… biggest danger for the BJP as he was revealing Hindu terrorism and made the BJP campaign against Muslim terrorism seem bigot.

B, I believe you are over thinking the situation here. Let me give you a counter example which might help in re-assessing the situation.
In the gujarat riots, it is well known and evident that the BJP lead the pogrom against muslims(the Paks use that riot videos as recruiting tools). Well, you know what became of all that evidence of Hindu bigotry?
Nothing.
Pretty much throughout the country, “serves them right, need to teach them a lesson” was the thought process. A silent tacit “understanding” that certain people should be put in place.
I must also hasten to add, in India, every group can be targetted based on religion(Xians, Muslims) ,caste (Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, SC/ST tribes, Harijans in other states), ethnicity (NE states people in Delhi). Depending on the mood of a rabble rouser (Sikhs during Indira Ghandi’s assassination in 1984), there is always a scapegoat in terms of large number of people to be assaulted.
That is and will be India.
My point?
That ATS officer is too minor a figure in the grand scheme of things to matter to the BJP. They don’t have to take him out. There is no need to. The legal process can take it’s own sweet time. here is L.K Advani. That is about the Babri Masjid demolition which is on its 45th extension. OK?
I repeat, the 3 ATS officers ran into an ambush and in one of the rare coincidences, where all of them were in 1 vehicle; and were taken out. And there was a survivor who easily disproves the minister AND your conspiracy theory.

Posted by: shanks | Dec 23 2008 15:53 utc | 3

Let’s think big — (1) Pakistan is a problem child to the US (2) The US needs India as a counter to China
NEW DELHI, Dec 22: In the season of conspiracy theories, there is another one that is gaining ground. A demand for the probe of Mossad and CIA’s role behind the Mumbai terror attacks has been made by Roznama, Rashtriya Sahara’s Urdu daily.
The demand comes at a time when minority affairs minister A R Antulay, supported by large sections of the Muslim community, has demanded a probe into the killing of Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Urdu_daily_claims_Mossad_CIA_behind_Mumbai_attacks/articleshow/3876111.cms
rediff NEWS, Dec 22: The role Dawood Ibrahim, the underworld kingpin who heads the D-Company and has known ties to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and even the Central Intelligence Agency, is apparently being whitewashed. His capture and handover to India might prove inconvenient for either the ISI or the CIA, or both.
It was Ibrahim who was initially characterised by press reports as being the mastermind behind the attacks. Now, that title is being given to Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi by numerous media accounts reporting that Pakistan security forces have raided a training camp of the group Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images], which evidence has indicated was behind the attacks. Lakhvi was reportedly captured in the raid and is now in custody. At the same time Ibrahim’s role is being downplayed.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/22mumterror-why-the-cia-does-not-want-dawood-in-indian-hands.htm

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 23 2008 16:52 utc | 5

b, it seems your system is blocking my posts. I have tried to post something recently, but it has not shown up.

Posted by: a | Dec 23 2008 18:45 utc | 7

Disguised as a bush. What, they’re being invaded by Rocky and Bullwinkle?

Posted by: …—… | Dec 23 2008 20:12 utc | 9

thanks for the link a. Sounds convincing.

Posted by: outsider | Dec 23 2008 22:50 utc | 11

No conspiracy theory is required. Sooner or later we will find out who was behind Mumbai: the Pakistani intelligence or someone else. What matters is: who runs with the political benefits after the events.
The US wants the Pakistan army to help out in FATA and parts of Afghanistan. The Pakistan army is reluctant to do that. US can’t fight the war in Afghanistan all by itself. It does not have the human resources to fight the war there so it needs to build pressure on Pakistan to transfer its army there or else…India might use its forces to destroy the Pakistan Army.
Another conflict is between the Pakistan army and the US installed civilian government led by wily Zardari husband of Bhutto and a US puppet. The US wants Zardari to be the front man because the erstwhile Obama admin would only like to deal with a civilian government in Pakistan.(please read papers at CAP a Dem think tank and close to Obama(Podesta operated)).
In a nutshell, the US is coming down hard on the Pakistani army to help out with its forces and that is the conflict being resolved by our great Nation after the Mumbai carnage. India is doing what is being handed down from the US. After all there is a price to pay for the nuke agreement plus enormous Indian desire to be the regional power in that area.
As soon as the Pakistan army caves in to the US demands, the whole thing would start cooling down. I think by the time the messiah is sworn in, everything will be ready for the messiah to resolve.
Though China too is playing a role but the US desires in the subcontinent are supreme. There may be some allied benefits but they come with the territory.

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 24 2008 1:00 utc | 13

Did the Indian minister Antulay read my piece?
b, maybe. or perhaps great minds just think alike.
hoss No conspiracy theory is required.
that would be a neat trick. how does one pull off an operation like this without conspiracy?
What matters is: who runs with the political benefits after the events.
what matters to me is finding out who did it. one way is to look at who got a big head start in the run. it is not who runs with the political benefits, but who is best positioned to benefit from the blast without much running because the blast gave them a leg up.
the one party who is not getting an advantage from the blast? pakistan.
good link a.

Posted by: annie | Dec 24 2008 1:57 utc | 15

Asghar, thank you for the heads up. I’ve found a first report, we’ll have to wait and see if it comes to anything.
Indian spy held by Intelligence Agencies

December 25, 2008
LAHORE: Intelligence agencies late Wednesday arrested an Indian secret agent and two others who were allegedly involved in the blast of GOR area in Lahore on Wednesday morning, Geo T.V reported Wednesday late night.
He was identified as Sutish Anand Sharma a resident of Indian city Calcutta, while confessing his hand in GOR blast, he also disclosed about his other three associates hiding somewhere in Pakistan, police said.
Police have recovered three fake national identity cards, three letters and other explosive material and devices from his possession. Agencies arrested him from GOR Lahore by tracing and tapping his telephone calls, added agency sources.
(snip)

Posted by: Alamet | Dec 25 2008 0:23 utc | 17

hindu times

Hostile propaganda, alleges Pakistan
Nirupama Subramanian
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s elected representatives on Wednesday rallied against India for what they dubbed as its “hostile propaganda,” and sought to turn the tables with the accusation that “terror networks” operating in Indian territory were attempting to destabilise the region.
The National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Mumbai attacks. But it asked the international community “to ensure that India also dismantles its terror networks affecting peace in the region and stop[s] regional destabilisation moves.”
The resolution, after a five-day debate on the security situation, urged India to “stop hostile propaganda against Pakistan that seeks to cover their intelligence failures” and to end “activities [that] do not serve the cause of peace in the region.”
The resolution was moved by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Malik Ammad Ahmed. It reflected the hardening position of the Pakistan People’s Party government, and the shrinking political space for action on the Indian demand that it (Pakistan) must take steps to dismantle the terror infrastructure, not for New Delhi but in its own interests. The resolution condemned India’s “unsubstantiated allegations levelled in haste against Pakistan.”
It called upon India to respond to “the constructive proposals” by Pakistan for a joint investigation into the Mumbai attacks.
The resolution said Pakistan was “united and stands ready to defend its honour and dignity as well as sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity” and said the nation and the armed forces “shall together defend” the country’s security “at all costs.”
Earlier this week, Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said his forces would give an “equal response” should India carry out any strikes inside Pakistan. Briefing President Asif Ali Zardari, Gen. Kayani said the armed forces were prepared to meet “any eventuality” and his men were “ready to sacrifice for the country.”
Indian arrested
Meanwhile, Pakistani intelligence agencies claimed to have arrested an Indian national in connection with a car bomb blast in Lahore on Wednesday morning that killed a woman and left three others injured, Pakistani television channels are saying. Dawn News said the suspect had been identified as Satish Anand Shukla from Kolkata.

Posted by: annie | Dec 25 2008 4:54 utc | 19

For Pakistan, the campaign involving terrorists as free-agents has brought great dividends. That success has come to imply virtue– the strategy’s success against their key nemesis sanctifies it. In the triumvirate of Military-Militant-Politician struggle for power in Pakistan, India-bashing is the best way to gain advantage.
In truth, the two neighbors, born together on the midnight of 14-15th Aug 1947, can prosper together, which would involve the moderation of fundamentalist tendencies within each, and the taming of Pakistani military, or they can conflagrate.
The attack on Mumbai was a “first strike.” India’s security was threatened, but was that a collateral casualty, not the prime target. I’d say it is the peace process that was the prime target. This peace process endangered the two most discredited Pakistani power centers– the militants and the military. Therefore, they sought to gain advantage by provoking Indo-Pak enemity.
If we buy this reasoning, then the more ways we can find to buld trust with, and go easy on, the “despicable” Mr. Zardari, and the more we work to weaken his enemies in the Paksitani power structure, the better we are avenged in the shortrun, and strengthened in the long.

Posted by: Hersh | Dec 25 2008 14:13 utc | 21

back to hersh’s game..

– India knows that if a skirmish breaks out, the US will strike hard at Pakistan to ensure that China stays out, and that Pakistan gives in quick, and the Afghan frontier stays the focus.

the Afghan frontier staying the focus is also the goal of the US. the US and china are the pepsi/coke in this situation, are they not?

However, Pakistan may game the situation to see first-mover advantage– If the US sides with India in a confrontation

what do you mean ‘if’?

With this assumption, they will see a strike against India as a tool to force China to declare partisanship, and to call India’s bluff.
The problem is, India is not bluffing, and we will have a war on our hands. So, for the sake of peace, India may want to strike first.

for the sake of peace?
the more we work to weaken his enemies in the Paksitani power structure, the better we are avenged in the shortrun, and strengthened in the long.
who is we? do you mean the better india is avenged? you are not sounding very brokerish hersh. this is what it sounds like to me:
‘the more we work to weaken our enemies in the Paksitani power structure, the better we are positioned in the shortrun, and strengthened in the long.’
your whole speel sounds like you are pushing india to attack pakistan which (lest we forget) is also who the US wants to target (or should i say ‘soften the target’) for the eventual breakup of pakistan (we want balushistan without giving up the ‘honor’ you speak of)
india and pakistan are being used as tools for the end game of coke (US) wiping out pepsi (china) in the race for control of balushistan. (to use your crude analysis), so naturally we would like india to do our dirty work for us. what better way than instigating an attack on india for which you will deem a ‘loss of honor to india’ if india does not respond. our pakistani rivals strengthen the state against us, the state we want to dismantle.

Posted by: annie | Dec 25 2008 19:53 utc | 23

which (lest we forget) is also who the US wants to target (or should i say ‘soften the target’) for the eventual breakup of pakistan (we want balushistan without giving up the ‘honor’ you speak of)

Annie
The only part in your post that I disagree with is that the US targeting Pakistan for break up for eventual control of Baluchistan mainly for the port. There is nothing else in Baluchistan. US has one defined goals in Afghanistan or even in Pakistan i.e. extend its stay in the area.Though US would like a stricter control over Pakistan due to its nukes but the break up of the country would actually put the nukes in some unsavory hands.
The current goal of the US is to have the Pakistan army out in full force to manage the Pak-Afghan borders because the US can’t do it without putting in enormous amount of human resources out there. I am sure you must have noticed that the proposed US surge in Afghanistan is to maintain control over the cities and not to man the borders. Which actually means that the US is confident of its strategy to force Pakistan army take over the borders.(Pl. read recent Karzai statement where he criticized the US approach of maintaining control of the cities.)
Like in Vietnam or in Iraq, the US intends to continue the current afghan situation for an indefinite period which means no end to the supply of the Jihadi or the Taliban from the FATA area and continue blaming Pakistan for not doing enough to manage its borders.
Separation of Baluchistan or the break up of Pakistan would seriously jeopardize the US presence and the US forces in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 25 2008 20:58 utc | 25

con’t;

The United States is Pakistan’s largest trading partner.” We hope to increase bilateral trade and investment ties in response to Pakistan’s economic reforms,” Negroponte said.
“We are enhancing our capacity-building assistance to strengthen private sector competitiveness and expand Pakistan’s integration with regional and global markets. Because economic development requires assured energy supply, we are working with Pakistan to help it overcome its current energy crisis. These steps can help move Pakistan down the path to stability and prosperity.”
The US official also referred to the administration’s efforts towards establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, which, he said, will also help expand trade between the two anti-terror partners.
“We would strongly urge the Congress to pass this ROZ legislation which could also help be a real stimulus to trade and investment in Pakistan,” Negroponte told a Washington think tank.
A requisite legislation has been introduced in the US Senate on the preferential trade program, which will cover entire Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Certain products from these zones would be brought to the US duty-free.

where are the ‘ Reconstruction Opportunity Zones‘ ?

(ii) 1 or more of the following areas of Pakistan:
(I) the Federally Administered Tribal Areas;
(II) areas of Pakistan-administered Kashmir that the President determines were harmed by the earthquake of October 8, 2005;
(III) areas of Baluchistan that are within 100 miles of Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan; and
(IV) the North West Frontier Province;

and the ‘DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN NONTEXTILE AND NONAPPAREL ARTICLES.’?
any article from a Reconstruction Opportunity Zone that the President has designated as an eligible article under section 503(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(a)(1)(A))
there’s some other stuff in there also..
now an interesting developement you may not be aware. less than 10 days prior to the mumbai attacks…
Pakistan, India asked to sign bilateral investment treaty
really? so the US has been hankering for pak to sign an agreement w/them and pak and india are Conferencing on Pakistan-India Economic Relations being held in India? hmm.

ISLAMABAD, Nov 13: The Saarc Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCI) has stressed upon the governments of Pakistan and India to sign bilateral investment treaty to foster economic cooperation between the two countries.
�The investment treaty will also motivate other countries of the region to promote intra-regional trade and investment,� SCCI president Tariq Sayeed said while addressing the inaugural session of the �Conference on Pakistan-India Economic Relations� being held in India.
According to a SCCI press release received here on Thursday, the conference has been organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in collaboration with Saarc Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
The SCCI president stressed the need for promoting mobility of people, particularly business community of the region and urged upon the governments of the two countries to issue five years multiple visa for 500 businessmen.
He said the number of Saarc Visa Exemption Stickers should be increased from 100 to 300.
Speaking on the occasion, Indian State Minister for Commerce and Power Jairam Ramesh said that the Indian government was trying its best to remove Non-Tariff Trade Barriers (NTBs), which had been identified by various countries.
He said that India had no country-specific restrictions, adding that the only noteworthy NTB was the requirement of certification of standardisation of products imported into India.
Pakistan�s High Commissioner in India Shahid Malik said that Pakistan was willing to established lasting economic cooperation with India based on sincerity and reciprocity.
(more at the link)

i would imagine the attack may have nipped some of that in the bud.
hersh Broadly, there are two ways to analyze what is going on,
1. Limited internal control or 2. High external control
or 3. Limited external control or 4. High internal control
In the first one would say that India and Pakistan have limited culpability in causing Mumbai, and how they respond is a decision they make in response to events, not informed by a larger master plan. Thats the world I posit.
how very simplistic of you however, let’s just pretend the US is not benign. assuming how they respond is a decision they make in response to pressures, tho not informed by a larger master plan, impacted by one.
it is all well and good to assume the people who carried out the attck were not affiliated to anyone w/a master plan, but doesn’t it seem like a lot of effort to go thru w/out a master end goal? ie:master plan?

Posted by: annie | Dec 25 2008 22:00 utc | 27

Annie’s # 22,

what if this ‘external’ broker is not external at all. maybe their goal prior to the terrorists as free-agents campaign was have legal justification to impose their will? what if reaching a settlement that best serves the broker was the goal of the ‘free agent terrorists’ all along. what if instead of 2 parties in the game there are actually 3, the broker being one. or 4, the broker having an allie or 3. what if the ‘broker’s’ goals are best served by setting up a game in which their 2 rivals duke it out to the finish unless the ‘broker and friends’ sail in to save the day imposing their goal apon both parties in the interest of ‘peace’?

I just wanted to highlight it, because these are excellent questions.

Posted by: Alamet | Dec 25 2008 22:12 utc | 29

The problem with your line of reasoning is that while dispute a lot of different views, you seem to offer no thesis of your own with any forward looking component. On my blog I attempt to provide a structure and a prescription, to explain the events and then chart a path forward.
http://businessandstate.blogspot.com/
Your insistence on the omni-potency of the US seems to belie an emasculation of Pakistan. Your diatribes against the “thrid party” leaves out a discussion of the onus that the Pakistanis themsleves bear. My Hindu-fundamentalist friends do the same– they see the evil empire behind every Christian missionary and Fortune 500. Ahmedinijad and Putin play in this same league.
The problem with this reasoning is it seems to absolve the proponent of the intellectual burden of completing the circle of their polemic with forward-looking analysis, viz., prediction and prescription. The Hindu fndamentalists, and Ahmedinijad and Putin equally have no consistent suggestion for an alternate world order, because, it appears, those who are chronically disposed to oppose lack the temprament to synthesize.

Posted by: hersh | Dec 25 2008 22:31 utc | 31

hersh, vishvamaryam.blogspot has a very different ring to it than businessandstate.

Posted by: annie | Dec 26 2008 0:00 utc | 33

i did not mention the port in my posts. although you made this statement you said nothing to support it. why would the US have no interest in the port given what we know. if what you assert is true, the US would have no, problem w/the chinese developing the port?

Annie,
My reference to the port was with regards to your assertion about the US interest in Baluchistan. Gwadar Port is strategically located for the control of the Oil lines. It cannot be transformed into a hub for the NATO supplies. For the simple reason that currently there is no highway that can directly link the US/NATO supplies to Afghanistan w/o passing though the Taliban control areas in Baluchistan. I would recommend you look at the Baluchistan map via google to see that the only highway from Gwader is via Karachi and Quetta. From Karachi to Peshawar it is a four lane Highway but from Karachi to Quetta is still a two lane highway and it can’t carry the load. The road is also being used currently for about 20% supplies but that is about the capacity.The terrain from the Gwader port to Herat or Kandahar is extremely rugged and it would be a long term project to build a road to directly connect Gwadar to Herat or Kandahar. So it is not a supply route alternate at all in the near future.
The Port is entirely Chinese financed but China can’t use it right now. So if the US wants to use Baluchistan ports, to control the Oil routes and sit next to Iran, the Pak army would not have any problem with that(of course w/the right price.) and there is no need for the US to bifurcate Pakistan. That is why I am not willing to buy the thesis.
Baluchistan presents another problem for the US. The Baluch are the most radical ethnic group in Pakistan and have fought the Pakistan army off and on for over forty years. The last being in 2005. The 1973 insurgency was led by the Leftists and they still have considerable influence over youth and the small but politically active middle class. Yes, the population is mostly tribal but fiercely anti-American.
I read that article you linked by M K Bhadrakumar at atimes. I don’t disagree a whole lot with the premise of the article but I don’t think the US will attempt to force its way in Pakistan. They will just have to find a common ground with the Pakistan army and pressure is being applied for that as we already discussed in our previous posts.
I will post later on the bilateral trade agreement. Thanks.

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 26 2008 3:44 utc | 35

hoss I would recommend you look at the Baluchistan map via google to see that the only highway from Gwader is via Karachi and Quetta.
b provides a good map via natioanl geographic w/the routes marked.
there is no need for the US to bifurcate Pakistan. That is why I am not willing to buy the thesis.
during the cheney reign it isn’t a matter of what the US needs, it is what the neocons want.
b linked to this article in an earlier 9/18 thread, he described as authored by An Indian ‘neocon’ in the Indian Defense Review: Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest

Many conveniently propose the myth that a stable Pakistan is in India’s favour. This is a false proposition.
The truth is that Pakistan is bad news for the Indian Union since 1947-stable or otherwise.
…
If ever the national interests are defined with clarity and prioritised, the foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before) materialised on the western periphery, continuously. To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its influence through export of both, soft and hard power towards Central Asia from where invasions have been mounted over centuries. Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective.
The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away-a case of natural progression to its logical conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence. For New Delhi this opens a window of opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging.
Sindh and most of the non-Punjabi areas of Pakistan will be our new friends.
Pakistan’s breakup will be a major setback to the Jihad Factory, as the core of this is located in Pakistan, and functions with the help of its army and the ISI. This in turn will ease pressures on India and the international community.

there are some excellent posts here on baluchistan to be found at the search function on the homepage.

Posted by: annie | Dec 26 2008 10:25 utc | 37

Pakistan moves troops toward Indian border

Pakistan began moving thousands of troops to the Indian border Friday, intelligence officials said, sharply raising tensions triggered by the Mumbai terror attacks.
…
The troops headed to the Indian border were being diverted away from tribal areas near Afghanistan, officials said, and the move was expected to frustrate the United States which has been pushing Pakistan to step up its fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militants near the Afghan border.
Two intelligence officials said the army’s 14th Division was being redeployed to the towns of Kasur and Sialkot, close to the Indian border. They said some 20,000 troops were on the move. Earlier Friday, a security official said that all troop leave had been canceled.
…
Earlier, [Indian] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Friday with the chiefs of the army, navy and air force to discuss “the prevailing security situation,” according to an official statement.

Posted by: b | Dec 26 2008 18:46 utc | 39

@38,
Sounds similar to the boasts from each side of the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s. Hope your ‘side’ has the same sort of victory. Suit up, puppet-boy!

Posted by: biklett | Dec 26 2008 21:12 utc | 41

I think it is a usual hassle countries go through when the want the US investments.
I think it is a usual hassle countries go through when the US wants to exploit them.
it has been going on for sometime
yes i know, and now the time is near for the end of this round of neocon dynasty so the superpower has sent the lynch man w/ US insistence no audio or video recording of the negotiations were made which unnecessarily protracted negotiations.,/I> and there is much build up and pressure and i argue the mumbai attacks not only add to that pressure but may have been be applied specifically as an ultimate pressure/tipping pt.
i notice you did not respond to the Bharat Verma neocon speel from indian defense review in my 37 post.
Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective.
…..In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence.
no comment?
here is an interesting article By Andrew Buncombe in Delhi
23 November 2008 just days before the attack.

India shocked by discovery of first Hindu terror cell

India is in something of a state of shock after learning from official sources that its first Hindu terror cell may have carried out a series of deadly bombings that were initially blamed on militant Muslims. The revelation is forcing the country to consider some difficult questions.
At least 10 people have been arrested in connection with several bomb blasts in the Muslim-dominated town of Malegaon in the western state of Maharashtra in September, which left six people dead. But reports suggest that police believe the cell may also have carried out a number of previous attacks, including last year’s notorious bombing of a cross-border train en route to Pakistan, which killed 68 people. Among the alleged members of the cell are a serving army officer and a Hindu monk.
…
the recent cracking of the alleged Hindu cell has forced India to face some difficult issues. A country that prides itself on purported religious and cultural toleration – an ambition that in reality often falls short – has been made to ask itself how this cell could operate for so long. India’s military, which prides itself on its professionalism, has been forced to order an embarrassing inquiry.
The near-daily drip of revelations from police has also caused red faces for India’s main political opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), ahead of state polls and a general election scheduled for early next year. The BJP and its prime ministerial candidate, Lal Krishna Advani, have long accused the Congress Party-led government of being soft on terrorism that involved Muslims. However, the BJP has refused to call for a clampdown on Hindu groups, and last week Mr Advani even criticised the police over the way they questioned one of the alleged cell members, a woman called Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur.
The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, phoned his rival to ask him not to politicise the issue or the investigation. “There is a strong case so let the police do their job,” he told Mr Advani. While some commentators have expressed surprise about the discovery of the alleged cell, others have pointed out that there has been growing concern about the possible threat from Hindu extremists. In the summer, two members of a right-wing Hindu group were killed while putting together a bomb, and two other suspected members of the same group died in similar circumstances in 2006.
Meanwhile, senior right-wing leaders have made no secret of their wish that Hindus should form suicide squads to protect themselves against Muslim extremists. Bal Thackeray, leader of a group called the Shiv Sena, which has been responsible for communal and regional violence in Mumbai, wrote recently in the party’s magazine: “The threat of Islamic terror in India is rising. It is time to counter the same with Hindu terror. Hindu suicide squads should be readied to ensure the existence of Hindu society and to protect the nation.”
Observers say the fact that the police have arrested the alleged cell members amid considerable political pressure suggests the growing professionalism of its security forces. “It’s the first Hindu cell and it’s the first time Hindus have been shackled and taken to jail,” said Professor Dipankar Gupta, a sociologist at Delhi’s Jawarlahal Nehru University. “I’m quite pleased with the way the police have done their jobs.“

?

Posted by: annie | Dec 26 2008 22:16 utc | 43

Though the state of Pakistan is in such a precarious position that anything can happen.. The blame must go to the Pakistan army for making some bad choices in its security and regional policies.
must? according to you.
and if the mumbai attacks were a false flag hindu extremeist operation without pakistan participation?

Posted by: annie | Dec 26 2008 23:31 utc | 45

The smart move by Pakistan would be to refuse to move any troops to the Indian frontier. State publicly that they have no desire for conflict and that their troop deployment is evidence of that. Tell India that if they want to grab territory and face a debilitating insurgency trying to keep it instead of providing for their people that is their right.
Keep all of its troops facing west. Don’t take the bait. It is a far preferable way to resist destabilization and keep the nation together.
Would that the world had real leaders, not corrupt kleptomaniacs on the take.

Posted by: Malooga | Dec 27 2008 0:34 utc | 47

Via uruknet:

India Awaits Green Light for Raids on Pakistan
December 26, 2008 — The Pentagon has announced that the US would withdraw troops from Iraq to reinforce Afghanistan sending one brigade soon after the New Year and another three in spring 2009. This has the approval of President Elect Barack Obama. It is believed that the objective is a ‘surge’ in Afghanistan on the lines General Petreus had in Iraq. But President Hamid Karazai would like the additional troops to supplement the clandestine operations by RAW (India’a CIA) on Pakistan’s border. It now appears that President Zardari of Pakistan is just as eager for India and America to shift focus to his country. His reason: he wants the ISI and the Army to be tamed. It seems that Pakistan has the reincarnation of the Sheikh Mujib as a leader. And it was Mujibs’s treachery that precipitated the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and Pakistan’s defeat.[…]
For some more time a debate will continue whether Asif Zardari is an Indian agent or not but the penny has dropped with the vote in the UN Sanctions Committee that declared some of the Pakistani NGOs to be the supporters of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. It has now come out that he did ask the Pakistan’s representatives at the UN to get the ‘terrorist’ label put on some very respected names among Islamic NGOs. It has also come out that he did not consult Pakistan’s Foreign Office or use the diplomatic channels. He acted through co-conspirators – Hussain Haqqani and Hussain Haroon – Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US and the UN respectively. He has thus given a handle to India and America to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan. The USA and India would want progress reports and mobilise international support to condemn and isolate Pakistan as a ‘terrorist’ state and a ‘failed state’ to make the country an international pariah.
Asif Zardari (AZ) may be naive but he is no fool. He has help from India and the US to focus the ire of the international community on the ISI and the armed forces of Pakistan. America wants ‘full spectrum dominance’ over the world and Zardari (and co-conspirators) are telling them that the only institutions that stand in their way in South Asia are Pakistan’s intelligence and the armed forces. India and America are already working with him to make the armed power of the state of Pakistan to be directed against the Afghan and Kashmiri resistance. If they find the military leadership un-cooperative, AZ would turn on them. AZ tell his party that he seeks to end the military defying him on the pretext of ‘professional advice’ not because of Indian or American pressure, not because of lack of sympathy for the Kashmiri liberation struggle, but to establish the primacy of politicians for all times to come.
AZ wants to establish ‘full spectrum domination’ of his party over all the institutions of the state of Pakistan with the help of India and America under the cover of ‘war on terror’. He has already got his way over all the political parties, the judiciary and the civil service; the only resistance comes indirectly from those fighting the occupation in Kashmir and Afghanistan. India, America and Asif Zardari have a meeting of minds. They all see the resistance (in Afghanistan and Kashmir) as the enemy. If they could get the armed forces of Pakistan to fight the resistance in Kashmir and Afghanistan , both the challengers to ‘full spectrum domination’ (of America over the world and of AZ over Pakistan) would be mortally wounded in fighting each other. AZ hopes that the armed forces would have so little public adulation and support that they would never stand in the way of the political class whatever its wills, wants or does.[…]
The AZ led PPP would be the first ruling political party any where in the world ever that enlisted the support of the enemy to weaken the foundation of its armed power – its nuclear deterrent as well as its intelligence and the armed forces.
All this would fit nicely into the scheme of President Elect Obama’a guru – Professor Brzezinski. He would love a war between the Armed Forces of Pakistan supporting secular-liberal parties (the PPP, ANP and MQM) against Resistance to Indo-US occupation of Afghanistan and Kashmir. That, in his view, would be a ‘good war’ that could yield a victory to the US at very little cost. The US ‘old guard’ and India want Zardari to use his armed forces relentlessly and ruthlessly to crush the ‘resistance’ in Afghanistan and Kashmir.[…]
Even if the Army half-heartedly submitted to Indo-US threats, as it appears to be doing now, a civil war – like that in Algeria – in which the Army is fighting the majority, would quickly spread. That, the Americans hope, would create conditions for them to ‘lift’ the nuclear weapons of Pakistan to the US for ‘safe custody’.[…]
Pakistanis/Bangladeshis were deceived into electing a traitor as their leader in 1971. It was a few young Bangladeshi officers who killed him and brought his farcical presidency to an end in August 1975. Once again we have an Indian/American agent sitting in the President’s House. The anger in Pakistan is palpable. What happens next is anybody’s guess. The Pakistan Army is under great pressure to engage in operation against Afghan and Kashmiri resistance. If it submitted or even half submitted to that pressure, the war would be fought on the soil of Pakistan. As a nation we must persevere is asserting that resistance is legitimate occupation is not. We are proud and we must show pride in our stand against occupation everywhere in the world. The USA has already recognised the bankruptcy of its position and is withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Indian position in Kashmir is even weaker but it is sustained in it obduracy by collaborators in our ranks who we put in position of leadership. Yet, I am hopeful that India will give us a chance to liberate Jammu and Kashmir sooner than any one expected or imagined.
The writer is Director of London Institute of South Asia.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Dec 27 2008 5:04 utc | 49

Great job annie @ keeping the xenophobics and the ‘war-justifiers’ at bay.
@Hoss. You have a, via internet, 36,000ft static view of the situation in Pakistan.
First it seems you did not read the Mumbai Mystery: American Designs on Pakistan and India till the end. Here is a excerpt

Benefits of bifurcating Pakistan: From American point of view, there are many benefits in creating an independent Balochistan:
* An independent Balochistan will be an ideal territory to keep supply lines open to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
* Independent Balochistan will provide Americans with excellent locations for putting up their military and naval bases to police the Persian Gulf and make sure that no other naval power including India, China and Russia ever gets upper hand in the Indian Ocean.
* An independent Balochistan will be the place from where Americans can maintain permanent pressure on Iran, even in the remote possibility that they may have to eventually leave Iraq.
* China and Russia will be denied any access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
* The Gulf countries will remain dependent on the USA for export routes of their hydrocarbon products.
* Full control of the entrance to the Gulf will enable USA to allow or deny oil flow by tankers to any country in the world.
* Central Asia is a land-locked region and the whole region would be on the mercy of the United States.
* If Balochistan is detached from Pakistan, the rest of Pakistan is likely to exist as a perpetually unstable entity, creating a permanent source of trouble for India. This fits nicely with other American plans because India has come very close to becoming an economic rival of the United States.

All of these points hit home. While, it seems, that the US is trying to build-up India to contain China. It will never create another competitor for itself in the region.
About roads in Balochistan. The Gwadar-Karachi road has been 100% operational for the last 3 years. Work is 70% complete on the Gwadar-Khuzdar road (Khuzdar lies midway on the RCD highway between Karachi and Quetta). This road is to be extended to connect to the National highway in Larkana (work has already started, completion in 2011). On top of this, feasibility on railway connection between Gwadar and Quetta has been completed. China is going to extend a loan. The long-term plan is for China to get rail connectivity to Gwadar. At the same time an “Oil-city” is being planned near Gwadar, where the Saudis and Chinese will be setting up oil-refineries.
Hence the US has few other alternatives to its current policy of creating massive regional conflagrations. I mean alternatives within the scope of how it has traditionally approached such problems.
However, the way I am looking at the situation, I think Afghanistan will be a grander fiasco than Vietnam. They may be planning for 25-30 stay, while I dont think they have more than 2-3 years before they run with their hides.

Posted by: a | Dec 27 2008 8:23 utc | 51

if we did not live in BizarroWorld™ the US would be firmly on the side of Pakistan and fully against the Indian state. We would find repulsive the caste system with permanent underclasses and privilege based solely on birth. We would embrace a democratic state that has rebelled against such unfairness.

You know something, please read up or keep upto date on the social systems in India. Yes, it’s still there but the country’s made some progress; lots in my view.
This is getting tiring, this snake charmers, caste stuff that people keep bringing up. It happened,is happening and is being dealt with. And it is certainly not going to happen at the pace you want.
Just as an example that has had the largest impact, Mayawati is king maker when coalitions crumble and guess where she comes from? if you look at wikipedia link, she pays the highest taxes too. As you can infer, corruption is caste indifferent too.
There are a lots of things that are wrong in my country. But here’s the thing, this country has a lot more promise than most others. For one, we riot violently at *perceived* wrongs.
second, the long term plans are getting results and will get results in the next few years. One by one, year by year, from reducing fertility rates, to education for women, to polio vaccination for kids, female infanticide, this country will plod but nevertheless progress.
There will be setbacks whether internal or externally induced but the country has been through the school of hard knocks. It will always come through.
As a reference, we’ve been independant for about 60 years; we’ve had a dalit president, Chief justice and chief ministers, so far. And taking another example of the USA as a democracy, let’s see 300 years and 1 black president, civil rights movement in 1960s….I’d say, we’re doing OK, thank you very much.

Posted by: shanks | Dec 27 2008 17:02 utc | 53

Juan Moment
“Via uruknet:
India Awaits Green Light for Raids on Pakistan”
Without the benefit of the linked article, I had pretty much outlined the same scenario in my post# 13. However, the article appears to encourage belligerency. The Pak army for years has been a source of problem in Pakistan and this article attempts to provide the army a reason to overthrow a legitimately elected civilian President and his government. Zardari may be slimy and too dependent on the US but still way less than the Pakistan army’s dependence and subservient support of the US adventure in Afghanistan. The army has supported the US aggressive posture in that area for the last 50 years. The army role in 1978 against Afghanistan and the subsequent manipulation of the politics there, of course with complete US approval, has led to where we are in Afghanistan right now.
Now the army is resisting the US pressure for more involvement with man and resources. This resistance does not make the Pakistan army a peace loving or a righteous organization. The resistance is to save its own existence and perks that the army enjoys by controlling the Economic strings in Pakistan. During the last 7 years, almost 95% of the US aid went to the army and I am sure the army would ask for more from the US, if it is forced to man the western borders. The Generals are by nature blackmailer and not patriotic at all.
I would take Zardari over the Pakistan army anytime. He could eventually be forced by the public or the electoral pressure to mend his ways but you take that approach against the army and it will greet the people with bullets like it had done in the past against the poor Pakistanis. Let us not forget what the army did in 1971 in Bangladesh and most recently in Baluchistan.

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 27 2008 23:04 utc | 55

thank you shanks for taking the time to explain a few things. I must say, taking possession of the Taj is a major propagenda coup! absolutely brilliant. apparently Indians are just as prone to manufactured consent as we are in the US re weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 28 2008 5:52 utc | 57

First it seems you did not read the Mumbai Mystery: American Designs on Pakistan and India till the end. Here is a excerpt

Posted by: a
I did read that and enjoyed the style of presenting a serious issue.
It seems like both sides(India-Pak) are quickly toning down rhetoric. It appears that within the next few weeks, Pakistan and India would revert back to some normalcy in their relations. Sounds like some deal has been struck between the US and the Pak army and we will find out the details later.
“* An independent Balochistan will be an ideal territory to keep supply lines open to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.”
As I mentioned in my previous posts, the highway from Gwadar to Karachi (Coastal Highway) is a fine two lane Highway but going north from Karachi to Chamman-Quetta is not of the same level and can’t take the load w/o some major upgrades. Secondly, the northern part of the Highway near Quetta and Chamman is entirely populated with Pathan as hostile to the US as their brothers at Khyber Pass. The US intelligence agencies believe that Mullah Omar has been provided protection there by the Pathans. So the route is as bad as the current route. US will need a new highway that would link up Gwadar with Kandahar or Herat by passing the populated areas. That is an expensive and time consuming proposition especially when the US will have to guard that highway after Baluchistan is detached from Pakistan. Given the current troops situation, US simply lacks that ability.
* Independent Balochistan will provide Americans with excellent locations for putting up their military and naval bases to police the Persian Gulf and make sure that no other naval power including India, China and Russia ever gets upper hand in the Indian Ocean.
Yes, I agree with that but this can be accomplished w/o breaking up Pakistan. As I said earlier, China is not ready to take advantage of the Port yet, so the Pak army can make money and the US can place its monitoring facilities in the area. Doing this by breaking up Pakistan and dealing with another set of hostile local population would NOT help the US. In case US force the issue, both China and Russia would resist that and would never allow the US to have a complete control. We have seen many follies by the US in the past so US might attempt to force its way but the risk are so enormous that any sane planner would balk and look for better and safe options.
* China and Russia will be denied any access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
The Russia part is a myth. Russia is not interested in warm waters in Baluchistan. It barely has any trade with the countries in the areas and it can easily work out a deal with Iran. For a limited use Port chahbar or Bandar Abbas are not far from there. China is more serious in that port due to its increasing trade with the Gulf countries, Pakistan, Iran and even India. So it will fight for it with the US. But again if China is not interested in becoming a naval power in the area, it would not have any problem with the US ships using the port.
* The Gulf countries will remain dependent on the USA for export routes of their hydrocarbon products.
US already has facilities in Muscat and Oman which are just across from Baluchistan.
* Full control of the entrance to the Gulf will enable USA to allow or deny oil flow by tankers to any country in the world.
Please see above two responses.
* Central Asia is a land-locked region and the whole region would be on the mercy of the United States.
And how the US would accomplish that? Central Asia has no trade currently from that route. How the US control of the Port would change that?
* If Balochistan is detached from Pakistan, the rest of Pakistan is likely to exist as a perpetually unstable entity, creating a permanent source of trouble for India. This fits nicely with other American plans because India has come very close to becoming an economic rival of the United States.
I am not sure detachment of Baluchistan can do that. In fact, Baluchistan would become a headache for the US as it is a headache for the Pakistan army now. It would be in the US interest to continue to use the Pakistan army for whatever protection it needs in that area.
India is nowhere near becoming an economic rival to the US. It is highly dependent on the US for all its revenue. It will remain a client state for a long time. That is the relationship both India and the US are working on and the US hopes to use the Indian army as a cheap substitute for the Pakistan army in future.
So your points at least to me don’t hit home. I will take up rest of your post later.

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 28 2008 6:37 utc | 59

“I am trying to guess what really must be in their mind.”
Posted by: a
Thank you for the links but really how would you stretch two news items to even guess that the US is trying to bifurcate Pakistan?
The road project is sponsored by Pakistan and you also believe that US-Pak army relations are at rock bottom, why would the Pak Army allow the US to break up Pakistan?
The problem really is that we have bunch of right wing, libertarian and liberal Think Tanks looking for the reasons to maintain their funding and existence. Some of them indulge in this kind of fanciful analysis, create news and develop weird maps as if they know what is in the US mind and what the US can do.
The last break up of a country, 60 years ago, was mandated by the UN with British help in Trans-Jordon and we know how that is going.
Simply put, the US has no such powers. After five years of effort to break up Iraq it failed at that and now some in the US think they would attempt that in Afghanistan but I can guarantee you that would fail too because despite its ethnic diversity, the Afghanistan population still places a high value on the geographical integrity of the country.
Here are some scenarios for Baluchistan separation:
1. The US develops a highly motivated political movement that asks for separation from Pakistan.
2. That movement allows/ asks the US armies to come and help it.
3. That movement allows the US to station its armies for good in Baluchistan.
OR
4. US attacks Baluchistan and takes over the Territory.
5. US manufactures a civil war in Pakistan and the Baluch ask to take a separate Baluchistan and invite the US army to operate Baluchistan for them.
One last scenario is that the there is another 9/11 from the FATA areas and that gives the US the liberty to drop marines(don’t know where they will find them from) and the Pak army folds over and allows the US to take over the country.
I know that lunatic CIA Chief has warned about that. But another 911, really?
Let me say a few things about India. India may be complex or a democratic state but its economic structure is still based on the colonial model. Yes, they have elections every five years or so but that is the extent of the democracy. The all powerful civil bureaucracy still runs the country as if the 1947 never happened. The police system is oppressive and the caste systems pretty much ensures that only certain sections of the population can vote freely.
There have not been any democratic reforms in any area to transfer the real power to the people so the benefits of democracy go to the highly corrupt politicians and upper classes. The Indian elite is happy to be a client state and the nuke agreement is one good example of that.
Thanks

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 30 2008 17:34 utc | 61

“The last break up of a country was … six months ago or eleven months ago depending of who you ask.”
Posted by: ThePaper
Agreed I missed that. However, it took US ten years and ton load of money to do that. In Pakistan this process may take 50 years or so. It is not most democracies when a poor person can’t sit while talking to even a lowly cop or beaten up and put in lock-up with any reason at all. At that point is democracy but just the will of the powerful.
Anyway, As I mentioned in several posts, the US and the Pak army have struck a deal apparently as reported by Asia times. Atime is a dubious source and is probably owned by some agency. The intersesting part is that Iran is ready to help with NATO supplies that have been completed stopped as the Pak army is taking necessary action in the Khyber Pass to clean up the militants from the area.
Read the story here.
Pakistan’s spies reined in
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
“KARACHI – Two major events are likely to mark the beginning of 2009 and decide the new rules of war and peace in the region. In Pakistan, the foremost is curtailing the powerful military dominated intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and the second is the unveiling of a new strategy in Afghanistan.
[…]
Meanwhile, NATO is looking to protect its supply lines and might have found assistance from Iran, which would reduce its dependence on Pakistan, where supply lines have come under heavy attack.
Non-military supplies, including food and oil, could go from the Iranian port of Chabahar overland to Afghanistan, where a new road in the west of the country has been completed despite an unprecedented number of attacks by the Taliban. ”
I guess mission accomplished..Mumbai chapter closed!

Posted by: Hoss | Dec 31 2008 3:56 utc | 63

Hoss, I agree that forced/artificial break-up Pakistan (or of any country) is a very stupid thing to do. But then so was the war in Iraq, or for that matter the ‘war on terror’, especially the way that it is being lost.
On the face of it, it does not seem that the US has one strong will. There seem to be lots of under-currents. And a lot of times the under-currents become stronger than what is at the surface. The separation of Balochistan may not be the desired outcome. But then what are they trying to do? Softening up the target? To what end? Neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear capability? Somehow the US always creates a lot of room for policy back-firing.
Saleem Shahzad from AToL is a dubious source. He seems to be a double agent who plays with fire, if not his own life. Also the article you quote is old. In later posts he seems to have contradicted this analysis and gone off on another tangent.
With respect to India, you are drawing a generalization. It is dangerous to draw generalizations in such a complex system. It is something like saying that the chance of a Hurricane in these parts is only 0.1%, hence we are going to rule it out.
Pak army going for action in Khyber area, does not mean that the route will be open for business as usual any time soon. There may be an attempt here to kill two birds with one stone. On one hand they are easing US pressure, on the other they are mucking up and de-stabilizing the region even more, so that Nato has an even harder time in Afghanistan.
Things are never as simple as they seem, one has to look for patterns in long term averages.

Posted by: a | Dec 31 2008 7:50 utc | 65

what i suppose you people who want war, your souls are dead. if some are doing wrong are you suppose to punish the whole nation. the children of pakistan. they are our brothers.

Posted by: danish | Jan 17 2009 10:37 utc | 67