Reacting to Mumbai Terrorism

The POST, Sun, July,16, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Most people regard the manifestation of terrorism in any form as condemnable.  No body in the right mind would condone any terrorist act. For obvious reasons the Mumbai bomb blasts which killed more than 200 innocent people and injured more than 400 attracted condemnations throughout South Asia. Islamabad along with many others including APHC leadership immediately and strongly condemned the blasts. So far nobody has come forward and claimed the responsibility.

Spontaneous outburst or knee jerk reaction to such a development is not necessarily out of order. However it is encouraging to learn that despite the mounting domestic pressures the Indian government has taken a sensible course of action and so far refrained from accusing anyone directly. Similarly one cannot ignore the balanced attitude that has been reflected in some Indian newspapers which mostly dwelt upon highlighting the failure of counter intelligence rather dabbling in an exercise of pointing fingers at some one. Indeed this approach should be encouraged and appreciated. The assertion that such acts are unlikely to have a serious impact on the ongoing Indo-Pak peace process deserves appreciation by all concerned.

However one cannot ignore the undiplomatic statement recently issued by an Indian diplomat stationed in US in which he found it appropriate to point finger at the neighbors. Without highlighting any evidence, he found it proper in his wisdom to accuse a neighbor. Ordinarily any such statement by a government functionary cannot be issued unless it has the blessing of the government. Alternatively it can also happen that the individual involved may want to exploit the sentiments of sympathetic Americans or reflecting his over patriotism without seeking prior permission from his government.

Some Indians have already started planting ideas and issuing veiled warnings. It seems that the technique employed by the Indian agencies to initially prepare grounds for their carefully carved objective to eventually accuse Pakistan. Most of the carefully contrived statements clearly reflect their direction. Many Pakistanis are already expecting that the finger would be pointed at Pakistan at some stage. It is not very unusual for the Indians to accuse Pakistan’s involvement directly or indirectly. Accusing Pakistan is a useful diversion from focusing on their own inefficiencies. The past history is studded with such examples. The recent Indian history witnessed a violent reaction  to the killings of the Gujarat Muslims by a India based group whichwas initially attributed to Pakistan  only to be acknowledged later that bomb blasts in Mumbai were the work of the Indians.  

Undoubtedly for a biased Indian, temptation to accuse Pakistan based groups is too strong to be allowed to slip away.  Perhaps it would have been better to wait and issue the statement only after having secured the assessment of the concerned police officials or after having procured convincing evidence. Such knee jerk reaction tends to pollute the prevailing atmosphere unnecessarily. It is somewhat understandable that if the wild statements originate from sensational barrens of media or struggling politicians but if these are products of official policy, then one need to take them seriously and analyze compulsions for which such ludicrous statements are issued.

It is a wiser course of action to avoid indulgence in blame game unless some convincing evidence is made available by the concerned agencies. Besides, in a volatile atmosphere one should try to avoid misinterpretation of statements. Misinterpretation or deliberately contrived adverse interpretation could take a heavy toll of the incumbent improved atmosphere. One can make allowances for rumors and comprehend their circulation but officials should avoid projecting unsubstantiated interpretation and be extremely careful in making comments.

The reaction of Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) over reported remarks of visiting Pakistan Foreign Minister appears to be a classic case of misquoting. The MEA spokesperson stressed that remarks of Pakistani foreign minister allegedly suggest that Pakistan will cooperate with India against the scourge of terrorist violence if the so called disputes are resolved. The Pakistani foreign office stressed that remarks were misquoted. Despite Pakistani Foreign Minister’s emphatic and unequivocal condemnation of Mumbai blasts, the MEA in its own wisdom appeared to have demonstrated strong reaction. 

Terrorism has become a world wide phenomenon. The tragedy of 9/11 led to the formation of an international coalition to combat terrorism under the leadership of the United States. This global coalition draws its moral strength from the endorsement of the United Nations. The global war against international terrorism therefore enjoys the universal support. However, there are many observers and analysts who think that the some members of this coalition have interpreted this support as the license to act unilaterally and without any regard to the rules of international law and authority of the United Nations.                   

The war against terrorism has changed the concept of security. It is a new form of war in which the enemy is no longer the traditional state entity. It is a war against an enemy, which can no longer be identified, located or predicted. It is therefore a highly complex, difficult and unpredictable war. However, it is being increasingly recognized that war against terrorism cannot be won only through military means. As it is the war against terrorism would not only confront many obstacles but would also be a painfully long affair. Undoubtedly it requires coordinated collaborative efforts in order to deal with it effectively.

A terrorist is the one who tries to inject extreme fear among the target audience. Terrorism is defined ‘as an act or threat of violence against non-combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating or otherwise influencing an audience’. A generally accepted definition of a ‘terrorist’ is ‘a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercion’. The essence of this definition is the employment of violent methods in order to instill fear and influence the targets, which may be a government or a community or a particular individual.  Terrorists are defined not by their goals but by how they opt to attain them. It needs to be highlighted that in some definitions only a non-state actor is portrayed as a terrorist, which is not necessarily true. A state could also indulge in what is commonly referred as ‘State Terrorism’. Both Israel and India are frequently accused of indulging in state terrorism in Palestine and Kashmir respectively.

Unnecessary but convenient diversion could provide the desired respite to concerned officials but it can also adversely impact upon what had been achieved after so much hard work. The veiled threats already emanating from various sources in India to review the peace process or confidence building measures is indeed not a wise pursuit. It took enormous amount of contributions by both the insiders as well as the outsiders to reach where we are today. To destroy it for incapable administrative officials would indeed be foolish pursuit. If the administrative officials have some tangible evidence, then India should share it with Pakistan. It would be better for both India and Pakistan to collaborate and work together against the menace of terrorism.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.