No forward movement

By Ayesha Siddiqa:

On Wednesday, the Pakistan government formally charged the seven key suspects believed to be involved in last year’s Mumbai terror attacks.

This decision, which came on the eve of the first anniversary of the attacks, is a positive gesture from Islamabad and one which will probably help break the current logjam between India and Pakistan. The Indian government had linked the resumption of talks and the composite dialogue with forward movement in this regard.

The decision also comes in the wake of expanding allegations regarding Pakistan’s linkage with the Mumbai terror plot. Reportedly new evidence has been found in the David Headley case, in which a Chicago-based US citizen of Pakistani origin was found by the FBI to be involved in the planning of the Mumbai attacks. Headley and five other Pakistanis have been arrested abroad for their links with the attack and Lashkar-i-Taiba. There were two other Pakistanis resident in Italy who were also caught for providing funding for the Mumbai terror plot.

The discovery of new information and Islamabad’s decision might provide some temporary consolation to the relatives of the victims, but it would also make them highly suspicious of any peace initiative between the two neighbours. The indictment of the seven suspects could help move bilateral relations further but it may not necessarily put relations completely back on track. There are many in India who will probably continue to be suspicious of Pakistan’s intent to move forward in the case.

For Manmohan Singh’s government this is really a catch-22 situation because while the indictment breaks the logjam, New Delhi would also have to decide whether or not to support and have faith in the Pakistani judicial system, especially when the case is legally and politically complex. The hearings, which are being held in camera, could take a long time to conclude. The defence lawyers would probably also try to challenge the legality of the indictment on the grounds that the seven people were being charged for a crime that did not take place on Pakistani soil.

There is precedence regarding cases which were thrown out on this particular technicality. There is also probability of the proceedings slowing down due to the issue of the defence counsel’s physical access to the only surviving gunman — Ajmal Kasab. One is not sure if India will muster enough confidence in Pakistan to extradite this key witness.

But what is beyond doubt is the fact that the case will probably drag on for a while. The faith the two states may or may not develop in each other regarding the legal processing of this case will also determine the quality of bilateral relations. Not to forget that there are a sufficient number of actors on both sides of the divide who will target their own government for the perceived ‘giving in’ to the rival.

There is certainly a noticeable gap between what the Pakistani state is willing to do to appease New Delhi and how society perceives the cooperation in the case. A popular perception held and propagated by many in the media is that 26/11 is perhaps as much a conspiracy as 9/11. While there are many who continue to remind others of a supposed list of 3,000 Jews who they say had not turned up for work on the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, similar suspicions are cast on the Mumbai tragedy.

The disappearance of the Kasab family from Faridkot soon after it was discovered by the media only helps support the argument that the Kasab family does not actually exist. What’s important is not that Islamabad’s lie was exposed but that the disappearance would help erase the memory of the discovery from the minds of ordinary Pakistanis.

However, as the two states engage in a battle of wits and patiently await the fate of the legal battle, it is important that they use the opportunity to explore the future of bilateral links, especially from the perspective of evaluating the capacity of the two states and societies to bear such acts of violence. The question that we must ask ourselves is what could happen if there was another attack of the scale of Mumbai. More importantly, could the region afford another tragic incident?

The average Indian is probably not impressed with the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. New Delhi has dealt with a series of attacks on its soil, especially the two significant attacks: the first on the Indian parliament in 2001 followed by Mumbai in 2008. Although the link with Pakistan is not conclusively proven and many in Pakistan would like to believe the argument that most of the evidence is not presentable in a court of law, the average Indian is not bothered about the legal status.

Therefore, political pressure on New Delhi to respond ‘in the same coin’ if such terror attacks are repeated in the future will mount. Surely the region was saved from a greater crisis due to the nuclear deterrent and American assistance or diplomatic intervention.

However, the aforementioned recipe might not work, or maybe it will. Unfortunately, due to a reduction in people-to-people contacts the general public in Pakistan does not appreciate the deep sense of hurt across the border. While both states choose to deal with this controversy with the help of the media — which means that what one has seen was more of jingoism than a real assessment of the situation — there is a need for a serious review by the media and opinion-makers to objectively assess the region’s ability to deal with a similar crisis in the future.

There are even suggestions that the two states must open additional channels of communication at the level of the heads of intelligence. After all, why beat about the bush and not have those talk who are accused of pursuing a proxy war as a continued option? In fact, the head of the ISI reportedly sent a signal to the Indian government for direct talks.

This is not to suggest that opening this channel is a recipe for setting things right in the short term. It is essentially another layer of CBMs meant to avoid an escalation of tension while proxies are maintained as an option. The more important issue, however, is regarding the transparency of this additional dialogue.

Needless to say, there is too much at stake for both states to continue with proxies or not find a permanent method to resolve dicey issues.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com