BY ROZINA ALI
After the death of 173 people in the Mumbai attacks, it was not only India but also Pakistan that feared for its safety. As Indian security forces recovered dead bodies from the November 26 carnage, a sinking realization overcame the two countries’ that their fates were inextricably linked. A year earlier, former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto had died in a suicide bombing that killed 150 others in Islamabad. With frequent attacks now spilling beyond Pakistan’s border, India immediately demanded stronger policy from Pakistan on subverting terrorist threat.
Although it has not been the first time Pakistanis have carried out attacks in India, the Mumbai massacre signaled to Pakistan the cost to its domestic political stability if it continued to take a passive attitude towards militant groups within its borders. The rising military and ideological strength of these groups threaten Pakistan’s future political stability as they act outside of the government and military authorization. But Pakistan’s rhetoric in the past few days about the Mumbai attacks suggests the country is shifting its critical gaze inward.
In a surprising move last Thursday, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik acknowledged that the Mumbai attacks were partially planned in Pakistan. “We have located those places used by the terrorists as hideouts before launching, some accused have been arrested and they have given details,” Malik said in a press conference in Islamabad.
After three months of a rhetoric war between the two countries, Pakistan’s recent admission was a breakthrough in India-Pakistan relations. Less than a month ago, Pakistan’s High Commissioner in Britain Wajid Shamsul Hasan had told India’s NDTV Channel that the Pakistani territory was not used to implement the attacks.
Pakistan’s admission has forced the country to acknowledge issues beyond terrorism that plague its political environment. Although it was not until after the September 11 attacks that Pakistan took action against militant forces, the strong presence of these groups was not new. Amidst pressures from the United States, former President Pervez Musharraf banned Lashkar-e-Taiba in January 2002. The militant group fights against Indian forces in India-occupied Kashmir, and before the ban, operated with relative freedom in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is currently holding nine Lashkar-e-Taiba members on suspicion of involvement in the Mumbai attacks.
But as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Taliban activities continue, it is becoming clear to Pakistan that the country is vulnerable to different ideological forces, and militant attacks are not the only concern. Since its partition, the country has not been able to reconcile the secular and Islamist groups attempting to guide the still fledgling nation-state. “There are two visions being played out in Pakistan. This is the heart and soul of Pakistan. You finally realized you carried the contradiction within you,” retired banker Shaheryar Azhar said over the phone. Currently residing in New York City, Azhar also moderates an online Pakistani politics list serv called “The Forum” and has interviewed prestigious figures such as Benazir Bhutto.
Militant forces not only endanger civilians, but the political core of the country as well. According to Azhar, the country faced 600 terrorist attacks in 2008 alone, killing both civilians and soldiers. And it is young men and boys who help plan and execute these attacks with anti-US and anti-India fervor against secular government forces. They are demanding a shift of political rule in Pakistan according to their religious or political agenda. Simply put, Azhar said, the country is on the brink of civil war.
Despite Pakistan’s recent admission, India and the United States have accused the government of not doing enough to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in the country. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee welcomed Pakistan’s move, but he remained cautious. “We will continue to review the situation, including Pakistan’s responses, and will take further steps that we deem necessary in order to protect our people,” Mr. Mukherjee said in Parliament after Malik’s press conference. “The threat of terrorism from Pakistan has emerged as a global menace and cancer. The major onus of responsibility to eliminate this threat rests on the government of Pakistan.”
Yet as India demanded stronger action from Pakistan on combating the terrorist threat, Pakistan was vague about its next steps. Although Foreign Minister Malik admitted to Lashkar-e-Taiba activity in Pakistan, he said those suspects held may be prosecuted. Pakistan is facing a catch-22: while militant groups challenge the country’s security and stability, they remain a strong force that can dismantle the government.
The Pakistani government does not want the state to fall into the hands of the Islamist forces in the country, Azhar said. The recent assassination of Bhutto and earlier attempts on Musharraf’s life indicated that Pakistan simply does not have the military and financial capability to fight off an enemy that remains a powerful force in the country.
For this reason, Azhar theorized that the Pakistani government acted with foresight when it pardoned the infamous nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest weeks before Malik’s press conference. The act most likely confused militant groups and the population who would have accused Pakistan of submitting to U.S. pressures when it pursued investigations of the Mumbai attacks.
As India awaits further action from its neighbor, Islamist forces in Pakistan continue to strike. As of Sunday, Pakistan signed a peace deal with a Taliban group that will allow the group to implement Sharia Law in the Swat valley in return for their weapons. Only a few days after Malik’s press conference, the move points to the challenge of working with specific Islamic groups and weeding out the militants who threaten regional stability.
Yet it is not Pakistan’s challenge alone. According to Azhar, another attack on India is likely unless the two countries can work together. “Pakistan and India have to understand that they cannot home hostage to those who commit terror. Their relationship cannot come hostage to that.”