CAN THERE BE RATIONALE FOR EXTREMISM? (sent to IPCS on 18.01.2009)

          By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador of Bangladesh)

The terrorism in Mumbai had the short term objective of bringing about an open war fare between Pakistan and India that Condoleezza Rice warned could have “unintended consequences and difficulties”.  Their broader agenda feared retired US Navy admiral and former Commander-in Chief of the US Pacific Command James Lyons, was a declaration of war against the US and every free democratic nations by Iran’s theocratic regime. Admiral Lyons urged the US to be aware of this signal, signals he thought was ignored by the Carter administration resulting in Khomeini revolution and by Reagan administration   that resulted in terrorist bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine headquarters in Beirut in 1983. Admiral Lyon’s warning to take heed of the Mumbai massacre as a signal of Iran’s regional ambition appears far fetched as is his exhortations of undertaking preemptive military actions against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and other key installations. Ariel Sharon publicly put pressure on the US since 2002 describing Iran as “the center of world terror” who is bent upon acquiring nuclear weapons, notwithstanding Israel’s “nuclear ambiguity”. In an interview with the London Times he urged armed attack on Iran like the Osirak attack by Israel on suspected Iraqi nuclear installation and consequent regime change after the Second Gulf War. The 1981 Osirak attack was condemned by the UNSC because “there was no instant or overwhelming necessity for self-defense by Israel”. Despite President Bush’s firm conviction in the efficacy of the Doctrine of Preemption fortunately had sent Admiral Mullen and Condoleezza Rice to cap the tempers running high in the   aggrieved country -- India-- and the one accused of letting its territory to be used by non-state actors.   South Asian expert Bruce Riedel was happily surprised by the conciliatory remarks made by President Asif Zardari that included re-opening of trade relation between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir for the first time since the partition of India in 1947, intent to reassert control over ISI, declaring in an interview to the Wall Street Journal that “India was never a threat to Pakistan” and committing Pakistan to a “no first use policy” of its nuclear arsenal. Stephen Cohen, another South Asian expert thought that one of the purposes of the attack was to scuttle negotiations on Kashmir. He also suspects the ISI, the creator of Lashkar-e-Toiba or senior officers within the outfit wants to reverse the on-going détente and to undermine the civilian government.

 Expectedly Indian reaction to Pakistan’s consistent denials of the complicity of Pakistani nationals in Mumbai terrorism was one of anger and retaliation, not militarily, but in other forms. Indian Home Minister threatened Pakistan with ban on trade,  on tourism, and perhaps, international isolation. India wants Pakistan to walk the talk and to hand over to India people accused of masterminding the Mumbai massacre that Pakistan refuses to do. Indian Foreign Minister questioned the efficacy of the composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan because of Pakistan’s position on the Mumbai attack. Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh asked Pakistan never again to allow attacks like the ones in Mumbai and the Indian embassy at Kabul. The Mumbai tragedy was further messed up by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s remark linking Kashmir problem with the Mumbai attack that infuriated the Indians who upbraided Miliband for his “aggressive style, the tone and the manner in which he conducted himself during his talks with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister”.

  One is intrigued by the choice of Mumbai, the financial capital of India as the venue of the massacre. Investment, be it domestic or foreign, demands tranquility and abhors instability. Earlier India’s information technology center in the South of the country was also a target of terrorist attack. Albeit Michael Walzer’s prescription on Just and Unjust War may not be applicable to meet the security challenges of the 21st century where non-state actors can cause havoc and international law may have to be amended to meet the demands of time, yet to give carte blanche to any nation without the sanction of the UNSC to take military measures against a presumed “aggressor” could be more harmful for the peace and security of the world. Could religion have been a driving force for the Mumbai terrorists who were all “Muslims”? Did they believe in the “US-Zionist-Hindu axis”, who, the terrorists believed, was pursuing a crusade against the Muslims?  Or was a jealousy of India’s growing stature in global affairs a reason for the Mumbai massacre?  India is in a bind. If the future global player does nothing after the bloody nose it got in Mumbai many in the world may take India as a “paper tiger”. On the other hand if she takes punitive actions against Pakistan where the military still calls the shots then the problem may have unpredictable consequences. India may not wish to emulate Bush administration’s decimation of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the invasion of Iraq, both have made the world and the countries invaded less safe than they were before the military actions were taken. Though in both cases the responsibility to protect, sanctified by the World UN Summit, was equally applicable yet the fall out so far is far from being ideal.