A finger pointed at Dhaka (and Dubai)

Internationalising the terrorism issue

When accosted by a frowning teacher, the first trick that naughty primary school students use is denial. When that doesn’t work, they try one or both of the following: develop stomach ache and point finger at classmate.

It’s stomach ache time when you hear about Pakistan being "a victim of terror". And now Pakistani authorities have used the third trick by letting it slip that they are "closing in on a Bangladeshi connection to the terrorist strike and are said to have evidence of not only the involvement of a banned militant organisation, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami, Bangladesh (HuJI-B), but also of its role in planning the attack and training the terrorists."

They allege that at least one of the terrorists came from Bangladesh, and that the plot was partially hatched in Dubai. Now they can afford to drag Bangladesh into this but naming Dubai can have political repercussions for Pakistan and personal repercussions for its political leaders. Still, it is illuminating to know that Pakistan might allege that the terrorist attacks were conducted by "‘international network of Muslim fundamentalists’ present in South Asia and spread all the way to Middle East" and might even be
"remotely linked to Al Qaeda’s international terror network." (Now who would have suspected that?)

Tomorrow, you’ll see a foreign office spokesman in Dhaka asking "but where’s the evidence"? Groan.

20 thoughts on “A finger pointed at Dhaka (and Dubai)”

  1. The suspicion of one Bangladeshi is enough to blame Bangladesh. Pakistan can claim innocence if almost all of the terrorist attackers are Pakistanis. They have not provided any proof.

  2. i know what they are doing. i saw it on the tv show, “law and order”: when a guilty party is confronted with evidence, the defense lawyer tries to create reasonable doubt by tellng the jurors how somebody other than the accused could have done “it”.
    pakistan is creating reasonable doubt.

    p.s. see mom and dad, your beta did learn something useful by watching tv.

  3. Groan is right. Our military, economic and political options are non-existent. Canceling cricket matches as a tactic is just pathetic. We’ve got to develop options on all 3 fronts – so when the time comes to squeeze again – and it will – we’ll be better prepared. The presence of real options will prevent these fools from mouthing off mindlessly like they are now.

  4. Trilok,

    “Law and Order” only works in the context of a constitution — without a law enforcer, “law and order” has no meaning. When it comes to international relations, there is no over-riding set of rules, and every country has its own idea of what is acceptable/legal and what is not and so it all boils down to what we were familiar with in kindergarten “the strongest kid wins”.

    Organizations like the UN exist to protect the interests of the P-5, which is why the P-5 can veto any UN decision made by any other country, including India.

    Pakistan is not buying time, but is openly thumbing its nose and India and daring India to respond, since it is confident of the support of USA, NATO, and China. India is slow to respond as usual, but the hope is that there will be a response. Otherwise, it is time to be moving to Mauritius, away from the future Pakistan-initiated carnages in India.

  5. mr.basil – are you saying that – Law and Order – the longest running crime drama on american television has it wrong?

  6. trilok, no, that is not what I am saying. Please read the post again. I am explaining to you why law and order in the context of international relations is meaningless, since you posited that Pakistan’s agenda has something to do with establishing Pakistani complicity “beyond reasonable doubt” (a phrase that are obviously familiar with from “law and order”).

  7. tombasil – if the Law and Order show is meaningless in the context of international relations, then sun tzhu was a mere cobbler and kautilya chanakya an ordinary accountant.
    next you will tell me that man landed on moon, and america elected a black president.

  8. From what the Pakistanis are doing, they appear quite confident of converting this into a shouting match – at no real cost to them, of course.

    Either there is something happening behind the scenes – if we believe Narayanan – or the government has screwed up (yet again?)

  9. Either there is something happening behind the scenes – if we believe Narayanan – or the government has screwed up (yet again?)

    photonman: our options range from bad to terrible. No leverage, no political will and an entrenched foe.

    When we are a $3 trillion economy and Pakistan is still a midget, we’ll get to dictate terms in the area – even draw some red lines that Uncle Sam cannot cross. Of course that will only happen with a credible military deterrent to back up any threats we make. That work must start now – we’re already severely behind the curve.

  10. trilok, Law and Order is about the US justice system…how do you manage to tie your shoelaces and get out of the house everyday?

  11. Trilok, thanks for the information. May I suggest a pair of Bata chappals instead? You will be able to get to work half an hour early and that promotion you are eyeing may come within reach soon after.

  12. PaK throws dirt at India, draws blood and gets away with it.

    We are of course right to be angry at this.

    What everyone fail to see in Pak’s rapturous laughter at their little ‘successes’ is that they are wallowing in bloody dirt. But they prolly like it, so we can’t count that as our success, sadly.

  13. Urvashi, which part of “If the Law and Order show is meaningless in the context of international relations, then sun tzhu was a mere cobbler and kautilya chanakya an ordinary accountant.” is funny to you?

    The original statement about the “law and order” show may have been partly in jest, but the point made still remains. There are still too many Indians who swear by “international law” and insist on UN involvement in our affairs, when it would be against our national interest, which is why I am striving to correct what was said.

    The above quoted statement is a very stupid one since it is commonly accepted that the politics of power goes hand in hand with any pretense of “international law and order”. In other words, what is the use of “international law and order” if there is no “international policeman”…and if there is such a “international police”, why would everyone accept that policeman as a legitimate enforcer of international law? Isn’t this exactly the problem with the USA as an enforcer of international law, where even the USA has not even helped itself by putting itself in the role of an enforcer?

  14. libertarian:

    When we are a $3 trillion economy and Pakistan is still a midget, we’ll get to dictate terms in the area

    I hope so, but I am not sure if Pakistan will be allowed to remain a midget, atleast militarily. There are too many interests that want to keep it viable.

    Leverage compels an adversary to listen to us. Gaining such a leverage doesn’t always require improving conventional forces.

    Here we again run into the problem of weak political will…

  15. TomBasil – “which part of “If the Law and Order show is meaningless in the context of international relations, then sun tzhu was a mere cobbler and kautilya chanakya an ordinary accountant.” is funny to you? ”

    The whole of it actually; along with: “p.s. see mom and dad, your beta did learn something useful by watching tv.” and, “next you will tell me that man landed on moon, and america elected a black president.”

Comments are closed.