Terrorism - Articles

The Mumbai carnage has been a topic of debate in Pakistan and has produced a flurry of reactions. The initial reactions, during the first and second day were extremely sympathetic.

However, this initial reaction of sympathy changed substantially, one the Indian government pointed out the involvement of people from Pakistan. The reactions from Pakistan were primarily aimed at the government of India, India media and the civil society at large. Numerous articles, editorials and TV analysis in Pakistan has accused the Indian government, and especially the media, for the knee-jerk reaction of blaming Pakistan for the tragedy; both the government of India and the media has been accused of 'finger-pointing', 'hasty conclusions' and the 'jingoistic fervour' have not found favour with the Pakistanis. Salman Masood, who has covered many of these bombings for the New York Times, says, "Perhaps now Indians will understand how the ordinary Pakistani feels-helpless, besieged and pessimistic about the future".

One major perception of Pakistan has been that the terrorist attack must not be viewed through the prism of past bitter Islamabad-New Delhi relations as it is counter-productive. Pakistan has urged India to adopt a sane approach on the Mumbai tragedy, cautioning that finger-pointing and hasty conclusions risk becoming divisive and playing into the hands of terrorists.

Second, there is also a fear in Pakistan - both within and outside the government, that the Mumbai attacks are a conspiracy staged to capitalise on the internal disturbances and divert Pakistan's attention from War on Terror-'a deliberate international move emanating out of Al Qaeda' to ratchet up tension, extend the field of conflict and to undermine normalisation between Pakistan and India. Added to this conspiracy theory that Mumbai attacks were a part of larger goal to weaken Pakistan from within, a section also feared that there could also be a plan to force the Pakistan army out of the western borders and thus provide relief to the militants who are seen by many to be under pressure these days.

Third, many also believe, Pakistan should not be accused for the actions emanating from the non-State actors. The argument is, even if the terrorists came from Pakistan, it proves nothing because Pakistan is fighting the same terrorists with a global outreach within its borders. President Zardari has gone on record to charge 'state-less' or non-state actors who are outside the system for the Mumbai attacks. He observed that both Pakistan and India are victims of terrorism and only cooperative efforts can help curb the menace in the region. The argument here is: how can Pakistan be blamed, when the country itself is a victim of terrorism?

Fourth, the Pakistan media in particular, has accused the Indian government of taking the easiest way out-it has 'raised the convenient Pakistan bogey, hoping to deflect the barbs and arrows directed its own way, from citizens and from its media.' The media also thought that Pakistan was exposing its intelligence agency to a session of "levelling of charges" by the Indians. The reasonable voice that says that the Mumbai attack is mounted by elements who want a conflict between India and Pakistan is being drowned amid angry statements. The media believes that India must focus first of all on putting its own house in order and face up to the fact that dangerous extremist outfits operate within its territory as do some of the world's most notorious mafias and underworld gangs.

Among the public, the sentiment that India needs to face the reality of home-grown radicalism, and realise the futility of blaming Pakistan for its troubles is wrong. The common perception is that the terrorists are the newest face of an old problem, and be they from Pakistan or from other countries, including India, have an obvious agenda-to de-rail the Indo-Pak peace process. They call on India 'to transcend the rapacious need for revenge and respond instead with the circumspection of a world leader that sees the urgent need to redefine the war on terror in a way that unites instead of maligns.'

Finally, there is also a perception, that these attacks were probably not planned and executed by Muslims but by those posing to be Muslims-'such a massive and coordinated operation is beyond the capacity of an external group unless it has developed strong links with a well-entrenched and powerful domestic group'. The viewpoint that Pakistan needs to adopt an introspective approach is predominant-'it could well be foreign conspiracy to finish Pakistan but it would not change the fact that Pakistan faces the threat of being internationally ostracised unless it begins to look inwards and institutionalises decision-making.'

Clearly, the debate inside Pakistan is divided on what could be the motivations and objectives behind the Mumbai attacks; however there is an unanimity on the following: India (especially the government and media) is over reacting, as there is no substantial proof; Indian actions and statements are based on finger pointing and jingoism; and Pakistan cannot be directly held accountable for the actions of non-State actors, even if they are from Pakistan.