Don’t take the charade too seriously
Now unless you think that dossiers-and-lawsuits is somehow an effective way for India to secure itself against attacks by Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex, you should neither be surprised nor overly concerned over the Lahore High Court’s decision to release the Lashkar-e-Taiba chief from house arrest. Of course his release reveals Pakistan’s lack of seriousness in acting against the jihadi groups. As does the fact that there were no charges pressed against him—he was only under ‘preventive custody’. This going in and out of the purdah—to use Sumit Ganguly’s term—is an old routine. In fact, it shows a lack of seriousness on India’s part to expect the Pakistani legal system to somehow solve the problem pf cross-border terrorism. Dossiers-and-lawsuits simply cannot be the centre-piece of India’s strategic response. [See: Beyond the cosmetic crackdown and after the mea culpa]
Coming to Mr Saeed’s release, what might have been the motivations and the terms of the deal? The Pakistani army is engaged in a battle against the ‘Taliban’ in Malakand and Waziristan, it is likely to want to placate the jihadis in its heartland. Also, Mr Saeed’s case fits a pattern of judgements coming from the ‘restored’ judiciary which also freed A Q Khan and Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Red Mosque in recent months. Like the others, Mr Saeed’s freedom is likely to have come under the understanding that for the time being, he is permitted to indulge in rhetoric, but not the kind of mischief that would get the Pakistani government in more trouble. That’s not bad news.
There is a chance that Mr Saeed’s release is linked to the onset of the summer infiltration season in Jammu & Kashmir. But surely, the resourceful LeT chief is unlikely to have serious impediments in directing the operations while being under house arrest. That would even provide alibis, fig leafs and mitigation pleas to all those who might need them.
11 thoughts on “Let out of the purdah”
Why waste time on a 5000 page dossier..why not a car bomb(like taking out imad mugniyah in Damascus) or sniper (taking out Brig. Gen. Mohammed Suleiman of Syria who was Hezbollah liason)..We are feeding fucking useless intelligence agencies..
ps:Air Force Chief says No idea about China’s capabilities….so its No.1 Threat
GOOD FOR HIM…at least he has done his job..what should we say..thank u?
Now if Kasab is let go, with the help of HR groups, then Pakiland can claim parity with Indian justice system.
“Like the others, Mr Saeed’s freedom is likely to have come under the understanding that for the time being, he is permitted to indulge in rhetoric, but not the kind of mischief that would get the Pakistani government in more trouble.”
I doubt it. India’s hands are tied by US with Pakis apparently fighting taliban. It’s probably time to plan the next attack. And it’s been six months since December 2008 and same people in charge.
India may well be tying itself in knots by towing the American and peacenaiks line.
I’m sure they would have extracted a promise from him not to stage anything spectacular in near future. Let’s see how long he can “hold” himself.
IMO, there’s no point getting worked up over Saeed’s release. To me, the whole idea of fighting terror through an adversary’s legal system is – for want of a better word – laughable.
Seriously, does anyone think: (a) Saeed was ever ‘imprisoned’ in the true sense of the term, or (b) even if he really is kept ‘in jail’, that would discourage Pakistan and its proxies from executing terrorist attacks in India?
The problem with assassinating the leaders of your enemies, as Israel does, is that you end up having no one to make a peace deal with. If you don’t expect to ever make peace, it is an appealing strategy. On the other hand, you end up facing a seemingly assortment of fanatical enemies armed with the weapons fairly available in even a modestly technical society.
The conflict between India and Pakistan is interesting, even to someone who’s not in it, because it is partly a continuation of a long standing religious conflict using modern tactics and partly a fairly desperate attempt by the military elite of Pakistan to take India apart before India totally dominates Pakistan.
If my interpretation is correct, the best response for India would be to publicize the release of the LeT leaders over here, and ask the US fairly publicly why the US expects India to help them, when the US is unwilling or unable to help India. The best strategic response is probably to ignore the release and continue building up India’s industrial and technological power.
Even if the LeT leader was convicted and shot, he is probably easily replaceable. India’s problem is that it is not yet militarily strong enough to deter adventurism by Pakistan’s army. Solving India’s difficulties in tank production would probably do more to deter Pakistan’s army than anything that might happen to leaders of the LeT. Reform and expansion of India’s internal security system, to make it harder for the enemy to pull off another 11/26, is probably also a good idea.
There is no one to make peace with! Pakistan has to be destabilized and dismembered. A rogue Pak general with a nuke is as bad as Taliban with a nuke. Doesnt make much difference to India. Your condescending attitude makes me puke. Save it for urself!
IMO, the biggest problem from India’s perspective, is the lack of a coherent approach from successive Govts to deal with the problem of Pakistan.Till the country develops a proactive strategy and goes about implementing it with confidence, I don’t see a way out.
The problem with assassinating the leaders of your enemies, as Israel does, is that you end up having no one to make a peace deal with. If you don’t expect to ever make peace, it is an appealing strategy.
If taken seriously: the US shouldn’t try killing bin Laden, and Pakistan shouldn’t kill Taliban leaders in Swat 🙂
Photonman, I’d have to agree with your claim that by the logic I offer, the US shouldn’t try to kill Osama bin Laden. In fact, I think the US would be worse off it did kill OBL. He would almost certainly be more effective against us as a martyr than he is now.
The “Leaders of the Taliban” are less obvious. Pakistan would clearly be better off it killed some of the Taliban’s leaders and persuaded the rest to surrender. If it destroyed the Command and Control structure of the Taliban, but did not eliminate the problems that gave rise to it, it might easily end up with something worse. A case can be made that this has already happened. After all, the Taliban was less of a problem before Lal Masjid than it is now.
Kannan, sorry about my condescending attitude. For what it is worth, the US lost about 3,000 people on 9/11; the US response has done a lot to weaken the US position in the world. So we’ve taken some casualties from Islamic extremists too. The US reaction to 9/11 would appear to have done a lot to weaken the US and strengthen radical Islam. So for what it is worth, I strongly recommend that you consider what the US has done, and do something else.
I know this isn’t related:
But we will miss offstumped on National Interest. Long live the spirit of public debate.
It should be obvious by now. We have a conflict of interest with the US in Af-Pak.
Comments are closed.