Guest post by RAZA RUMI
As a Pakistani it is difficult for me to talk about the ghastly attacks on Mumbai three years ago and the response of its vibrant citizens. This is not simply due to the nationality of Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist captured after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. What happened in Mumbai was a sad reminder of how easy it has become for a handful of militants to wreak havoc, to hold an entire city hostage and undermine humanity. A vast majority of Pakistanis felt the pain and condemned the Mumbai attacks; targeting innocent civilians is heinous and unacceptable.
The Mumbai attacks changed the atmosphere created by President Asif Ali Zardari’s unprecedented offers of peace and cooperation. A few weeks before the carnage in Mumbai, Mr Zardari made historic remarks in a conclave organised by an Indian newspaper, which represented a consensus within Pakistan’s political class: “I do not feel threatened by India and India should not feel threatened from us… today we have a Parliament which is already pre-agreed upon a friendly relationship with India. In spite of our disputes, we have a great future together.” Mr Zardari also declared that Pakistan will not be the first country to use its nuclear weapons, thus altering a carefully constructed Pakistani nuclear doctrine of first-use.
A few days later, when the terror attacks in Mumbai took place, most Pakistanis were shocked and bewildered. They had little clue what was happening until media reports trickled in that some of the attackers were of Pakistani origin. The civilian government tried to arrest the situation but the media fuelled paranoia and talked war was in the air. Soon, TV shows began preparing Pakistanis for a nuclear confrontation with India, and the situation was not helped by crank calls made to Pakistan’s presidency threatening attacks.
For Pakistan’s constituency of peace, this was the worst of times. Hopes of meaningful engagement with India were dashed to the ground. A consensus Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, a powerful Presidency and a political consensus on making peace with India was scuttled in a short span of 72 hours. The attacks achieved the exact objective with which they were enacted. The identity of Ajmal Kasab ensured that Indian public opinion was to do something about Pakistan. War talk entered Indian homes and bazaars.
Pakistanis tried to make sense of the situation. They are victims of similar militant groups which have destroyed peace and killed thousands of civilians and security personnel. In a perverse way, the enemy was common but the “nationalism” of the two states made it fragmented. Many Pakistanis saw terrorist attacks as a “reaction” to America’s war on terror in the neighbourhood; and the Indians saw terror on their soil as a continuation of proxy war by Pakistan.
The logjam was broken due to the hectic efforts of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s civilian leadership, which stuck on to its policy of normalising relations with India, culminating in the recent announcement of reciprocating India’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to promote trade. These three years have included various rounds of talks, failed summits, distrust and immense political will to bring things closer to normalisation. There is a long journey ahead.
However, the Mumbai trials in Pakistan, India and the US have had different trajectories. If David Coleman Headley has made startling revelations, the militant groups, especially the Jamat ud Dawa, continue to deny their role in Mumbai attacks. It is critical for the Pakistani state to identify and punish the perpetrators according to law. This is important for Pakistan, too. Justice for the victims in Mumbai will also benefit Pakistan in the long run.
The Indian government and civil society will have to engage with the situation in Pakistan and not remain indifferent to the challenges which the fragile civilian government and the Army face in tackling insurgencies. It is not true that all militancy and jihadism in Pakistan is state sanctioned. The Islamist militants are on an all-out war against Pakistan and have taken the fight against the state of Pakistan to a new level by terrorising the civilian population. The Pakistan Army’s general headquarters has been attacked, thousands of Armymen, police and paramilitary troops have been killed. The worst fear is that some of the smaller groups are autonomous and entering into alliances with Al Qaeda.
One often hears from the Indian side that the Pakistani state is the root cause of its plight. This is only a skin-deep assessment. Pakistan is located in a zone that has been the epicentre of the Great Game, which continues to date. To counter the Soviet invasion and aggression, Pakistan helped the US to prepare the mujahideen. After the Soviet Union retreated, there was dilemma about what to do with the militias; and now, since the US invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan is struggling to deal with militant networks built over decades. But this is a difficult process and needs more time, resources and regional support. The role of world powers, especially the US, cannot be underestimated in viewing what Pakistan has gone through.
Pakistan is not the same country as it was during the 1980s or 1990s. It has a vibrant electronic media and a huge young population which wants to move on. Despite the conspiracy theories, people question and challenge dominant narratives about India. And there are more and more young people asking this question: why these militants? Whose interest are they serving? Not the people’s. Even former cricket-turned-politician Imran Khan, the rising star of the youth, has stated that he will not allow any militant group to exist in Pakistan.
Pakistan’s elected government remains committed to peace. India needs to engage with Pakistan and its civilian institutions. History cannot be undone. But we can change the future.
(Raza Rumi is a Pakistani commentator and columnist. He tweets as @razarumi. This article first appeared in the Asian Age, published from Delhi.)
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
A sensible article. I doubt Mr Rumi represents a majority opinion in Pakistan, but it is a good sign that such an opinion exists. A good relationship between India and Pakistan will be immensely beneficial to both countries. It will particularly help India to maintain communal harmony and peace. The politicians and pseudo-intellectuals who nourish their self interests by arousing communal passion, concocting history and spreading falsehood will have to find something else for self promotion. However, complacency is not warranted in India at this juncture, as Mr Rumi’s Pakistan is still far from the reality.
LikeLike
One can only hope that young Pakistanis eventually decide that enough is enough, that they need to build their nation first and stop obsessing over India and Kashmir.
Imagine if Pakistan had stuck to its initial mandate of being a secular but Muslim majority state,and focused on building its economy, to become like Indonesia/Malaysia today.
LikeLike
It does not matter in the least what the “civil society” or “politicians” think and believe in Pakistan. Every time there is a chance of a genuine rapproachment, the Army and the ISI will svuttle it. Gen Kayani has stated he is “obsessed” with India. Mumbai attacks was such an incident. The attack on Indian Parliament happenned in similar circumstances, and the Kargil attacks happenned at the same juncture when Nawaz Sharif was almsot o the breakthrough in relations with India. It may be better for India now to keep Pakistan at bay and not work towards a “better relationship” as that will only invite yet another incident like Mumbai from the ISI. As long as the Army and ISI run Pakistan, NOTHING will change. That is the primary difference between Pakistan and any other state in the region.
LikeLike
In this post, Mr. Rumi sounds like the official spokesperson of the current civilian regime of Pakistan. If he tries to make us believe that a large section of Pakistani public is liberal and moderate by raising the bogey of ‘common enemy’, then his arguments are not convincing to me.
“One often hears from the Indian side that the Pakistani state is the root cause of its plight. This is only a skin-deep assessment.”
No, Mr. Rumi. This assessment is not skin deep. While I agree with your argument of Great Game and Pakistan’s geographical location, lets not forget that it was Pakistani state which created and sponsored the Mujahideens in Afganistan with the active support from CIA. A state-sponsored informal, armed militia to create havoc in a neighbouring country for some short-term gains – which civilized state in its right mind indulges in such reprehensible practices?
The fact of the matter is that there’s hardly anything called liberal Pakistan today. It is, at the same time, both sad and worrying for India. Pre-Zia era may had large sections of Pakistani people, media, government etc. liberal, if not secular. Unfortunately, active pursual of a narrow, misinterpreted religious doctrine by a state, itself founded on religious grounds, over past three and half decades has resulted in what we saw at the time of Mr. Salman Taseer’s murder. It is just that the Frankenstein’s monster which Pakistani state built for others has now started to devour itself.
I am all for talks with Pakistan but to whom do you talk to in a country where democracy is a hostage to Army HQ and more than half the country thinks that India (or more specifically Hindus) don’t have anything better to do than wipe out their very existence. What can one talk to with a nation which is so insecure about its very existence?
In India, we have to engage the Pakistani civil society to the extent possible but at the same time keep our powder dry. There doesn’t seem to be any other option, howsoever much we may want.
LikeLike