NEW DELHI – After securing sympathy and support for fighting terrorism from the G-8 grouping of the world’s wealthiest countries in St. Petersburg, the Indian government is coming under pressure to harden its response to the recent Mumbai serial bombings, which killed 200 people.
On Monday, the G-8 summit, to which India was invited as an observer, passed a comprehensive resolution expressing solidarity with India, and pledging readiness to "undertake all necessary measures to bring to justice perpetrators, organizers, sponsors of these and other terrorist acts, and those who incited the perpetrators to commit them."
The resolution did not fulfill the excessive expectations of some in India who thought that Pakistan would be specifically named as the sponsor and inciter of the attacks. However, it is one of the strongest anti-terrorist motions passed by the G-8.
The pressure on the Indian government, emanating from the pro-Hindu Right and conservative middle class opinion, is for change both in internal approaches to terrorism, and external changes, in particular India’s policy toward Pakistan. Some, but not all, of India’s intelligence agencies believe that perpetrators of the Mumbai bombings were encouraged and advised by Pakistan’s shadowy Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).
Echoing them, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last Monday that the attacks occurred on "a scale that could not have been accomplished without some external involvement." However, neither these agencies nor the Mumbai police have offered convincing evidence identifying the groups involved or their links with external agencies.
"There is a great deal of anger and resentment among sections of the middle class at the government’s handling of the bombings," says Prof. Zoya Hasan, a political scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University. "The government failed to adequately acknowledge the gravity of the destruction, which was of the same order as the Madrid train attacks of March 2004 which brought down the conservative Spanish government. But it is irrational to force the government into a militaristic response without establishing the identity and guilt of the terrorists," adds Hasan.
Internally, as part of its "anti-terrorist" measures, the government has indiscriminately blocked access to many Internet blogs. It told Internet service providers to black out 17 frequently accessed sites including Blogspot.com, MyPetJawa.mu.nu, and ThePiratesCove.us. This has caused great inconvenience to bloggers and led to protests.
"This is an extraordinarily myopic and counterproductive move, functionally unrelated to combating terrorism," Colin Gonsalves of the Human Rights Law Network told IPS. "It’s a direct violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression and right to information. Such measures will weaken Indian democracy and eventually help the terrorists’ cause."
The government is considering even more drastic measures, such as preventing all non-passengers from entering railway platforms. Not only would this cause enormous inconvenience to passengers, especially old people and children who need escorts; it would be extremely difficult to implement in the Indian social context.
Similarly, the government is under pressure to bring back the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA), a draconian and much-abused law repealed two years ago after Manmohan Singh’s Congress Party came to power.
"I am deeply worried at the way India is now addressing issues of terrorism," said Jaswant Singh, foreign minister under the pro-Hindu, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that now leads the national opposition, has been quoted as saying. "I am unable to fathom why the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act was rescinded."
During its six years in power (1998-2004), the BJP beat back an armed incursion across the Line of Control (LoC) in disputed Kashmir using air power, and responded to a terrorist attempt to bomb India’s parliament building by massively mobilizing troops and armor along the Pakistan border.
While the Congress government is likely to resist pressure from the BJP and its right-wing supporters to reintroduce POTA, it is considering modifying other laws and procedures to restrict the freedom of expression and association.
Externally, the government is responding to demands that it take a tough, inflexible stand in identifying Pakistan as the main source of terrorism in India, including the Mumbai attacks. New Delhi has already called off talks between the two foreign secretaries (chiefs of diplomatic service), which were to be held this week. This marked a retreat from its earlier position that terrorist attacks would not affect the India-Pakistan dialogue process, which was declared "irreversible" in April last year by Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf.
Although the government has not produced clinching evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai bombings, many Indians believe Pakistan was responsible for many past incidents of violence against Indian civilians. Pakistan, for its part, has often pursued a tactic of "plausible deniability."
India-Pakistan relations improved dramatically after a long period of confrontation between 1998 and 2003, including the ten-months-long mobilization of one million soldiers at the border. In January 2004, the two governments agreed to begin a bilateral dialogue on all outstanding issues including Kashmir. Pakistan solemnly committed itself not to allow its territory to be used for terrorism against India.
Following this, there was a sharp decrease in the number of unauthorized border crossings by suspected terrorists from Pakistan. This was repeatedly acknowledged by India.
Some intelligence sources in India believe that Pakistan changed its position in recent months and is again instigating militant groups to violence in India. A few have named names, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (also linked to a group called Jamaat-ul-Daawa), Students’ Islamic Movement of India, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and some groups in Bangladesh.
However, in the fashion typical of South Asian intelligence agencies, these "sources" cite no concrete evidence but instead plant stories in the media.
Such stories and speculative television programs, which hint at the "foreign hand," have combined with middle class conservatism and led to the demand that India should use the "military option" in Israel-style surgical attacks on Pakistani targets. These are expected to deter further terrorist violence.
Hawkish Indian opinion has long regarded Israel under the leadership of Ariel Sharon as a role model – a tough, hard state that countenances no violence against its citizens and will go to any extent in punishing those it holds guilty of such acts, including targeted assassination, use of disproportionate force with large collateral damage, etc.
Indian hawks are particularly impressed by Israel’s recent actions in Gaza and Lebanon, including the use of overwhelming firepower and F-16 warplanes. Many argue that India has as much right as Israel to use armed force to defend itself against terrorism and that Washington must back India as strongly as it backs Israel in this regard.
In response to a recent television discussion, more than 90 percent of viewers of an English-language private channel favored the use of military force by India against Pakistan in emulation of Israel’s methods.
Such extreme positions betray the Indian elite’s contempt for international law, unconcern about the absence of a causal link between Pakistan and terrorist groups in India, and a tendency to worship force.
The Singh government has so far barely resisted such hawkish pressures. But if it capitulates, it risks losing the handsome opportunities offered by the peace process with Pakistan.
Equally, it stands to squander a chance to reform the Indian intelligence system, the police’s sloppy methods of investigation, and an extremely inefficient justice delivery system. Without such reform, India will find it hard to tackle the challenge of terrorism.
(Inter Press Service)
