Are we applying double standards?
The six highly motivated and well-trained terrorists managed to get inside the high security Pathankot Indian air base. They entered it presumably in two batches on early Saturday morning January 2. Four attackers died the next day in shootouts with security forces comprising air force commandos, army soldiers, National Security Guard, troops and local police. The other two continued to engage them till Tuesday. According to Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar the terrorists managed to bring with them AK-47 assault rifles with makeshift rocket launchers attached, mortar rounds that could be fired from the launchers, pistols, and 50-60 kilograms of ammunition. The feat would not have been possible without local support. Those who planned the attack appear to be sufficiently resourceful.
The extent of the damage done is yet to be revealed by the Indian authorities. Parrikar however claims all air force assets were safe. The human casualties included seven security officials dead, including a Lt Col, and about a dozen injured.
The attack was launched within days and weeks of a number of important developments that were expected to improve relations between the neighbouring countries. The brief Sharif-Modi huddle in Paris was followed by NSA level meeting where the two foreign secretaries were also present. India agreed to hold talks with Pakistan on all issues including Kashmir for the first time since the installation of the present BJP government. Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Pakistan and besides holding talks with Sartaj Aziz in an ambience marked by cordiality also met Nawaz Sharif. Top of this all was the meeting in Lahore between Sharif and Modi.
The Pathankot attack brought with it a sense of déjà vu. It reminded people that earlier attempts to improve ties between the neighbouring countries were also foiled by adventures of the sort: Kargil followed the Lahore Declaration (1999) and Mumbai attacks took place in the midst of the composite dialogue (2008). The Pathankot attack was obviously aimed at derailing the peace process.
The extent of the damage done is yet to be revealed by the Indian authorities. Parrikar however claims all air force assets were safe
While it will take time to collect solid proof there is enough circumstantial evidence available supporting the Indian stand that Jaish-e-Muhammad was behind the Pathankot incident. One of the terrorists who snatched the Indian Superintendant Police Talvinder Singh’s vehicle told Ramesh Verma, the captive who survived the terrorists’ attempt to slit his throat, that they wanted to avenge the hanging of Afzal Guru.
There was a simultaneous terrorist attack in Afghanistan. Those who targeted Indian consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif died in the operation. They had scrawled “Afzal Guru ka Inteqam” and “Ek shaheed, hazaar fidayeen” on the wall of the room where they were found dead.
Afzal Guru was a major character in the attack on the Indian Parliament attributed to and never denied by JeM. The attack (December 2001) that killed over 12 and injured 22 was aimed at bringing Pakistan and India into conflict. The terrorists almost achieved their aim. The two countries deployed their forces on the LoC and international border where they remained in eyeball to eyeball confrontation for almost a year. Diplomatic ties were, for all practical purposes, severed. A nuclear war was feared as the standoff worsened on a daily basis. It was only after intense diplomatic efforts by major powers that the standoff was finally defused.
The claim by the Kashmiri United Jihad Council (UJC) that the attack was carried out by Mujahideen associated with a so far unknown National Highway Squad does not ring true. The attack took place outside Indian held Kashmir. The local Kashmiri separatist groups are not known to have ventured outside the Valley. They specialise in hit and run attacks. The attack on Pathankot airbase was of an altogether higher order.
It is a matter of surprise that no action was taken after JeM chief re-emerged in public at a January 26, 2014 rally in Muzaffarabad, promising through a transmitted cell phone address from Bahawalpur “terrible revenge” against India for Guru’s hanging. He also said, “Let us aim guns at India first. We will move to Israel and US later”. Despite his group being banned, Masood Azhar was never detained and lived freely in his home in Southern Punjab where the JeM has strong roots.
Are we applying double standards to those who undertake terrorist attacks? Are those alone who launch attacks inside Pakistan to be considered terrorists? Are those who conduct similar attacks inside India not to be treated as terrorists? Are there “bad terrorists” and “good terrorists”?
Literature including videos spreading hatred has been banned under the National Action Plan (NAP). Scores of clerics have been detained for the crime and over a hundred seminaries closed down for links with terrorists. Even after the announcement of National Action Plan (NAP) the videos of Masood Azhar propagating violence remain on the net. This leads to the disturbing question regarding why he remains immune from the laws regulating hate speech.
The attack has given birth to worrisome questions. After India agreeing to talks on Kashmir, are some in Pakistan’s ruling circles still bent on resolving the issue through war?
Masood Azhar had close contacts with the Taliban regime. He supports Osama bin Laden’s mission. In at least one video on the net he can be seen lauding his cause. Hundreds of JeM activists received training in camps in Afghanistan, bringing them into close contact with al Qaeda. They also trained alongside LeJ activists. Bringing Pakistan and India on the brink of war provides al Qaeda and other terrorist networks an environment conducive to their activities. Friendly relations between the two countries can make life difficult for them.
There are some who believe al Qaeda is behind Masood Azhar and would like to use him to provoke a war in South Asia. There are others, like Bruce Riedel, who maintain it is the ISI.
Has JeM become independent of its former patrons and acted on its own or on the instance of the al Qaeda? All the more reason, then, to probe its role in the Pathankot attack.
The attack has given birth to worrisome questions. After India agreeing to talks on Kashmir, are some in Pakistan’s ruling circles still bent on resolving the issue through war? Are they not satisfied with the peaceful way the prime minister, supported by almost all political parties, wants to settle the issue?
All Kashmiri separatist groups had hailed Pak-India talks, including Mirwaiz Faooq and Syed Ali Gilani. After the Pathankot incident the two again supported talks.
But the Pathankot attack has pushed the talks on Kashmir to the back burner. Thanks those who conducted the attack terrorism instead has become the first item on the agenda.