Fighting a common enemy

N N Khan Khattak




The 69-page Indian Dossier titled "Mumbai Terrorist Attacks (November 26-29, 2009)" posted to Pakistan as evidences on alleged involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) linking with "official agencies of Pakistan" in Mumbai attacks that killed 164 people, was very sketchy and inconclusive to bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. Pakistan has acknowledged that some part of the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan by non-state actors, acting upon their own wish.




Nevertheless, if non-state perpetrators of Mumbai carnage having Pakistani nationality are involved, then the culprits should be dealt according to the law of the country. Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is probing the Mumbai terror attacks in a manner an investigating agency should proceed and has a number of queries. Within hours after the attacks, Pakistan raided militant organizations and arrested Zakiur Rehman Lakhavi and Hafiz Saeed (founder of the LeT and head of JuD) along with 124 activists throughout Pakistan. Pakistan has started criminal proceedings against eight suspects over the attacks.




However, the "Mumbai Terrorist Attacks (November 26-29, 2009)" dossier itself was not enough as it lacked credible evidence to stand in a court of law. After carefully examining the significant elements of evidences delineated in the dossier, a strong requirement to pug the loose ends was felt. In order to facilitate the legal proceedings, Pakistan had requested the Government of India to answers 30+2 questions raised from the dossier. Soon after handing over the document on Mumbai carnage, the Indian high echelons including Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, started building pressure by insisting Pakistan to take prompt action against the perpetrators.




India's 400-page document provided by India containing replies to Pakistan's queries, was handed over to the Government of Pakistan after a month on March 13, 2009. After thoroughly scrutinizing the dossier, it revealed that the inputs were very scanty, obscure and evasive to be included in the criminal proceedings of eight suspects arrested in the Mumbai Blasts. The reply dossier had some glaring unexplained and uncorroborated gaps of information such as: (1) Answer on two additional questions have not be replied, such as: (a) The eyewitness account of a policeman Jugdev who was the sole survivor of a terrorist attack on a vehicle that killed Anti-Terrorist Squad chief Hemant Karkare accompanied by two other senior police officers in the same vehicle namely Mr Salasker and Mr Kamteis. (b) Linkages between diamond merchant firm Surat, Gujrat and some Hindus in Pakistan need to be clarified as the diamond merchant was alleged to sponsor Malegoen blasts through Col Purohit. (2) The dossier does not provide the DNA test reports of two attackers named Abu Umar and Abdur Rehman. (3) Indian response also did not include an authenticated confessional statement given to court by Kasab. (4) The authenticated copies of some depositions and exhibits filed by prosecutors are missing from the Indian response.




There are many lacunas and discrepancies in the so-called evidences provided in the Indian reply dossier on 30+2 queries. The 400-paged voluminous dossier did not amount to evidence rather it was based on some information without any credible proof. The Indian dossier includes documentary evidence like CCTV images of the attackers, CDs, detailed transcripts of conversation between the attackers and their handlers, forensic analysis reports of the accused and GPS data. India had failed to prove the involvement of any of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attacks. India's demand of extraditing the perpetrators (Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah) blamed for masterminding the Mumbai attacks is completely uncalled for.




In an in-depth analysis on Mumbai attackers, Ms Christine Fair - a political scientist at the Rand Corporation analyzed that the attacks though attributed largely to Pakistan LeT, doesn't mean that India's internal challenges are less dire. However, after the lapse of four months, a change has been observed in the Indian claim - from 100% complicity of Pakistan-based LeT to the possible assistance of local facilitators.




Until recently, India has generally dismissed the importance of home-grown Islamist militant groups and has focused instead upon the Pakistan-based groups. Many Western experts feel that such precision planning and execution in the Mumbai attacks would not have been possible without the involvement of some local dissatisfied and underprivileged community. Therefore, persistent social inequity for Muslims and other groups remains an important issue for the Indian state.




They face large-scale violence. India must improve social justice and provide better policing and law enforcement. In addition to this, Hindu extremist organizations are proliferating hatred propaganda against Islamic state of Pakistan. A radical serving Indian Lt Col Purohit has accepted the responsibility of blasting Samjhota Express that took the toll of 300 innocent Pakistani lives. Pakistan has the right to demand for handing over of Lt Col Purohit involved in the blast of Samjhota Express so as to bring the perpetrators to justice and arrive at a logical end to the Mumbai inquiry.




It is concluded by foreign experts in counter-insurgency that lack of conclusive evidence has shown that "official agencies" have not orchestrated the Mumbai terrorist attack. It is wrong to think of Pakistan as a perpetrator of terrorism. So, justice demands that Pakistan be defended, more so because Pakistan is a country that has remained frontline state in GWOT since 2001.




Pakistan is fighting the global war on terrorism for its own national interest and wants to curb the spills over of Talibanisation into the settled areas. Therefore, there is a growing need that India & Pakistan should work together to bring the Mumbai attackers to justice by adopting a proactive, well-coordinated and coherent regional approach.