What's new

Mumbai Attacks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well for that matter what are your views on Miliband and Noble's comments?

Miliband probably meant that the Pakistani state itself did not plan and execute the operation on India (that's what I made of it anyways), whereas Boucher is talking about a completely different thing, of certain sections of the ISI (or certain individuals) cooperating with the terrorists to plan and execute the attack.

I don't recall who Noble is.
 
for get India blaming ISI.
Do you forget Benerzr accused ISI for plotting to kill her?
Did she not accuse ISI for pulling down elected government?
Did zaradari accuse ISI for killing Benerzer?

If this video is allowed in your country look at this and look at what benerzr said abt ISI secreat government and state inside state


ISI and CIA is clearly behind Taliban take over kabul.
Which ISI is trying hard to do this in Kashmir.
this makes Indian army presence in Kashmir legitimate and again beating chest abt army presence there.
and raise this issue with these attacks.
Kashmir Issue can be resolve only bilateral every one agrees to that.
resove it like that then using these cheap tactics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miliband said with British intelligence reports he is sure that attracts are from Pakistan.

The issue is not where the attacks are coming from, rather who planned it. There is no state sponsorship of Kasab and co. from ISI or any other state entity. Lets be very clear about it.
 
it is well established that pakistanis(qasab) are involved in this attack. LET/JUD(a pakistan based terror organisation) is behind it.

Mr. Menon was only reiterating the indian viewpoint that such a large scale attack cant be planned and executed without institutional attack. pakistan may not accept this view.
frankly, I dont think he expects pakistan to accept it either.

btw, there are reports that PN had guided the boat in which terrorists travelled from karachi.
 
"Murree with curry?" Catchy, but I think whiskey goes better with curry than beer. Not scotch - good ol' American bourbon. A sip of bourbon (or Tennesee whiskey) counteracts the curry without imparting the smokiness of scotch or the bitterness of hops, so it leaves the palate ready for another yummy bite of food. Try it sometime if you don't believe me! :toast_sign:
 
it is well established that pakistanis(qasab) are involved in this attack. LET/JUD(a pakistan based terror organisation) is behind it.

Mr. Menon was only reiterating the indian viewpoint that such a large scale attack cant be planned and executed without institutional attack. pakistan may not accept this view.
frankly, I dont think he expects pakistan to accept it either.

btw, there are reports that PN had guided the boat in which terrorists travelled from karachi.

India should either put up or shut up instead of barking non stop the report from Pakistan has not been released so would it not be wise they wait for the report then conclude but the way these Indian leaders are coming out with provocative statements will certainly not help in defusing tensions rather increase bigger mistrust.
 
Pakistan strongly rejects India’s ISI accusation

Dawn Report
Thursday, 05 Feb, 2009 | 11:55 PM PST |
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday rejected Indian accusation against country’s premier intelligence outfit – Inter Services Intelligence – saying such statements were not helpful for the probe into the Mumbai attack.
Reacting sharply to the statement of Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon alleging there was a linkage between the perpetrators of Mumbai attack and ISI, Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit said India should not jump the gun by making statements at a time when Pakistan is sincerely carrying out investigations into the Mumbai attacks.
‘Some patience should be shown.’
The spokesman said instead of leveling baseless allegations against Pakistan’s institutions, India should help in investigating Mumbai attacks.
Earlier, Indian foreign secretary Menon had in his speech at the foreign affairs conference in Paris said: ‘The perpetrators planned, trained and launched their attacks from Pakistan, and the organisers were and remain clients and creations of the ISI.’
It should be recalled that FBI after thorough grilling of the lone surviving attacker cleared ISI of any involvement in the attack.
Menon's speech steps up India's rhetoric against Pakistan and reflects growing frustration from New Delhi.
In the speech, Menon accused Pakistan of ‘prevarication’ in investigating the attacks and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Analysts and diplomats said Menon's remarks were a sign of India's impatience with Pakistan and a growing feeling in New Delhi that the civilian government in Islamabad would do nothing that would show the ISI in a critical light.

‘These comments are a result of that endless wait, and India believes that the civilian government of Pakistan has been given a tight brief by the army not to allow the heat to reach the corridors of the ISI,’ said Naresh Chandra, India's former ambassador to the United States.
‘The patience is coming to an end and it is beginning to evolve as an endless exercise as India is waiting for a fair response from Pakistan for far too long,’ he continued.
Menon said a promising peace dialogue with Pakistan had fallen victim to repeated breach of a 2003 ceasefire between the two countries, increased cross-border infiltration and attacks on Indian interests and cities from Pakistan.

He said India was willing to work with Pakistan and the international community to bring peace in South Asia.

‘Given the fragile and unfinished nature of the polity beside us, there is much that the international community can do to help,’ he said.
 

Kashmir Watch, Feb 4

By Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal


Why Terrorists in Mumbai targeted Israel centre too? is the intriguing question that is being raised around the world and the answer is not too difficult to find either.

The covert as well as covert ties between India and Israel on the one hand and India and USA on the other have been going on for decades without the world noticing that. The world thought the nations are divided over ideology rather seriously and there cannot be any relationship between former and current adversaries. Even USA and Russia had trade and technological ties for decades in a limited sense. Similarly India has had hidden ties with both USA and Israel and only recently the ties came out so openly to shock the world.

I

Mumbai terrorists on Nov26 did the job meticulously well by provoking every possible ally in the world. By killing foreigners mainly from the West, Indians have enlisted the support of all western terror nations against Islam and Muslims; As a result, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir and Muslims in India could be target of the entire world, USA, UK, Israel etc being in the lead. Pakistan, as before became panicky thinking that some of the Muslims they are fighting against under Indo-US supervisions would have struck in Mumbai, but they knew these Muslims could not have done that with high precision and that only Indian Hindus have the capacity to do it this way in India.

The Mumbai attackers may have seemed to target whatever came in their way, be it the railway station (the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal), or luxurious hotels (the Taj and the Oberoi Trident) or any community center (Nariman House), but now reports have revealed that the assault on Nariman House, a Jewish centre was primarily because of India's growing ties with Israel because the terrorists wanted involve Israel also to join Indo-US strategic killing of Muslims in its neighbourhoods.

Look at the Indian strategy to woo the Jews to support Indian case every where: According to retired Indian Vice Admiral Das, the aim of the attack on the Jewish centre was to tell India that its growing links with the Israel is not acceptable to the terrorist groups. "Nariman House attack was to tell the Indians clearly that your growing linkage with Israel is not what you should be doing. I think the rest is peripheral". India wants to use terrorism ploy to get military concessions from other anti-Islamic nations.

II

India for quite some time has been long for relationships with both USA and Israel and it has to some extent succeeded in its efforts, even while without disturbing its economic relations with Islamic world, mainly the Gulf States.

Apart from acquiring military wares from the USA and Europe and Russia, in recent times, India has become one of the largest customers of Israeli military techniques and arms, which are considered one of the most advanced and lethal in the world. India acquires weapons of about 1.5 billion dollars every year from Israel. Only Russia sells more arms to India than Israel. India believes terrorism ploy could help advance its military interests in USA and Israel and obviously it cannot go wrong.

When Israel unleashed holocaust in Palestine India did not even consider necessary to talk about it, let alone condemning this ghastly affair of fascist Israel, because India is also a fascist nation and unleash terror regularly in Jammu Kashmir under its custody. One does not if Indian leaders congratulated the Israeli fascists for their “good work” done in Palestine.

III

India as a policy never finds fault with Hindus, even when there is 100% evidence for their terror attacks in India, but it is keen to paint Muslims in dirty colours, Muslims in India, Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That is basis of Indian secular democratic principles.

India seeks advance military equipment and technology at confessional rates by using Russia as bargain chip, but now Mumbai Nov26 has given an extra advantage to New Delhi to obtain more privileges from Tel Aviv. Israel showcased its latest terror methods in Palestine by using cluster bombs killing thousands of innocent Palestinians, including hundreds of children and they have to be tried in special tribunals. But more agreements might be signed in the days to come between Jewish state and Hindustan with blessings form US Christian “democracy” killing Muslims in Arab world and Afghanistan. . . .

India feels it could not take as much mileage as it sought from Nov26 but then it helped gain extra hands from Israel. The ruthlessness of the attack at the Jewish centre indicated how important the location was to the assailants who wanted to enlist the support of a close Indian military ally Israel for Indian terror cause. Israel immediately killed thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. India created a lot of smoke from the Taj building so as to make the vent appear as big as WTO in USA and to compare it with Sept1, but failed to impress the ultimate UNSC authorities for a seat.

Probably, all these anti-Islamic nations, USA, India and Israel view Muslims as useable and throwable items, Arabs as an illusionary cheatable nation and even say that the Arab world is full of fools. Astonishingly, when Palestine was being under terror attacks form fascist Israel, the Islamic world was only watching the shows over TV and news-pictures and enjoying the major news items.

The author is Delhi based Research Scholar in International Studies and can be reached at abdulruff_jnu@yahoo.com

Kashmir Watch :: In-depth coverage on Kashmir conflict
 
The issue is not where the attacks are coming from, rather who planned it.There is no state sponsorship of Kasab and co. from ISI or any other state entity. Lets be very clear about it.
The issue is very much about where these attacks are coming from. Kasab may not have official sanction of the nation, but he was recruited, trained and deployed by one of the institutions created by the state's agencies not too long ago, with the primary objective of conducting low intensity/subversive/proxy warfare and terrorism against India. Let's first and foremost be very, very clear on this point. (There are numerous internationally vetted official reports, intelligence briefs, published literature and admissions from Pakistan's own intelligentsia, and insiders about the origins of groups like JeM and LeT)

It would also be prudent to realize that the issue of state sponsorship when it comes to terrorist attacks by organizations like LeT, JeM etc. is an oxymoron. The fundamental reason for the creation of these groups was to absolve the state of blame, censure and retribution when perpetuating war, murder and violence; and their handling by the clandestine agencies was conducted with the primary intent of official deniablity. In short, the whole point of having spies control terrorists is to not leave paper trails; but that doesn't change the fact that there are spies, and terrorists, and they share a relationship. Also the blanket of deniability doesn't necessarily cover the serious repercussions when the non existent spies can no longer control the 'non state actors' who carry out gross acts of murder and war that are all too real.

In regards to the Indian government holding Pakistan responsible for terrorism, an issue that has IMO been misconstrued in the press:

At least based on the formal position as voiced by Indian officials that I have been able to see present their case here in the US, I don't think they're saying that the Pakistani government "ordered a hit" on Mumbai; and even if they did there is certainly no evidence of it (albeit the whole point of ordering hits is specifically to not leave palpable evidence). What the Indian government is saying is that the mere existence of these institutions and the scope of their operational abilities after numerous international episodes warranting censure, warnings and subsequent promises from the GoP to crack down upon said groups over the past decade+ clearly indicated one of two things:

1. Pakistan is in fact a categorically ramshackle failed state where the government is incapable of preventing such high profile and massive institutions with global aspirations and vetted regional capabilities from operating freely from its territory. In which case the two subsequent deductions from this assumption would be: A) the out of control institutions should essentially be considered as parallel governments. Especially considering that institutions like LeT/JuD or whatever they are called this week have shown the ability to outperform governmental agencies in providing certain services; in addition of course to their ability to unilaterally attack another state and hold a city hostage. B) Pakistan's sovereignty is a joke if these parastatal organizations can wage war upon India at will.

2. The various terrorist organizations aimed at India remain free to operate, improve their capabilities and carry out trans national attacks from Pakistan with at least the tacit approval (which includes intentional ignorance and/or criminal negligence) of the government.

The GoP mobilized various representatives to deny the first category through a paper that was presented to the UN in January indicating that the GoP had just enough coverage in their territory (primarily in the east) to technically stave off the "failed state" label. Although the comprehensive picture was a bit hollow considering the western portion of the state it at least indicated that no India specific organization like the LeT could exist in Pakistan without the GoP having a good idea of their capabilities; and if they so desired could dismantle them, or at least render their ability to attack India inert. It then led to the consensus that the GoP should be held accountable for the organizations that they have spurned and the underhanded support they still provide them. That the connection between client Jihadi groups and the government have been incognito intelligence operatives and retired military officers is a topic that has been heavily discussed in the academic circles and which is also if I'm not mistaken elaborated upon by Ahmad Rashid in his latest book; so this isn't conjecture by any means, and again, to expect paper trails to establish the veracity of this claim in the court of law is oxymoronic.

Lastly, the intel reports suggesting the support that these 10 assailants had was based on much more than their ability to wield Kalashnikov rifles and throw grenades. In fact there is a very detailed analysis (I haven't seen it published as open source so I won't elaborate upon it in detail) as to how and what distinguishes these attackers from your run of the mill gun toting grenade blasting terrorist that are now dime a dozen in Pakistan. Furthermore the complexity and the institutional capabilities required to raise Fidayeen cadres is another thing you're overlooking in your simplistic explanation as to what the Indians found amazing about these particular assailants. What you fail to realize is that although the defensive apparatus of the Indian government itself is pathetic when it comes to protecting themselves from terrorist attacks, there are quite a few well renowned and highly experienced experts on the science of anti terrorism in the Indian academic and governmental structure whose council is sought worldwide. There are at least 4 of them (ok 3 of them, one isn't technically Indian) who are co-authors on the paper in question; so it certainly isn't something officials from the executive branch are pulling out of thin air.

There are however serious and prohibitive international ramifications for countries like the US and the UK to publicly hold the current civilian GoP responsible for the terrorism link who are hence forced to tread carefully, choose their words very wisely and try their best to suppress the recent Afghanistan embassy bombing link (technically a direct act of war) to do everything short of stating the obvious.
 
^^ Oh snap, sorry about the ridiculously lengthy post.
 
By Madhavi Bhasin

05 February, 2009
Countercurrents.org

This week Pakistan is expected to respond to India's dossier dealing with the investigations of the Mumbai terror strikes. On February 4, Pakistani Minister of State for Interior, Tasnim Ahmed Qureshi stated that "Within days the Foreign Ministry will completely declare (the findings of Pakistan's probe into the Mumbai incident)." Pakistan's High Commissioner to India Shahid Malik also visited Islamabad earlier this week for consultations meant to finalize Pakistan's response. There has been no official statement on the on-going investigation from the Pakistani side, but indications of what is coming can be discerned from the comments of Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's High Commissioner to the UK. In a report by the BBC, according to Wajid Hasan the investigations clearly establish that Pakistani territory was not used for conducting the Mumbai attacks. This is despite the fact that Pakistan has accepted India's claim that Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, the lone surviving terrorist of the Mumbai terror siege, is a Pakistani national.

With Pakistan's response the second act of the play will convene. Pakistan's willingness to investigate the Mumbai terror strikes had averted a military confrontation between the two hostile neighbors. Once Pakistan makes its investigations public, the focus will shift to how India handles the much expected response. A number of alternatives are available and final act of this thriller play depends on the choice that India will make. Given the anticipation that Pakistan is most likely to refute the allegations contained in the dossier, India will have five policy choices available.

First, apply its 'Cold Start' Doctrine. In 2004 India officially unveiled its new war doctrine following the lessons of the 2001-2002 military stand-off with Pakistan. The 'Cold Start' doctrine envisions using 'integrated battle units' comprising of contingents from the Army and Navy to conduct swift and calibrated strikes on the enemy territory. The strategy is expected to allow speedy action by India, yet keep the war limited. The strike units would accomplish clearly specified target missions and withdraw from enemy territory. The logic behind the strategy is to attack and destroy militant training camps, while not threatening Pakistan to the extent that the nuclear option comes to the table. Though the logistical and military expertise required for such operations are still in the developmental stage, India can hope to secure a politico-strategic victory by operationlizing the "Cold Start' strategy.

Second, maintain a threatening posture. India can opt for maintaining a heightened state of military preparedness with the objective of pressuring Pakistan and keeping the issue alive. Operation Parakaram in December 2001-2002 bears testimony to such possibility. If India decides against the cold start doctrine, an offensive military posture might help to counter the 'soft image' paradox. India's Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had categorically stated in mid January that military action against Pakistan is one of the options available to India. Soldiers have been put on alert to meet any eventuality, Bofors artillery guns and other battle wares are reported to have been deployed by India along the Line of control with Pakistan. Comments like "India is capable of giving a befitting reply" and need to take 'strong action' against those involved in the Mumbai terror attacks reflects India's military resolve. Though an all out war between India and Pakistan does not appear to be a possibility, posturing for war is a likely option for India.

Third, undertake a diplomatic offensive coupled with economic sanctions. The most likely option is to make bilateral economic and cultural linkages contingent upon Pakistan's performance on counter-terrorism. India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has clarified India's intentions by stating that "Our diplomatic efforts in dealing with terrorist states will continue unabated." The diplomatic offensive is most likely to include downgrading of bilateral relations. Hinting at this possibility, India Home Minister P. Chidambaram had referred to the possibility of snapping transport, trade and tourism ties with Pakistan. The symbolic value of such gestures could mobilize the international community's involvement in defusing the diplomatic crisis. Use of this option allows India to claim the moral high ground in the international arena while pacifying the domestic outrage.

Fourth, buy more time. India can take some time before delineating her response and future strategy. President Obama's Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke is expected to be in the region shortly and India might consider stacking all options before the new U.S. administration's policy with regard to Pakistan gains clarity. Moreover, Indian government is unlikely to antagonize the public opinion just months before general elections are due in March/April 2009. Policies of either appeasement or confrontation vis-à-vis Pakistan can prove detrimental to the political fortunes of the ruling coalition. Political instability in Pakistan could also be cited as a pretext for delaying a tough response by India. India realizes that to a certain extent the democratic government in Pakistan is not fully capable of eliminating the terror camps within its territories. Minister of State for External Affairs, Anand Sharma's remarks in late December 2008, that India does not seek to enforce a time frame on Pakistan reflects the possibility of India adopting the wait and watch approach. A clear cut policy response might be deferred until after the general elections and India might simply respond with political rhetoric aimed at appealing to the domestic electorate.

Fifth, experiment with 'smart diplomacy.' Joseph Nye's concept of 'smart power', refers the ability to combine soft and hard power into a winning strategy. The concept of 'smart power' cannot be successfully applied by India in South Asia. Possibility of the use of hard power resources would alarm India's neighbors, especially Pakistan. Power, soft or hard, in the context of India's regional relations automatically translates into preponderance. Applying the tents of 'smart power' approach, with modifications, under the rubric of 'smart diplomacy' would best serve India's interest. The above discussed options available to India would inadequately respond to the issue of combating terrorism allegedly emanating from Pakistan. 'Smart diplomacy' would allow India to improve relations with Pakistan and address the issue of terrorism without compromising its national interest.

'Smart diplomacy' is based on the realization that perceptual adaptation supports policy alteration. If India continues to perceive counter-terrorism as Pakistan's responsibility, instruments of smart diplomacy cannot be employed. 'Smart diplomacy' demands that India shares Pakistan's efforts at countering terrorism. Perceptual alteration on India's part could be reciprocated by Pakistan paving way for constructive policies between the two neighbors.

'Smart diplomacy' is meant to replace India's excessive insistence on maligning Pakistan in the international arena. Under no circumstances should the channels of dialogue between India and Pakistan be disturbed. Disruption and resumption of bilateral dialogue for over six decades has not yielded positive results. Commitment to dialogue is an indication of minimizing the use of threats in bilateral relations. Threats and offensive postures have been as destructive as the actual use of force in the region. On the positive side, 'smart diplomacy' would entail intelligence support to Pakistan, enhanced economic relations, development aid and expanded people-to-people contact. Intelligence support would qualify as constructive assistance by India and also maintain international pressure on Pakistan. Enhanced economic relations would reinforce the concept of mutual growth while widening the constituency of peace in each country. Development aid would reflect India's sensitivities to Pakistan's challenges and civil society interactions could go a long way in managing public outrage on both sides of the border.

There are limits to what 'smart diplomacy' can achieve but it is the best option available to India under the given circumstances. Such diplomacy goes beyond rhetoric and postures to better serve India's national interest. In effect India has merely two choices: either to react to what Pakistan does or pro-actively employ her diplomatic tools for re-casting bilateral relations.


Madhavi Bhasin has earned her Doctoral degree from the Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, with a specialization in South Asian regional affairs. She writes regularly on issues relating to U.S. foreign policy, South Asia, Middle East and conflict resolution. She is currently a freelancer based in California, U.S.
madhavibhasin@gmail.com

India's Choices After Pakistan Responds To The Mumbai Dossier
 
To sum it up... India's only option is to continue its war mongering...
 
Smart Diplomacy hahah. The indian elite really thinks that it has become a superpower already sheeesh. anyways as far as the cold start stupidity we have said time and again that pakistan does have to right to self defense by any means necessary. plus some of our best units are still stationed on the indian border the task is not that easy as the author would like us to believe. Indian intelligence is notoriously bad and might just end up killing innocent civilians much the way the israeli did in gaza.
 
Getting serious in Pakistan

Pakistan may, at last, be taking purposeful steps against the killers of Mumbai

UNUSUALLY, Pakistan may be about to give the world a pleasant surprise. Speaking to The Economist, a senior Pakistani official reinforced a recent impression that Pakistan has at last launched a serious investigation into last November’s devastating terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which India and Western governments have blamed on a banned Pakistani Islamist militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET).

The official said that Pakistani investigators had found new evidence to substantiate claims made in a dossier provided to them by India last month. India—as well as America and Britain—claims that the commando-style attacks on two hotels, a railway station and a Jewish centre in southern Mumbai, which lasted for three days and claimed over 170 lives, was plotted in Pakistan and launched from there.

Based largely on testimony from the sole surviving attacker, a young Pakistani called Muhammad Ajmal Qasab, India claims that he and nine other Pakistani militants set out from Pakistan’s Indus delta region in a small craft, and boarded an LET-owned vessel, al-Hussaini, registered in Karachi.

On entering Indian waters, the militants are alleged to have captured an Indian trawler, the Kuber, killed its crew and forced its captain to take them to within striking distance of Mumbai. There they killed him, abandoned the trawler, and used an inflatable dinghy for the final stage of their voyage

Pakistan admitted that Mr Qasab is Pakistani—after a British journalist interviewed his family in their village in Pakistan’s province of Punjab. But it has not officially accepted that his accomplices were Pakistani, or that the plot was hatched in Pakistan. On January 30th Pakistan’s high commissioner to London, Wajed Shamsul Hasan, declared that the attack was not planned in Pakistan, and accused India of making allegations based on “fabricated” or “flimsy” evidence.

The senior Pakistani official, who is involved in Pakistan’s investigation, suggested that this was nonsense. He said that Pakistani investigators had established that al-Hussaini was owned by LET or its front organisation, a Muslim charity called Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD). Of ten sailors registered with the vessel, one had been killed a year previously, fighting with the banned militant group against Indian security forces in Kashmir. The official said that Pakistani investigators have traced the families of the remaining nine sailors, but failed to apprehend the men. The families had claimed that the men “had gone away a year before, maybe two years ago, and they hadn’t heard from them.”

The official also said that Pakistani investigators had failed to trace the other nine attackers—all of whom were killed by Indian security forces—even though Mr Qasab had provided a list of their names. He thought this might be because LET militants often go by false names.

The official said he had no doubt that the attack was plotted and executed by members of LET, more or less as the Indians allege. But he did not believe that the group’s senior leaders had necessarily known of it. He also suggested that Pakistan’s main intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which formerly supported LET’s operations in Kashmir, had not been involved in the attack. “ISI thinks this has hurt Pakistan. Why would they do something to damage Pakistan?”

LET’s founder, an engineering professor called Hafiz Saeed, officially left the Islamist group after it was banned in 2002. However, he and his lieutenants remained in command of JUD, which runs hundreds of schools and clinics in Pakistan, and is alleged to have raised funds for its banned sister organisation. Shortly after the Mumbai attacks, at the instigation of the UN, Pakistan also banned JUD and placed Mr Saeed and a dozen other of its leaders under house arrest. It also raided an alleged LET training-camp in the Pakistani portion of Kashmir, and arrested an LET commander who is alleged to have plotted the Mumbai attack, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.

The Pakistani official said he expected Pakistan to prosecute and convict those principally responsible—“perhaps 20” people—for the attack in Mumbai, including Mr Lakhvi. This would be a better outcome than Pakistan’s denials have led India to expect. Perhaps signalling this, India’s hawkish national security adviser, M.K. Naryanan, said on February 1st that he had detected an improvement in Pakistan’s response to the matter, suggesting that “they appear to be taking things seriously and at least they are proceeding in a manner that one would expect an investigative agency to proceed.”

This is encouraging. But it is still much less than India has demanded, which is that Pakistan should wholly dismantle the anti-Indian militant networks that it has supported, or suffered, for so long.

Pakistan and the Mumbai killers | Getting serious in Pakistan | The Economist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom