IRS Regional Brief August-December 2008 No. 9

IRS Regional Brief August-December 2008 No. 9 India-Pakistan Peace Process Afghanistan Dr. Shaheen Akhtar Research Fellow Arshi Saleem Hashmi Research Analyst Institute of Regional Studies Islamabad

IRS Regional Brief The India-Pakistan Peace Process August-December 2008 Dr. Shaheen Akhtar The Mumbai terrorist attacks On 26 November, a series of terror attacks in Mumbai rocked the India-Pakistan peace process which was already reeling under into Kabul embassy blast. The incident claimed 183 lives and targeted India s two luxury hotels and other landmarks across the city. It occurred at a time when Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was on a visit to India to discuss important issues relating to the ongoing dialogue process including Kashmir, the Chenab River water dispute and trade ties. After his meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee he sounded very positive: We have this window of opportunity. We must not let it pass. We have challenges... but I am confident we can convert challenges into opportunities. He said issues such as demarcating a maritime boundary and bringing down troop levels on the Siachen Glacier were solvable. (1) There were also indications from both capitals that a breakthrough was expected after the upcoming meeting on Sir Creek maritime dispute scheduled for 2-3 December in New Delhi. Qureshi also said Pakistan wanted meaningful dialogue on Kashmir to settle this issue through peaceful means. Mukherjee, however, stressed the issue of terrorism. He told reporters We have to address the menace of terrorism, which affects society in both countries, He hoped that antiterror cooperation panel would show concrete results. He said, that was a challenge which should be fought jointly. Against this backdrop, Mumbai attacks pushed peace process to the backburner, while war clouds began to dominate India-Pakistan relations. International and bilateral efforts to defuse the crisis had apparently effected a positive turn towards the end of December amidst uncertainty and many imponderables that may wreck the peace process. Meanwhile, an aggressive diplomatic offensive that India launched after the attacks for which it has blamed elements inside Pakistan is going on with full vigour. India is making all-out effort to garner the international community s support to put further pressure on Pakistan to dismantle what it calls infrastructure of terror in Pakistan. Indian reaction: Blame game begins Immediately after the Mumbai incident, India put dialogue with Pakistan on the hold and handed over a list of 20 people to Pakistan allegedly involved in terror incidents in India. India did not blame the civilian government in Pakistan for being involved in the incidents but accused Lashkar-e-Tayba, (LeT) for perpetrating the attacks. In a televised address, on 27 November, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed militant groups based in India s neighbours, a thinly veiled reference to Pakistan, for the act. He warned: India will take up "strongly with our neighbours that the use of their territory for launching attacks on us will not be tolerated and that there would be a cost if suitable measures are not taken by them." (2) Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee held 'some elements in Pakistan are responsible (3) for the attacks while an Indian army Major General, R K Hooda, leading the military operation to flush out the extremists, blamed the attacks on the Pakistan army. Reacting to the incident, India also postponed secretary-level talks on trade and Sir Creek and called off a planned cricket tour of Pakistan. The meeting of India-Pakistan Joint Commission

2 on Environment was also called off. Other meetings put indefinitely on the hold are those between the defence secretaries on Siachen and water secretaries, the commerce secretaries and the culture secretaries. India tightened visa procedures for Pakistani nationals with processing time for visa applications increased from 15 to 30 days. A new visa form has also been introduced, effective from 15 December. India also suspended the much hyped cross-line of Control (LoC) trade between the two sides of Kashmir. A local news agency reported that on 3 December, the Indian army refused to open the gates at Chakan da Bagh on Poonch-Rawakalot road in IHK. (4) India blamed a Pakistani based outfit, the Lashkar-e-Tayba for the attacks and called on Pakistan to crack down on the militant groups allegedly operating out of Pakistan. Even before the security forces operation was over, on 28 November, the Maharashtra police investigators stated they had evidence that operatives of the LeT carried out the fidayeen-squad attacks in Mumbai. (5) On 9 December 2008, the Mumbai police released the names, hometown and identification of nine terrorists involved in the attacks all belonging to Pakistan. An unidentified official said the information was based on the interrogation of the only terrorist captured alive, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Khasab. (6) Lashkar-i-Tayba however denied any involvement in the Mumbai attacks. On December 1, India handed over two demarches to Pakistan. The first one was issued to Pakistan s High Commissioner in New Delhi, Shahid Malik, by the Indian External Affairs Ministry, while the second one was delivered at the Foreign Office by Indian High Commissioner Satyabrata Pal in Islamabad. In the first demarche, India accused elements from Pakistan of carrying out the terrorist attack in Mumbai and said it expected Islamabad to match its sentiments with deeds by taking stern action against the groups that could have been involved in the attack. (7) The second demarche was more specific and sought the extradition of three wanted people Maulana Masood Azhar, Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim. It also urged action against the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD). India upped the diplomatic ante arguing that the attacks be treated as part of the global war on terrorism which required global response. India put in a formal request to the UN Security Council (UNSC) seeking a ban on the Jamaat-ud-Dawaah (JuD). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a speech in the Parliament on 12 December called Pakistan the epicentre of terrorism and said the international community must deal with the problem. We have to galvanise the international community to deal with the epicentre of terrorism, which is located in Pakistan. He declared, India had exercised the utmost restraint so far but added that it should not be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. He observed that India cannot be satisfied with mere assurances on an end to terror emanating from Pakistan. We have noted the reported steps taken by Pakistan but clearly much more needs to be done. He stressed that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan must be dismantled. (8) India turned on the heat further by asking Pakistan to follow up on its promises with action, even as it ruled out military action for the time being. On 16 December, Pranab Mukherjee said Pakistan should fulfil its commitment on not allowing its territory being used for terrorist activities against India. He said India wanted the assurances, given twice in the past at the highest level, to be fulfilled with the terrorist infrastructure dismantled. He added, words must be followed by action. (9) On 17 December, he asked Pakistan to implement in the letter and spirit of the UN Security Council resolution, imposing sanctions on the Jamaat-ud-Dawaa, and declaring its four top leaders terrorists. (10) To increase diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, on 19 December, Pranab Mukherjee in his message to the international conference on Sub-regionalism Approach to Regional Integration in South Asia: Prospects and Opportunities warned that India would consider all options if Pakistan failed to deliver on its promise of not supporting terror activities. He stated: Terrorism remains a scourge for our region. If a country cannot keep the assurances that it has given, then it

3 obliges us to consider the entire range of options that exist to protect our interests and people from this menace. (11) He also hinted that the state agencies of Pakistan might have provided assistance to the terrorists, whom he described as non-state actors, in carrying out the attack. Mukherjee said: The infrastructure of terror remained unchallenged in Pakistan and so did the logistical support to anti-indian terrorists from multiple hands due to emergence of multiple centres of power. (12) On 21 December, stepping up the pressure on Pakistan further, Mukherjee said Islamabad had been provided enough evidence regarding the Mumbai attacks and now the neighbouring nation must deliver results by acting against the terrorists who masterminded the attacks. He demanded that Pakistan pursue the evidence and take action against terrorists under their country s law and stop use of their soil for subversive activities against India. (13) Congress president Sonia Gandhi also adopted a belligerent tone. On 22 December, addressing an election rally in IHK she asked Islamabad to crack down heavily on those who had been attacking India. If that does not happen, we have the capability to give a befitting reply. She added, Our desire for having peace should not be treated as our weakness. (14) In the last week of December, India continued building up diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, insisting that the later was not doing enough in bringing the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. Simultaneously, New Delhi heightened its war preparedness asserting that it was keeping all options open. Ironically, India did not even bother to officially respond to the two specific proposals made by Pakistan to set up a joint commission co-chaired by the National Security Advisers of the two countries to assist in investigation of the Mumbai attacks and to send a high-level political delegation to New Delhi to defuse the tension. The proposals were, however, welcomed by the international community but ignored by India. (15) Internal dimension The Mumbai attacks have an inextricable internal dimension which not only raised eyebrows in India but also led to diversionary tactics by the Indian officials backed by the Indian media, lambasting Pakistan for its perceived connection with the alleged terrorists responsible for the attacks. The incident was the worst ever terror attack in India. The two luxury hotels, Taj Mahal and Oberio, and a Jewish centre, Nariman House, were the main targets of the attacks. It was a sophisticated and well-planned attack and the security forces operation went on for well over 60 hours. Those killed included 22 foreigners, two NSG commandoes, 15 Maharashtra police personnel, one RPF constable and two Home Guards. Initially, an organisation calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen claimed the responsibility for the attack. The incident implied utter intelligence failure. An Indian intelligence report claimed that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai came via the sea route from Karachi in Pakistan. (16) Chief Minister of Maharashtra Vilasrao Deshmukh also endorsed that the terrorist came by boats. (17) No one police, intelligence services, RAW or ATS or CBI had the slightest inkling of what was afoot. All systems failed. The Navy chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, admitted that it was a systemic failure. (18) Ironically, no action was taken to pre-empt the attack despite the fact that the US passed on credible intelligence to India on 18 November that a terrorist assault was likely from the sea, and two five-star hotels were to be targeted. As all of India s intelligence agencies failed to prevent the attacks, the UPA government in New Delhi, facing a barrage of internal criticism over intelligence failures, security lapses and an inability to bring the situation in Mumbai under control even 60 hours after the attacks, launched a concerted campaign to point fingers at Pakistan, hoping in this way to deflect the criticism and anger directed its own way, from citizens and from its media. The killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare along with two other high police officials, in mysterious circumstances also raised eyebrows. Karkare had arrested a serving Indian Army officer, Lt Col Purohit, for terrorist attacks and was already

4 under death threats from Hindu rightwing extremists. He was also probing the Malegaon bomb blast case in which emerging evidence had led the police to arrest Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and two others and subsequently six other people including two army officers, one serving Lt Col Purohit, and the other retired Major. The ATS believed that a couple of top Hindutva leaders and right-wing politicians might be involved in the blast. (19) Union Minister for Minorities Affairs Abdul Rahman Antulay, a former chief minister of Maharashtra, has demanded an inquiry into the cover-up. With the upcoming general elections in India and the fact that some state elections were already underway when the attacks took place also shaped the response of main opposition Hindu nationality Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Initially, the BJP as well as other parties extended support to the Manmohan Singh government in what they all described as a grave moment for the nation. However, very soon the incompetence of the government and its intelligence agencies came under severe criticism and the BJP tried to make political mileage out of it. As a result Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, the chief minister of Maharashtra had to step down. The BJP soon changed its tack and started putting pressure on the Congress to act tough with Pakistan. The senior BJP leader. L K Advani, and another leader Yashwant Sinha suggested that the Indian government call off composite dialogue with Pakistan. (20) Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi advised the Centre to give a fitting reply to Pakistan, which has already declared a war against India through its terror attack on Mumbai. (21) BJP s Gopinath Munde demanded bombing of the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prashad demanded that the ISI should be declared a terrorist outfit. (22) Besides, other Hindu rightwing outfits leaders like Shiv Sena s chief Bal Thackeray urged the government to attack Pakistan without warning. (23) On 12 December the head of India s right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteers Corps) warned that a nuclear war with Pakistan could become inevitable if peaceful means failed to rein in terrorism and voiced the chilling prospect of a Third World War breaking out, which he felt might cleanse the world of evil. (24) The Mumbai attacks plunged the media in India into the dangerous, old trap in which nationalism trumps responsible reporting. Pop culture personalities and hawkish experts flashed across television screens egging on the Indian government to carry out surgical, pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan in order to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure there. (25) One retired Indian general advised scrapping the Indus Waters Treaty to turn Pakistan into a desert. With the Indian media turning jingoistic and the public outrage riding high, and the general elections round the corner, the Manmohan Singh government stepped up its tirade against Pakistan. Pakistan s response President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned the Mumbai terrorist attacks in strongest possible terms. Zardari described it as a detestable act while Gilani termed them heinous acts of terrorism. (26) In their separate condolence messages addressed to their Indian counterparts, they expressed shock and grief over the loss of lives in the attacks. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, while in New Delhi expressed grief and described the attacks as a horrendous tragedy. He, however, cautioned India not to jump to the conclusion and avoid knee-jerk articulations. He cited the Samjhota Express case when too, Pakistan was accused while investigation revealed that of a serving officer of the Indian Army Lt Colonel P.S. Prohet, was involved in the carnage. Lashkar-i-Tayba, the prime suspect in the incidents denied any involvement in the attacks in Mumbai and strongly condemned the incident. (27) Pakistan offered full cooperation to India in tracking down the culprits in Mumbai. Addressing the media in Chandigarh, India, Qureshi offered a direct hotline between the intelligence chiefs of the two countries so they could share information and cooperate with each other in a more effective manner and stressed the need for strengthening the joint anti-terror

5 mechanism to combat the menace. (28) Islamabad also offered that a joint commission investigate the incident. Briefing envoys in Islamabad on 3 December, Qureshi again offered to set up a joint investigating mechanism which could be headed by the National Security Advisers of both countries. (29) Pakistan reaffirmed its resolve that it would not allow its territory to be used for any act of terrorism. Pakistan maintained that it would act on any evidence that was presented to the government. In an interview to Karan Thapar for The Devils Advocate programme Zardari said if evidence points to any group in my country, I shall take the strictest action. (30) On 1 December, he again offered unconditional cooperation to New Delhi in investigating the Mumbai attacks after the Indian government formally accused elements in Pakistan of being involved in the incident. The Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) that met on 9 December reiterated Pakistan s resolve not to allow its soil to be used for any kind of terrorist activity anywhere in the region or the world. It also renewed the offer of full cooperation to India, including intelligence sharing and assistance in investigation as well as setting up of a joint investigation commission. (31) Pakistan maintained that the Mumbai attackers were non-state actors who have no links with Pakistan s external intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). President Zardari in his interview with Karan Thapar said: We need to look at it as [an] action of non-state actors. (32) In another interview with Newsweek on 14 December he asserted that the ISI had no links with the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT) accused of the attacks. (33) This position was maintained by top political leadership and high officials of Pakistan. Pakistan urged India to provide solid evidence before levelling any baseless allegations against Pakistan. Islamabad assured New Delhi and the world of cooperation in investigations into the Mumbai attacks if provided credible evidence. Simultaneously, it also initiated its own internal investigation. On 9 December, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was told the government had launched investigations into claims that Pakistan was involved in the Mumbai terror attacks. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir underscored that to push the probe forward, we require detailed information and evidence. He reiterated a suggestion for joint investigations and proposed that a high-level delegation from Pakistan visit New Delhi as soon as possible. (34) Similarly, Shah Mehmud Qureshi asserted on 13 December that Pakistan s investigation could not proceed beyond a certain point without provision of credible information and evidence. The Director of Interpol also stated that like Pakistan, he too had received no evidence from the Indians about the involvement of Pakistani elements in the Mumbai attack. On 9 December, Pakistan security forces launched a raid on Lashkar-e-Tayba banned in the country and arrested its senior leader Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi besides 12 other activists. On 10 December, a United Nations Al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 banned Jamaat-ud-Daawa, al-rashid Trust and al-akhtar Trust. The Committee also added four leaders of JuD to a list of people and groups facing sanctions for their ties to Al-Qaeda or Taliban including a freeze in their assets and travel ban. They included Hafiz Saeed, group s chief, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the group s operational chief; Haji Muhammad Ashraf, its chief of finance, and Indian-born Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed Bahaziq, described as a financer of the group who served as its chief in Saudi Arabia. On 12 December, in the wake of UNSC resolution Pakistan launched a countrywide crackdown on the JuD. (35) Police shut down its offices throughout the country and arrested scores of operatives. Hafiz Saeed was put under house arrest. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan would abide by the UN resolution, fulfilling its international obligations. He also observed that Islamabad was taking its own action against groups and people put on a UN terrorist list. However, he pointed out that India had yet to supply any hard evidence of Pakistani links to the Mumbai attacks. Gilani reiterated Pakistan s position that anyone caught in the country would be tried there and suspects wouldn t be handed over to India. He also underscored: We will go according to our own law. He also set out

6 plans to snap links between Islamic charities and militant groups. He said charitable trusts and schools would be overhauled by the government, new boards of directors formed and their work would be regularly monitored. (36) President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani underscored that all the actions against the banned militant outfits would be taken under the country s laws and no Pakistani citizens would be handed over to India or to any other country and they would be tried in the country s courts of law. (37) Two days after the Indian demarche Zardari in Larry King Live programme on CNN stated that Mumbai terror strikes were executed by stateless actors. If we had proof, we would try them in our courts. We would try them in our land and we would sentence them. (38) Pakistan also cautioned that peace process should not be allowed to be derailed by Mumbai attacks. Gilani in a speech to European ambassadors said. While the terrorists may try to derail the peace process between Pakistan and India, we should not allow them to succeed in their nefarious designs, (39) Pakistan, however, asserted its right to protect its territorial integrity and respond to any Indian threat. On 3 December, a joint resolution of the All Parties Conference (APC), talked of the defence of Pakistan s honour and dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and expressed support for the armed forces in defending the country s security. The resolution condemned unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan and said it wanted good relations with India on the basis of settlement of all outstanding disputes. (40) Responding to Indian threats, on 22 December, Pakistani political and military leadership made it clear that they were alive to the threat and had the right to defence. Shah Mehmood Qureshi told reporters that Pakistani government and armed forces were fully alive to the situation and had the capability and the right to defend the country and counter aggression, if war was imposed. (41) However, he stressed the futility of war and called for defusing tensions instead of escalating the situation. He said: It is easy to talk emotionally, but at this time, the whole region needs to act with wisdom and not passion. He pointed out that wise people in India believe that the two countries should not suffer the agony of war because of few unwise elements... War cannot offer any solution and the future of both countries cannot be put at stake due to such elements. (42) With belligerent Indian statements of keeping all options open getting louder, Pakistan also got into defence readiness. On 23 December, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani apprised the President of the operational preparedness of the armed forces. He observed: the armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, as my men are ready to sacrifice for their country. He also warned that Pakistan armed forces would give a matching response within a few minutes if India resorted to any surgical strike inside Pakistan. (43) President Asif Ali Zardari underscored that Pakistan wanted peaceful and cordial relations with all its neighbours, but the threatening statements of Indian leadership were creating an atmosphere of aggression and harming the regional environment. He underlined: We do not want any war with India, as that would prove detrimental to both our nations, but we have the right to defend our borders in case of any aggression. (44) On 24 December, Pakistan s National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Mumbai attacks. But it asked the international community to ensure that India also dismantles its terror networks affecting peace in the region and stop[s] regional destabilisation moves. It urged India to stop hostile propaganda against Pakistan that seeks to cover their intelligence failures and to end activities [that] do not serve the cause of peace in the region. The resolution condemned India s unsubstantiated allegations levelled in haste against Pakistan. The resolution said Pakistan is united and stands ready to defend its honour and dignity as well as sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity and said the nation and the armed forces shall together defend the country s security at all costs. (45) In the

7 Senate, debate on national security saw members across party lines expressing support for the government and the country s armed forces against any kind of aggression by India. (46) In addition, President Zardari while speaking at a cadet college in Sindh pledged that the Pakistani nation would defend itself till the last drop of our blood. He declared: Freedom is the country s ideology and being an independent state its inhabitants will never compromise on the sovereignty of the homeland. (47) Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi expressed the hope that India would not commit the mistake of carrying out surgical strikes. But if war is imposed, we will respond to it like a brave nation.... We will be compelled to respond if it happens. (48) He expressed Pakistan s desire for peace but pointed out that contrary to our reasonable, cooperative and non-aggressive attitude, some elements from India were issuing provocative statements. Qureshi said the nation stood united and knew how to defend the geographical boundaries of the motherland. We should not be complacent. Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. Prime Minsiter Yousuf Raza Gilani ruled out war but maintained that Indian government was trying to find a scapegoat to cover up the intelligence failure behind the Mumbai terror attack. (49) PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif in an exclusive interview with Nawa-i- Waqt regretted Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukerjee s statements saying New Delhi had all options open and maintained Indian threats are irresponsible. (50) Domestic pressure also started mounting in Pakistan. The leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami lashed out against the measures taken against the Jamaat-ud-Daawa and defended it as well as other 'jihadi' forces. (51) The Pakistani media that so far had adopted a sober and mature tone also got into nationalistic mould leading to an aggressive media war between the two countries. International efforts to defuse crisis Fearing the emergence of a grave crisis in Indo-Pak relations in the wake of Mumbai terrorist attacks, the US, UK, China and other world players remained in constant touch with Islamabad and New Delhi to avert any possible confrontation between the nuclear neighbours. The US tried to bring down the pitch by counselling restraint to a belligerent New Delhi and cooperation to a rather harassed Islamabad. Washington expressed strong solidarity with New Delhi and offered full assistance including sending security experts to investigate the attacks. On 2 December, US President-elect Barack Obama s also expressed solidarity with India and suggested that New Delhi had the right to protect itself. (52) However, he emphasised on the evidence: I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their job in making a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts. But he assured India: I can tell you that my administration will remain steadfast in support to India s effort to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice, and I will expect that the world community will feel the same way. The Bush administration sent senior US officials Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs Richard Boucher, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to the region urging India to exercise restraint and counselling Pakistan to cooperate with India in investigations. The US officials maintained that there was still no evidence that Pakistan s government had a hand in the operation, but there s very little doubt that LeT is responsible. At the same time they urged both sides to exercise retraint. In her visit to New Delhi on 3 December, Condoleezza Rice offered India full cooperation and promised to persuade Pakistan to take very direct and tough action. She assured India that the US would work very closely to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice and prevent further strikes of this kind. Even if non-state actors were involved, it was Pakistan s responsibility to take action if the terrorists were based on its territory. However, she wanted Indian response to be limited to arresting the culprits and ensuring that no further attack took place. In response to a question whether the terror attacks warranted Indian military

8 strikes, she wanted New Delhi s response to be judged by its effectiveness which avoids unintended consequences. (53) In her visit to Islamabad, on 4 December, Condoleezza Rice urged the Pakistani leadership to take robust and quick action against those involved in terrorism. She also urged Pakistan to take a hard line on terrorism. The global threat of extremism and terrorism has to be met by all states, taking a very tough and hard line, (54) She is reported to have told Pakistan that there is irrefutable evidence of involvement of elements in the country in the Mumbai attacks and that it needed to act urgently and effectively to avert a strong international response. (55) However, publicly she stated that Pakistan government is focussed and committed to rooting out terrorist elements. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, visited Islamabad to push the Pakistan government to cooperate with India in getting to the bottom of the Mumbai attacks. On 4 December, the White House said that the US would stay engaged with Pakistan until investigation into terrorist attacks in Mumbai came to the conclusion it expected. At the State Department, deputy spokesman Robert Wood said it was important for Pakistan to do everything it can, in its power, to cooperate with this investigation and help all of us bring to justice these perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. (56) On 3 December, Director of US National Intelligence Mike McConnell directly blamed Lashkar-i-Tayba for the Mumbai attacks, increasing pressure on Pakistan to eliminate the group that the US spy chief said was also responsible for other terrorist attacks inside India. (57) The US stepped up pressure on Pakistan in the wake of New Delhi s demands that Pakistan was not doing enough to act against the perpetrators of the attacks, but continued to urge India to exercise restraint. On 8 December, Condoleezza Rice told Fox News that there was evidence of involvement somehow on Pakistan soil in the Mumbai terror attacks and pressed Islamabad to act quickly to arrest suspects to ensure there were no follow-on attacks. However, she also advised India to exercise restraint so as not to make the situation worse. I think we do believe that there was there is evidence of involvement somehow on Pakistani soil...even if these were non-state actors, which I believe they were non-state actors operating on Pakistani soil. It is still Pakistan s responsibility to respond. (58) In another statement, Condoleezza Rice warned Pakistan it must tackle terror, or be consumed by it. On 12 December, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte while supporting Pakistan s war on terror policies conveyed assurance that India would not indulge in any military adventurism as long as Pakistan maintained verifiable commitment in action against proscribed groups that could have been involved in subversive activities in India. (59) Admiral Mike Mullen made a second trip to Pakistan and made it clear during his meetings with key leaders that more needed to be done to satisfy India. (60) On 22 December Adm Mullen met General Kiyani and according to Nawa-i-Waqat/The Nation pressed hard upon the top military brass at the GHQ not to retaliate in case of expected Indian airstrikes. It was reported that Indian Air Force intended to hit certain targets in Lahore and Azad Kashmir during the next 24 hours in the same way as the US Air Force was doing in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the sources confided. According to sources Pakistan military leadership refused to accept US pressure and deployed F-7 fighter jets at the Lahore airbase which are fully capable of not only intercepting Indian strikes but also counter-attacking effectively. All the airforce stations were put on high alert and the military leadership made it clear to the US that in case of Indian attack, Pakistan would at once discontinue logistic support to US forces (in Afghanistan) and shift its army from the western border to the eastern front. (61) The US opposed any military strike against Pakistan or declaring it a terrorist state. Senator John McCain, who led a delegation of US senators comprising Joe Lieberman and Lindsay O Graham to the region and had advocated using military power in the US-led war against terror, said no when asked whether repeated terror attacks on India meant that New Delhi should follow the US and attack Pakistan. (62) On 5 December, the White House refused to

9 support calls for punitive actions against Pakistan, insisting that the best way to resolve the current crisis was to stay engaged with both India and Pakistan. (63) On 13 December, after the UNSC declared JuD a terrorist outfit, the US State Department said that neither the United States nor the United Nations had ever considered declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. (64) On Dec 26, amidst war cries from India, the White House urged both sides to show restraint. Islamabad had cancelled leave for operational armed forces personnel and redeployed troops along the Indian border. US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters at the White House: We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times. We continue to be in close contact with both countries to urge closer cooperation in investigating the Mumbai attacks and in fighting terrorism generally. (65) US intelligence officials, meanwhile, dismissed the possibility of yet another India-Pakistan war. They told reporters they had not noticed any major troop deployment on either side of the border. (66) President-elect Barack Obama in an interview with NBC News Channel, also vowed to build a close effective strategic partnership with Pakistan as a way to curb violent extremism as he underscored that the US could not afford to look at Afghanistan in isolation but as part of a regional problem including Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Iran. (67) Britain too came forward to defuse the crisis. Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Pakistan on 14 December and urged Islamabad to take action against terrorists, as three-quarters of the most serious terror plots investigated by British authorities had links to al-qaeda in Pakistan. President Zardari assured him that the Pakistan government would take action against those found involved in the Mumbai attacks. (68) Brown also proposed a series of measures that include the re-invigoration of mechanisms for dialogue and consultation. He also asked both Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari if they would allow British police to interrogate suspects of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan turned down the request saying it will not hand over any of its nationals to a foreign country and will act according to the country's own laws. (69) Brown said his government would work with Pakistan to make sure that terrorists are denied safe havens in Pakistan. In this connection he announced a 6 million programme to tackle the causes of radicalisation and to strengthen the democratic institutions of Pakistan. He described it as the most comprehensive anti-terrorism programme Britain has signed with any country. China has been the other major international player that stepped in to de-escalate the situation. Beijing contacted both sides and openly counselled against escalating a war of words into a military conflict. It even reportedly offered to be on stand-by for any diplomatic and economic help that Islamabad may need if things get worse. China also assured Pakistan of moral, financial and material support in tackling the Mumbai fallout. In a message, the Chinese government said that it would assist Pakistan in any situation to overcome problems and challenges. Sources close to President Zardari said the Chinese leadership was in constant touch with Pakistan to know the nature of assistance the latter required and ensure its immediate availability. (70) Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang urged India and Pakistan to maintain calm and to work together to investigate the cause of the terror attack on Mumbai and identify its mastermind. We hope to see the improvement of Indian-Pakistani relations. (71) Qin said, the identity of the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks awaited further investigation by concerned countries. He called on both sides to work together through peaceful consultations to investigate the cause of the attacks and combat terrorism. We hope the region will maintain its peace and stability, Qin said that the improvement and development of the relationship between India and Pakistan, both important nations in South Asia, would help regional peace and stability. China would, as always, support efforts by both countries to improve bilateral relations and safeguard regional peace. He underscored that China had strongly denounced the Mumbai

10 attacks. We agree that the international community should cooperate to fight terrorism. On 26 December, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi telephoned Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and called for peace and stability in South Asia emphasising that the escalation of tensions was not in the interest of either India or Pakistan. (72) Iran and Saudi Arabia also tried to bring down the temperature in the subcontinent. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke to Indian and Pakistan foreign ministers, urging de-escalation of the crisis. He urged India to show calm and restraint. Iran maintained that instability in South Asia would affect the whole region and beyond. (73) Manmohan Singh also spoke to President Ahmednijad and asked him to pressure Islamabad to do more to end crossborder terrorism. The Iranian President urged India and Pakistan to adopt coordinated measures to fight terrorism in the region, while warning them against any action that would have dire consequences for regional countries. (74) Saudi Arabia also stepped in to defuse the situation. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al- Faisal visited New Delhi and held talks with Pranab Mukherjee who impressed upon Prince Faisal the need for Riyadh to use its influence on Pakistan to ensure that those behind Mumbai attacks were brought to justice at the earliest. Prince Faisal asserted: Terrorism is a cancer, we need to cut it out. He called for the United Nations to set up an international body to deal with Mumbai-like terror attacks. Mukherjee said terrorism was not an issue between India and Pakistan but a global menace which should be dealt with by joint action among all countries. (75) The UN also tried to defuse India Pakistan tension. UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon condemned the attacks in Mumbai and appealed to Pakistan and India to resolve all outstanding issues through dialogue. In his year-end press conference at UN HQ in New York he stated: They are two big neighbouring countries and they should maintain and improve their relationship through continuous composite dialogue which they have initiated, through mutual respect and understanding. At the same time, he said that the view of the international community and the UN was very clear that terrorism could not be justified under any circumstances, and stressed the need for all countries to fight the menace unitedly. He added that peace between the two countries will have great implications not only in the Sub-continent, but also throughout the world. (76) The looming War Clouds India, unlike in 2001-2002 when it mobilised its ground forces on the borders, opted for a strategy of diplomatic compellence rather than a military compellence though military threat was kept alive so as to boost diplomatic pressure. This was quite visible throughout the crisis in November and December. Although Indian and Pakistani political and military leadership ruled out war, yet threats were exchanged accompanied by some posturing and signalling. In the beginning of the crisis Pranab Mukherjee ruled out military option and the Indian defence establishment denied reports that the Indian army was being deployed on the international border with Pakistan, or combat aircraft squadrons were being reached for an attack at any location. (77) However, India asserted its right to protect its territorial integrity. New Delhi also hinted that it might be compelled to take military action against terror networks and training facilities in Pakistan. On 3 December, Mukherjee told journalists, every sovereign nation has the right to protect its territorial integrity and take action as it saw fit. He, however, cautioned against misinterpreting his observation to mean military action. (78) Tension was however, heightened when on 13 December, Indian warplanes crossed the border into Pakistan s airspace, over the Azad Kashmir and Lahore sectors. PAF fighters, already in the air as part of Air Defence Alert mission, chased out the intruders. While both New Delhi and Islamabad put the incident down to a mistake, the fact that the incursions happened

11 within 24 hours in two separate sectors makes the official explanation not very convincing. The incident raised the fear of a surgical strikes by India as tension was already running high. Defence analysts in Pakistan believed that the violations were deliberate. The PAF spokesperson observed that that the IAF wanted to check the readiness of PAF. At the same time, India also tried to deliver a clear warning to Pakistan, further adding to the pressure on it. (79) Later, PAF planes scrambled over Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore in a show of increased vigilance. Similarly, on 14 December the Pakistan Army confirmed an unusual movement of medium and heavy military artillery vehicles from the cantonment area of Lahore to north of Punjab through the Motorway but the ISPR maintained it was only for winter exercises. (80) On 16 December, Indian Defence Minister A. K Antony said: "We are not planning any military action... but at the same time unless Pakistan takes action against those terrorists who are operating from their soil against India and also against all those who are behind the Mumbai terrorist attack, things will not be normal." (81) He also denied that India was planning to call off the more than five-year-old ceasefire along the LoC. Similarly, on 17 December, the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad conveyed on behalf of his government a categorical assurance to the government of Pakistan that it had no intention of taking any military action in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. (82) On 22 December, India, urged the international community to press Pakistan to weed out from its soil runaway terrorists otherwise it would take action. Briefing Indian ambassadors from different world capitals, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said: We have so far acted with utmost restraint and are hopeful that the international community will use its influence to urge Pakistani government to take effective action. (83) The same day, India s top military leadership and defence and foreign ministers discussed the security situation and defence preparedness of the armed forces. They discussed all options with an audit of pros and cons of each possible scenario. A source revealed: The option of cross-border surgical strikes has not been abandoned. The armed forces, on their part, are maintaining a high-level of alertness to meet any eventuality, as they have been directed. (84) India also reportedly stepped up vigil along the Rajashtan border. (85) On 24 December, Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor rushed to Siachen Glacier and forward areas in Jammu and Kashmir to check the operational preparedness of the troops while both Indian and Pakistani fighter jets continued surveillance flights along the border. (86) The IAF also reportedly carried out precision bombing practice runs to prepare itself for any eventuality. (87) Chief of it s Western Air Command Air Vice Marshall P. K. Barbora claimed that his command has identified 5,000 targets in Pakistan. (88) Pakistan took Mukherjee s statement seriously and asserted that it would counter any aggression. On 22 December, Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani made it clear to the US that Pakistan would defend itself tooth and nail should India impose a war. (89) Federal Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar however, said that nuclear weapons would not be used in case of a war and that the armed forces of Pakistan had all the potential to defend the country if India tried to thrust war upon it. (90) Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also assured the nation of full preparedness of the government and the armed forces to meet any eventuality should a war was imposed on Pakistan. (91) On 22 December, PAF fighter jets again scrambled over several major cities including Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore, in a sign of increased vigilance. (92) Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh however, intervened to tone down the rhetoric, saying war was not the issue and urged the international community to persuade Pakistan to put an end to terror. He told reporters in New Delhi: Nobody wants war.... The issue is not war, but terrorism being aided and abetted by Pakistan. We want Pakistan to make objective efforts to dismantle the terror infrastructure. (93) The threat of war remained however, and the both sides tried to shore up their defences against each other. On 26 December, Manmohan Singh held a strategy session with his military chiefs and advised Indian nationals to avoid trips to Pakistan. This escalated tension again and pushed the Pakistan military to start pulling out troops from the

12 tribal areas for deployment on the Indian border. (94) Army leaves were also cancelled. India, however, denied any build-up on its western border with Pakistan but repeated its demands. The rising tension led to intensification of US efforts to cool down the situation. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: We sincerely hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times. (95) The US was concerned and wanted to ensure that Pakistani troops were not diverted from operations in the restive North- West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan against Taliban and al-qaeda militants. The US media and think tanks also highlighted the war threats in the region. The US global intelligence service provider, Stratfor, in its report declared that Indian military operations against targets in Pakistan have, in fact, been prepared and await the signal to go forward. (96) Stratfor had predicted that there was a high probability of India using military force against Pakistan after 26 December the deadline India set for Pakistan to crack down on Islamic militant proxies that threaten India. The report said India had spent the past month preparing for military action. (97) US President-elect Barack Obama s suggestion that India had the right to protect itself was also interpreted in India as its right to take military action against Pakistan if it failed to deliver. Track II/civil society response During the first week of December, non-official opinion-makers from India and Pakistan met in Singapore for a Track-II dialogue. They stressed the need to contain the fallout of the Mumbai attacks and de-escalate India-Pakistan tensions. They also asked the Pakistani authorities take visible action, based on conclusive evidence, against anti-india terrorists. (98) The governments and civil society organisations in both countries were urged to adopt de-escalation measures. Further, Pakistan human rights activists, women s rights activists, teachers, labour leaders and journalists issued a statement that condemned the Mumbai attacks, expressed sympathy with the victims of terrorism whether in India or Pakistan. It observed that although tensions had abated yet the danger of an armed conflict persisted and called upon New Delhi and Islamabad not to take peace for granted. It also pointed out that the media in India and Pakistan had failed to present Mumbai outrage in a proper context and, instead, used the event to fuel hostility between the two countries. It aided warmongers on both sides to whip up a war hysteria. (99) On 6 December the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) condemned Mumbai terrorism and termed it a ploy of the enemy to sabotage peace efforts between the two neighbours. Officials of the Forum s, Sindh chapter, Mir Sikandar Ali Khan Talpur and Syed Abbasi Ali Jafri said in a statement that no religion or ideology permited massacre of innocent people adding that the development and prosperity of peoplez of Pakistan and India depended on peace. (100) Amarnath agitation and India-Pakistan relations The transfer of the Valley land for the Amarnath Shrine pilgrimage continued to rock IHK during August-September 2008 and adversely affected India-Pakistan relations. The controversy sparked pro-azadi cry across the Kashmir Valley which many termed as the second uprising. On 11 August, Muzaffarabad chalo call of fruit-growers, supported by the APHC parties, some mainstream leaders and a large number of common people, turned out to be a massive march towards Muzaffarabad across the LoC. The police firing on the march resulted in the killing of five people, including APHC leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz which worsened the situation in IHK. More than 30 people died in subsequent firing. This also led to the suspension of Poonch- Rawalakot and Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus services which were however, resumed later.