By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad
Some say it is capitulation, others call it a bold new start.
Pakistan faces a mix of peace moves and bilateral rivalry
But all agree that Pakistan's admission that the conspiracy to attack the Indian city of Mumbai last year was "partly" hatched on its soil indicates a major shift in its approach to national security.
Pakistan's security establishment has been widely accused by official and unofficial circles around the world of having had a role in several "terrorist" attacks in India and Afghanistan.
On the home front, analysts and political commentators have often accused it of using the militant infrastructure to manipulate domestic politics.
But this is the first time the country has admitted that its territory has been used for an international act of "terrorism" and that too in India, its arch-enemy.
What could be the reason behind this apparent change of heart?
'Linked to Kashmir'
Analysts known for their pro-establishment views are blaming the country's nascent political regime of giving in to Indian threats of surgical strikes against militant targets in Pakistan.
They believe a nuclear-armed Pakistan can never be militarily defeated by India, and yet it has gone overboard in making concessions that are unlikely to put an end to India's demands to do more in curbing militancy.
These analysts are convinced that militancy in India is related to that country's "forceful occupation" of Kashmir and the grievances of its large Muslim population.
They fear that this Pakistani "capitulation" may hurt its cause in Kashmir, which is disputed by India and Pakistan.
Others point out that the Pakistani admission has come at a time when the new US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, is travelling in the region.
They believe the Americans have been forcing Pakistan to "show results" in its Mumbai investigations, as this may prove to be a catalyst for unravelling militant networks in Afghanistan.
Their argument is that a cash-strapped Pakistan, which largely depends on US - or US-inspired - civil and military aid, is fast running out of options.
But one question which most political analysts around the world would be asking in coming days is: is Pakistan's powerful security establishment fully on-board on this?
Lethal attacks
Barring some brief intervals, Pakistan has been ruled directly or indirectly by the military since its inception in 1947.
As such, it has gradually transformed from a democratic republic to a security state having interests that are often at odds with those of its neighbours as well as its own civil society.
Instead of playing into the economic dynamics of the region, it has ended up with a network of Islamist militants that has somehow helped further its security interests.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, which Pakistan has now blamed for the Mumbai attacks, is widely known to have been floated in mid-1990s as an alternative to Kashmiri rebel groups that wanted a greater say in how to conduct the insurgency.
Another militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammad, is seen in a similar light.
Both groups have the reputation of following orders from elements in Pakistan, and are never known to have worked at odds with the Pakistani "security interests".
Significantly, these two groups are known to have carried out the most lethal attacks inside India, and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan.
But the image of India as an enemy is often not shared by the country's politicians who, when in control, have tended to work for regional peace.
More recently, President Asif ALi Zardari ruffled many a feather in the Pakistani establishment when he stated that he did not think India posed a threat to Pakistan's security.
Backing down
Twice in the recent past this government has tried to tame the security establishment, first by trying to place the country's top intelligence service, the ISI, under civilian control, and then by agreeing to send the ISI chief to India in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks to help Indian investigators.
On both occasions it had to back down under pressure from the military.
Will it do the same this time around?
Pakistan has taken a long time and issued several excuses and denials before admitting that the men who carried out attacks in Mumbai had trained and sailed out of Karachi in southern Pakistan.
But it has also emphasised international linkages in the conspiracy which may not be central to the case but which analysts believe would involve investigations in several countries and may take months to complete.
Then, there are obvious gaps in Pakistani investigations which officials say could only be filled by the Indian authorities.
Most important of all, there are reports the eight people indicted in Pakistan may be tried behind closed doors instead of in open court.
So unless there is sustained international pressure for speed and transparency, the Pakistani government may yet seek shelter in secrecy.
