting their own citizens.
As for America, US Secretary of State Rice visited India on 03/12/2008. In a joint press conference with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the minister became heated after Rice said, "this is a time when everyone must cooperate," and he responded: "I told Dr. Rice that there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks in Mumbai were committed by individuals who came from Pakistan and their directors are in Pakistan." Rice replied: "If the officials are non-government elements, then Pakistan's responsibility is to take sufficient steps against them and cooperate to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice." She added: "Any response from India should not lead to an increase in tension between the two neighbors who have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in '47" (Reuters, 03/12/2008). This means that America does not accuse Pakistan of being behind these events; rather, it implicitly defended it and does not want India to increase tension and subsequently attack Pakistan to avenge the painful blow received by the Indian Congress Party government.
Thus, the intensive American movements after these attacks came to restrain India. This is clear from Rice's meeting with political and security officials in India, where she called on them to exercise restraint. An official in the Indian intelligence service stood up and presented an intelligence report to Rice, saying to her: "Does Washington want us to remain silent? Look, Pakistani terrorists are still infiltrating India with complete freedom across the border regions" (Al-Rai website, 05/12/2008). This website also mentioned, along with the aforementioned news, that military sources confirmed that the US fleet had concentrated large forces following the Mumbai bombings in the Arabian Sea and the Arabian Gulf off the coasts of India, Pakistan, and Iran. This was due to American fears of armed confrontations between India and Pakistan. The aircraft carrier John C. Stennis arrived with 80 fighter jets and 3,200 soldiers on board, bringing the number of aircraft carriers there to three, including the Theodore Roosevelt and the Iwo Jima, which carries a large force of Marines and maritime patrol forces. The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen, also visited India on 02/12/2008.
- After India, Rice headed to Pakistan and praised the Pakistani government, saying: "the young civilian Pakistani government is fully committed to the war on terror and does not wish to associate its name with terrorist elements" (BBC, 04/12/2008). This indicates America's support for Pakistan in the face of India. Similarly, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen visited Pakistan. An official statement issued by the US Embassy in Islamabad stated that he—meaning Mullen—"found among Pakistani officials a clear conviction that the tragedy that occurred in Mumbai represents a dangerous escalation in the development of terrorist attacks and an increasing threat to the entire region" (Al-Jazeera, 03/12/2008), to indicate that Pakistan is far removed from the Mumbai events because it describes them as a dangerous escalation! American visits to Pakistan were repeated, including a Congressional delegation led by John McCain, the former candidate for the US Republican Party. All of this was to support their agents there and to alleviate their fears of India launching a military operation against them, which would force them to withdraw the Pakistani army (which is fighting Muslims for the sake of America in the Waziristan and tribal areas) to the Indian border to respond to potential Indian attacks!
Furthermore, Assistant US Secretary of State John Negroponte visited Pakistan on 11/12/2008 after the Security Council resolution issued on 10/12/2008 regarding placing the Jamaat-ud-Dawa movement and four of its officials on the terrorism list. The Pakistani government arrested them and raided and closed the movement's offices. It appears that America wanted to satisfy and silence India by this; it asked Pakistan to implement the decision immediately without delay, so that India would not launch a military operation against Pakistan, which would embarrass America's agents there—whether President Zardari or Prime Minister Gilani. This would lead to an increase in the already excessive resentment against them by the Pakistani people for fulfilling America's demands in its war against Islam and Muslims. America wants to keep the function of its agents in Pakistan restricted to the war against Islam and Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not for them to be preoccupied with a war with India and leave that front, which is important for America and dangerous for its existence and global influence.
As for the British, they also moved at the highest levels but in a line that does not meet with the Americans. British Prime Minister Brown visited New Delhi on 14/12/2008, met with Prime Minister Singh, and announced his support for the Indian position, saying: "We know that Lashkar-e-Taiba are responsible for the attacks and they must 'answer' for this great tragedy" (Al-Jazeera, 14/12/2008). This is what Brown stated in India, but when he visited Pakistan after India, his position there was to demand that Pakistan fight Muslims, and he expressed readiness to provide $9 million to Pakistan to help it in the so-called war on terror. British newspapers published news accusing Pakistan of standing behind these attacks and that the attackers received training at the hands of the Pakistani army. The Sunday Times stated on 08/12/2008 that it had seen an Indian intelligence report alleging that the ten men who attacked Mumbai were from a group of 500 people who received their training at the hands of the Pakistani army and navy. This newspaper quoted sources close to the Indian intelligence service as saying: "Any new attack on India before the next general elections will make war between the two countries inevitable." This is evidence that the British and their agents in India are looking for a military operation against Pakistan that would restore the Indian people's confidence in the Congress Party government before the upcoming general elections.
It is well known that the Indian Congress Party is deep-rooted in its agency and loyalty to the British, and it is heading toward elections in May 2009. The scales are tipping in its favor because of what is published and broadcast regarding India achieving an increase in economic growth under its era, which created economic prosperity, in addition to the major achievements it showed in scientific progress, space exploration, and arms development. Thus, it hopes for success in the upcoming elections. When these recent attack events occurred in Mumbai and shook India and its government violently, the opposition parties in India—led by the pro-American Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which fell in the May 2004 elections—found a golden opportunity to shake the position of the Congress Party government. These parties accused Prime Minister Singh and his government of weakness regarding the security issue and inability to catch the thread of those responsible for these attacks, as mentioned. Thus, the embarrassment of the Indian government increases as it approaches elections in a few months. It is also known that the BJP government fell after several attacks and bombings that occurred during its era, and it did not accuse Pakistan of being behind them but rather accused the Islamic student movement inside India. Nevertheless, it was accused of weakness, inability, and negligence by the Congress Party, which headed the opposition at the time. The BJP had shown success in confronting Pakistan when America pressured Pakistan's rulers to provide the Hindu party's government with humiliating and disgraceful concessions on the Kashmir issue. Thus, it succeeded in the previous elections and remained in power from 1999 until 2004. Now, the security issue is being used to shake confidence in the Congress Party government, and it appears to be an effective weapon in this regard. The Al-Rai website reported on 05/12/2008 that the Indian intelligence service relayed reports of potential attacks against Indian airports and hijacking planes to use them in attacking major cities.
It can be concluded from this that nothing will save the Indian Congress Party government and restore the shaken confidence except concessions from Pakistan that it demands, such as the handover of 20 wanted persons living in Pakistan, or launching a military operation to achieve revenge for the Mumbai attacks or show a victory over Pakistan.
Because it is difficult for Pakistan under these circumstances to hand over the wanted persons to India—as Pakistani Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar stated his country's refusal to hand over any of the wanted persons to India (Al-Hayat, 08/12/2008)—doing so would weaken the already shaken confidence of Pakistanis in their rulers, from the President to the Prime Minister, and strengthen the position of the Indian Congress Party government, which America does not want to flourish unless it follows her.
And because the Americans are working with all their might to deter India and frighten it from attacking Pakistan, that would waste the opportunity for the Americans to topple the current Indian government there. They highlight the rallying of the Pakistani people around their leaders in fighting India; The Washington Post wrote on 08/12/2008 that the people began to close ranks around their leaders in Pakistan, and even fighters from the Pakistani Taliban showed their readiness to fight India alongside the Pakistani army if their country was subjected to an attack by India. The newspaper cited statements from some Pakistani Taliban leaders such as Maulvi Nazir and Baitullah Mehsud about their readiness to fight India alongside the Pakistani army, showing that everyone is ready to fight India, even those opposed to the Pakistani government. This is in addition to the American attempts we mentioned in terms of weakening the Indian accusation against Pakistan, then making Pakistan show excessive flexibility toward India in its readiness to arrest every Pakistani proven to have a hand in the events, and that Pakistan is ready to participate in the investigation, as well as its arrest of a number of Jamaat-ud-Dawa... all of this caused embarrassment for the Indian government in carrying out a major military action.
Thus, the Congress Party government needs a "hot" action on the level of the Mumbai events to save it from falling in the elections, but it is difficult for it to carry out a major military action equal to the Mumbai events as a result of the international circumstances created by American movements. Likewise, it is not easy for Pakistan to hand over wanted persons... and therefore, there was that hesitation surrounding the Congress Party government in taking a decisive decision.
This is regarding the hesitation.
- As for the reality of the event, it is an international event that exploited facts on Indian soil, and that is clear from the following:
a. What we mentioned previously regarding the movements of America and Britain immediately upon the occurrence of the event, which indicates the interest of both sides in what happened and is happening in India and its neighbor Pakistan.
b. By observing the behavior of America and England, it becomes clear that they are moving in opposite directions. Britain clearly supports India and backs its accusation of Pakistan being behind the bombings, while America weakens the evidence of accusation and highlights the danger of military escalation.
c. The Mumbai attacks are not in the interest of the Indian Congress Party government; rather, they disturb its course, shake the confidence of its people and supporters in it, reduce its chances of winning the next elections, and weaken its regional and international position.
d. US agents in India found in those attacks a golden opportunity that presented itself to strengthen their weak positions and slim chances of winning the next elections, by mounting a strong opposition to improve their electoral prospects. This is exactly what America wants: to make the pro-British Congress Party government fall in the next elections and have its agents return once again.
In summary, what is most likely is that America and its agents are behind these events, whether directly or indirectly. That is, whether America and its agents were the planners and executors, or they exploited the motives for revenge existing among some harshly oppressed parties in India and encouraged them to take revenge for themselves through those attacks. In such a case, the action would serve the interest of those oppressed parties while being politically exploited for the benefit of America. This is especially true given that India is composed of many religious sects and non-homogeneous ethnicities. In addition to many well-known Kashmiri movements, there are many Indian secessionist movements such as the United Liberation Front of Asom, the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Bru National Liberation Front, the Warangal Dragon Force, the Khalistan Liberation Force, and many other movements. In addition to these movements, there are many Hindu movements that target Muslims and Christians, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has consistently used anti-Muslim slogans for electoral purposes. This is aside from the Indian state itself, which uses brutal acts such as burning Muslims alive as it did in Gujarat, and its continued suppression and killing of Muslims in Kashmir for the past six decades.
Thus, the reality of the multiple sects in India and the reality of the oppression practiced by the ruling class in India, especially toward Muslims, makes India a region pregnant with explosions and varied violent events.
If we add to all of this that after America exerted every effort for its agent Vajpayee to come to power, the Congress Party, with its deep-rooted loyalty to the English, managed to return once again to power in India. It realized that America would not easily accept its influence leaving India. Therefore, the Congress Party from the beginning brought in a Prime Minister "Singh" for its government who was soft with America to alleviate American pressure on the Congress Party. Nevertheless, America intensified its activity toward India, at times by enticing it with nuclear agreements and economic aid, and at other times by stirring up disturbances and exploiting the ruling regime's oppression of minorities in India... to destabilize the Congress Party's electoral position in the upcoming elections. Then the Mumbai events were the massive event in this series of American attempts for its agents to return to power in India instead of the Congress Party, which is ancient in its loyalty to the English.