Knee-jerk Blame of Pakistan for Mumbai Attacks is Playing with Fire

Related subjects: Asia / Pacific, Denver Lessing, Diplomacy & Politics, In the Loop, India, Opinion, Pakistan Comments (1)

30 November 2008 :: Denver Lessing

We have to think very carefully about what it would mean if we took the accusations of some political leaders in India seriously when they say the origin of the attacks can be linked to Pakistan. More careful, more thoughtful intellectual lights in the Indian diplomatic corps or in party politics, have noted that while it is likely fair to say the official government of Pakistan was not responsible, it may also be true that there are militant “roots” somewhere in Pakistani society that supported or enabled the attacks. It must be said, there is no publicly known evidence to date.

By most accounts, the attacks were staged by a “previously unknown” militant organization, and despite several days of fierce firefights and hostages both held and killed, there have not yet been reported any specific list of grievances, demands or goals. Yet we keep hearing from numerous sources that the attacks “have their roots in” Pakistan, or that Pakistan is “behind the attacks”. This is dangerous language, because it implies that two long-time enemy states, both with nuclear arsenals, could find cause for military escalation, though neither can afford the other’s becoming destabilized.

No one in the international community can afford to underestimate the significance of an escalation in security complaints between two nuclear-armed states, especially neighbors and long-time rivals like India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since separation —Pakistan, was originally part of post-imperial India, then split from the larger state, then was split again when Bangladesh became independent—, with both claiming the right to control Kashmir.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The risk of two states with such heated ethnic rivalry, historic grievance and presently disputed borders, falling over the edge in a security dispute and launching a missile as a show of strength, is as ever severe. So, we must also consider that, even before any secret intelligence comes to light, the most reasonable position, from any point of view, would be that Pakistan cannot afford to push India to the brink of war and, logically, has very little reason to back a coordinated mass-murder of Indian and foreign civilians.

Indeed, Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, has condemned the violence and pledged unconditional cooperation with India in the investigation and in bringing any conspirators to justice. There is talk of top-level intelligence sharing, and of Pakistan’s spy chief visiting with Indian officials to coordinate a response to the attacks. But rising tensions between the political establishment in both countries may have lessened the likelihood of that visit occuring; Pakistan has said it must now take security measures and will not yet send its top spy to India.

Pakistan’s government has serious reason for concern about what the aftermath of the attacks could be. As Indian officials have repeatedly cited “elements” inside Pakistan as likely responsible, Pakistan has been bracing for some sort of security backlash. With a motive not yet publicly known for the attacks —other than the traditional enmity between radical Islamist militia and the Indian state—, it could be that fringe militia in Pakistan could have as their motive for the attack the destabilization of the Pakistani government, in the face of anger from India.

This may, in fact, be the most likely scenario explaining the bizarre and pointless attacks. India’s military is larger than Pakistan’s and India has been a more reliable ally to the US and western powers than has Pakistan; the withdrawal of support for Pakistan’s government, along with a potential military reaction from India, could destabilize the government, undermine the entire democratic process in Pakistan, and open the field of play to radical elements, potentially including Taliban-linked groups.

Such an eventuality would be a shocking blow to international peace and security, with any non-secular political entity potentially taking control of nuclear arms and using them to threaten Pakistan’s neighbors, potentially creating political fragmentation across the region. Pakistan’s government has warned it could respond to the risk of any threat to its rule by massing troops on the Indian border. The Wall Street Journal reports:

On Saturday, a senior Pakistani security official warned that troops would be diverted from its war against al Qaeda and Taliban militants and deployed on the Indian border if Pakistan felt threatened by its neighbor. The official accused India of heightening tension by blaming “elements from Pakistan” for the coordinated attacks against Indian commercial capital that officials said killed 174 people – revising down an earlier estimate of 195 killed.

Clearly, an underlying problem here, especially if the plot’s backers have a foothold in Pakistan, is Pakistan’s own internal security problems. There are significant parts of the northwestern border region, touching on Afghanistan, where the Islamabad government has little practical authority and continues to struggle against fundamentalist and tribal militia. Not merely the securing, but the building of civil society in those regions is a matter of vital interest to international peace and security, and India has as much direct interest as anyone in the security of those regions under a secular democratic government in Islamabad.