Asia Times: US forces Delhi to backpedal


	January 25, 2002	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

US forces Delhi to backpedal
By Sultan Shahin

NEW DELHI - Concerned at a row developing with the United States over their varying perceptions of Tuesday's killing of four policemen guarding the American center in Kolkata, India has started playing down the terrorist and Pakistani angle it championed immediately after the attack.

The US government is not willing to categorize the Kolkata incident as a terrorist attack and denies that it was aimed at the US government. It seems to think that the target was just the local police, and that it was a common crime, perhaps some kind of vendetta killing.

In face of the US government's attitude, India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has taken recourse to silence. Dropping all references to terrorism, the MEA on Wednesday described the attack as a "criminal incident" and stalled further queries by stating that investigations were ongoing.

An official version would be available only later, the external affairs spokesperson said, adding, "We still have to come to a definitive conclusion"' about who was responsible for the attack and who it was directed against. The statement is different from Tuesday's version, when, while maintaining that the identity of the groups was still to be ascertained, the spokesperson had said, "It is obviously a terrorist attack."

The government struck a more cautious note about the Pakistani hand theory as well. Official sources said that it had "suspended judgment until the full facts of the case were known".

Other government agencies, such as the interior ministry under hardliner L K Advani, have gone ahead to term it a sponsored incident of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

But in contrast to the government's readiness in giving out information about a Dubai-based don, Farhan Malik alias Aftab Ansari, on Tuesday, no further information was forthcoming a day later on allegations that he was linked to the attack.

India's largest-circulated newspaper, The Times of India, quoted an unnamed senior Intelligence Bureau (IB) official as saying that the attack had sent a very dangerous signal. "The investigations in this case till now show that Pakistani intelligence is subcontracting local groups to carry out attacks and spread terror in the country."

According to the official, this new strategy is designed to confuse intelligence agencies "which have been able to track and contain all major terrorist groups who have planned attacks on us"

IB sources were quoted as saying that certain "vital clues" suggest that the persons involved in the shooting had Dubai contacts and that they were also in touch with Pakistani intelligence, but they definitely did not belong to any of the major terrorist groups.

"Our information is that Pakistani intelligence not only supports major terrorist groups, but also gives financial support to criminal gangs all over the country. In the Kolkata incident, it seems they have used the services of one of these kinds of groups," an official said.

The IB officials have sent messages to police forces across the country to keep a watch on local criminal elements who are known to be in touch with underworld dons based outside the country, and who carry out assignments such as kidnapping or arms and drugs smuggling, or act as hawala (illegal transfer of foreign exchange) agents for them.

"They chose Kolkata as the place of attack, though it is easier for them to have attacked in other states like Bihar or Uttar Pradesh (UP) because these two states act like transit points for them and they don't want to unnecessarily activate the local police in these states," said an official.

The MEA spokesperson made a terse comment when asked about the differing stands of India and the US on the incident. "We are in touch with the Americans. We have yet to come to a definite conclusion," she said.

The spokesperson, however, denied any suggestion of discomfort at the US unwillingness to accept India's version, saying, "I would not regard it in that light. The US and India have excellent relations, which are growing from strength to strength," she said.

The frustration with the US position, which the government cannot express in public is, however, being freely vented by the media. India's second largest-circulated newspaper, the Indian Express, for instance, called it "a test of Indo-US cooperation on terrorism".

In an uncharacteristically hard-hitting editorial against US perceptions, the paper wrote, "Not only must the attack on the American Center in Kolkata be condemned in the strongest terms, but its significance should be seen in its correct perspective. Questions have been raised whether this was a criminal act of violence or an act of terrorism. This is only an academic semantic distinction. Terrorism itself is a heinous crime against humanity and democracy. The policemen were on legitimate duty, they were neither threatening nor even targeting anyone. To that extent they were the innocents in the process as much as the bystanders who got hit.

"Even if it is assumed that the attack was perpetuated because of revenge against the police, the reality is that it was the police picket guarding the American Center that was chosen as the target. This could hardly be a coincidence, especially when there would have been many policemen on duty in Kolkata who would have made an easier target in the early hours of a foggy morning.

"It is therefore difficult to understand why the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] director said the attack and killing of policemen guarding US property and people was not directed at US interests. This approach is hardly conducive to mutual confidence and the morale of Indian security forces assigned to protect the interests and property of foreign governments.

"This attack is the first act of violence aimed at American installations or assets in India. The earlier act of terrorism involved the kidnapping and killing of American (and other foreign) hostages by terrorist groups so often described as freedom fighters by Pakistan. Coincidentally the fourth meeting of the Joint Working Group on international terrorism was being held on the day of the Kolkata attack, which would no doubt have been factored into the deliberations. Considering that we are in the middle of the Third World War, which is actually being waged against international terrorism where India, like the US, is a direct victim, it is necessary to continue strengthening mutual cooperation if we want to win this war."

The US viewpoint, however, does have supporters in the country. The Times of India, for instance, wrote, "It appears almost certain that the attack was intended more as an assault on the Indian state rather than American interests, or else the terrorists would not have targeted the token and virtually unarmed police force deployed at the American Center. Nor would they have chosen early morning to execute their plan.

"As anticipated by them, they managed to take the policemen, armed with antiquated rifles and canes, completely by surprise and sprayed them with automatic fire before escaping. No damage was inflicted on the American Center, and the timing ensured that the victims would be policemen on guard duty and not visitors or employees at the center.

"It is also significant that the terrorists ignored the fortified American consulate, situated barely a kilometer away. The carefully executed operation succeeded in extracting publicity without the terrorists having to pay any price. That the attack came barely four days before Republic day could indicate that the terrorists had decided to avoid a strike on January 26 when security agencies are expected to be more alert and better prepared to take them on.

"It may also signal that the attack was carried out by a small group of fanatics on their own. Lacking in resources to carry out a more spectacular strike on Republic day, they may have opted for a 'high value, low risk' option."

The Kolkata incident had the potential of being able to convince the US that Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf's "historic" and "path-breaking" speech delivered on January 12 and subsequent action - the arrest of 2,500 militant fundamentalists and closing down of about 7,000 offices of these organizations - was mere window-dressing and that he could not be trusted. Instead, it has merely widened the gulf between India-US perceptions on a variety of issues.

Well-known investigative journalist Seymour M Hersh has, for instance, quoted Milton Bearden, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) station chief in Pakistan who helped run the Afghan war against the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and who worked closely with the ISI, in the latest issue of New Yorker as believing that the Indian government is cynically using the parliament bombing of December 13 to rally public support for the conflict with Pakistan.

"The Indians are just playing brinkmanship now - moving troops up to the border," Bearden is quoted as saying. "Until September 11, they thought they'd won this thing - they had Pakistan on the ropes." Because of its nuclear program, he said, "Pakistan was isolated and sanctioned by the United States, with only China left as an ally. Never mind that the only country in South Asia that always did what we asked was Pakistan."

As for Musharraf, Bearden said, "What can he do? Does he really have the army behind him? Yes, but maybe by only 48 to 52 percent." Bearden went on, "Musharraf is not going to be a Kemal Ataturk, [the founder of the secular Turkish state] but as long as he can look over his shoulder and see that Rich Armitage [the US deputy secretary of state] and Don Rumsfeld [US defense secretary] are with him he might be able to stop the extremism."

Hersh also quotes a senior Pakistani diplomat as depicting India as suffering from "jilted-lover syndrome" - referring to the enormous amount of American attention and financial aid that the Musharraf government has received since September 11. "The situation is bloody explosive," the diplomat said, and argued that Musharraf has not been given enough credit from the Indian leadership for the "sweeping changes" that have taken place in Pakistan. "Short of saying it is now a secular Pakistan, he's redefined and changed the politics of the regime," the diplomat said. "He has de-legitimized religious fundamentalism." Hersh says that the diplomat told him that the critical question for Pakistan, India and the rest of South Asia is "Will the Americans stay involved for the long haul, or will attention shift to Somalia or Iraq? I don't know."

American frustration over India's attitude towards nuclear weapons is also revealed by Hersh's narrative. "In New Delhi, I got a sense of how dangerous the situation is, in a conversation with an Indian diplomat who has worked at the highest levels of his country's government. He told me that he believes India could begin a war with Pakistan and not face a possible nuclear retaliation. He explained, 'When Pakistan went nuclear, we called their bluff'. He was referring to a tense moment in 1990, when India moved its army en masse along the Pakistani border and then sat back while the United States mediated a withdrawal.

"We found, through intelligence, that there was a lot of bluster. He and others in India concluded that Pakistan was not willing to begin a nuclear confrontation. 'We've found that there is a lot of strategic space between a low-intensity war waged with Pakistan and the nuclear threshold,' the diplomat said. 'Therefore, we are utilizing military options without worrying about the nuclear threshold.' If that turned out to be a miscalculation and Pakistan initiated the use of nuclear weapons, he said, then India would respond in force. 'And Pakistan would cease to exist'."

Hersh concludes his insightful story with the following remarks, revealing why US officials might be as frustrated with India on their recent behavior, as India is with the US on Kolkata. "India's grievances - over the Pakistani airlift [of Pakistani soldiers and perhaps some Taliban from Kunduz], the continuing terrorism in Kashmir, and Musharraf's new status with Washington - however heartfelt, may mean little when it comes to effecting a dramatic change of American policy in South Asia. India's democracy and its tradition of civilian control over the military make it less of a foreign-policy priority than Pakistan. The Bush administration has put its prestige, and American aid money, behind Musharraf, in the gamble - thus far successful - that he will continue to move Pakistan, and its nuclear arsenal, away from fundamentalism. The goal is to stop nuclear terrorism as well as political terrorism. It's a tall order, and missteps are inevitable. Nonetheless, the White House remains optimistic. An administration official told me that, given the complications of today's politics, he still believed that Musharraf was the best Pakistani leader the Indians could hope for, whether they recognize it or not. 'After him, they could only get something worse'."

India may perhaps do well to ponder if it is taking its jilted-lover act too far. The US may not be in the mood to entertain its tantrums too long. This is the message from the stance of public airing of differences of perceptions that the US has taken in the Kolkata affair.

The US has also publicly announced that in its view fewer Pakistan-based terrorists are crossing into Kashmir. "I would say we've seen various kinds of reports that would indicate that there is a lessening of activity across the Line of Control," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told a news briefing, thus increasing pressure on New Delhi to give credit to Musharraf for trying to end what it calls cross-border terrorism. The MEA spokesperson, however, continued to insist that it was too early to suggest this. "We haven't yet discerned any long-term trends of reduced infiltration and cross-border terrorism."

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)