APPARENTLY Islamabad did not know how angry New Delhi was over the suicide bomb attack on its embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people, including two senior Indian officials. Pakistan’s hand was seen straightaway.

Still New Delhi did not react officially until Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai himself confirmed that it was the doing of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). He has now said so in public.It took India one week to firm up its response. National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan told TV channels that “we not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence” on the involvement of Pakistan. He named the ISI. Whenever India put the responsibility of bomb blasts and incidents of sabotage on Pakistan in the past, it did not threaten retaliation as Narayanan did.

Spelling out retaliation, the National Security Adviser has mentioned two things: one, India will not let the attack go unpunished and, two, “the ISI needs to be destroyed. We have made this point whenever we have had a chance through interlocutors across the world.” Significant are the words: “There might have been some tactical restraint for some time; obviously that restraint is no longer present.”

Even though the Manmohan Singh government was engaged in a battle for its survival it found time to tick off Pakistan. The cancellation of CBI Director Vijay Shankar’s visit to Islamabad, along with a delegation of officials from the ministries of home and external affairs, appears to be India’s first step. The meeting was to discuss anti-terrorism.

What the cancellation of the trip seeks to convey is that New Delhi has no faith in the joint tackling of terrorism. I wish the delegation had gone to Islamabad and confronted it with “a fair amount of intelligence” to put it on the mat. Even a walkout from the meeting in protest would have been appropriate. Probably, New Delhi had the pressure of public opinion in mind. The general perception is that the ISI is involved in bomb blasts or acts of sabotage within the country.

The reaction in Pakistan, from what I have gathered through TV channel interactions and telephone calls, is quite the opposite. The general comment is that India is unnecessarily dragging in the ISI when Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorist attacks. Their belief is that RAW is behind acts of violence in their country. My impression is that the intelligence agencies of both countries have been active in supporting dissidents and insurgent elements in each other’s territory.

One way to silence the critics in Pakistan would have been to make the “fair amount of intelligence” public. Narayanan said last year that they had “concrete evidence” of the ISI’s involvement in the Samjhota Express bomb blasts. Despite Islamabad’s repeated requests, “the concrete evidence” was not made available to it, or to the public in either country.

However exasperating the establishment in Islamabad, there is no alternative to talking. War is no option between the two countries, particularly when both have nuclear devices. Islamabad’s real annoyance is over India’s increasing influence in Afghanistan. But it can be interpreted differently. By building roads, schools or health centres — the current allocation is $100m — India is trying to divert people’s attention from extremism to education. This ultimately helps Islamabad because it loosens the hold of terrorists who thrive in an environment where no basic amenities like roads or health centres are available.

Mistrust of India is Pakistan’s predicament. It has not yet looked at Afghanistan beyond its strategic depth potential. Kabul has always resented it and has alleged that the Taliban are the instrument that Islamabad uses to push this policy. The ISI comes into the picture because this is the machinery Pakistan allegedly uses to put policy into motion.

An Indian newspaper asked Ahmed Rashid, an authoritative Pakistani voice on the Taliban, whether the ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. His reply was: “Pakistan’s problem, for certain, had never been Afghanistan as long as the Taliban were in power. The thing that worries the military establishment here [in Pakistan] is its presumed enemy on the east — India…. Pakistani intelligence can never allow a hostile and India-friendly country neighbouring its west.”

In his latest book, Descent into Chaos, Rashid has minced no words in exposing the role of Pakistan and that of the ISI in Afghanistan. He is open about the support extended by the ISI to cross-border terrorist attacks launched from territory under Pakistan’s control. In its bid to limit and eliminate what it regarded as India’s growing influence in its backyard, Rashid says, the ISI systematically helped the Taliban by letting it establish itself on the Pakistan side of the border, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).

True, Islamabad has a problem: the Taliban domination in Fata, Pakistan’s territory. But even during the British period, this area was never administered closely. Jirgas owing allegiance to different tribal families were left to sort out problems among themselves so long as they stayed under the overall tutelage of the British. America was the first to vitiate the power dynamics of the area, to bleed the Soviet Union to death. The US won the Cold War but made the entire place, including Afghanistan, practically fundamentalist. Today we are paying for Washington’s sins.

America’s recent threats to deal with Fata directly may have wide repercussions. The first violation would be Pakistan’s sovereignty. Asif Ali Zardari, speaking for the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, has rightly said that his government should be allowed to settle matters in its own way. Since America has gone ahead in the past to bombard the area, there is no reason to believe that Zardari’s plea will be heard.

All this, yet again, underlines the same point: India and Pakistan must normalise their relations. I thought that both Nawaz Sharif and Zardari would attend to it immediately. But for some other compulsions they have not done so. Both countries, or for that matter all the countries in South Asia, should realise that they can rise through amity and cooperation. But if they do not get this point — the ‘mindset’ bureaucrats are there to sabotage every conciliatory effort — they may go downwards to live in poverty and extremism perpetually.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

IT seems that the Red Mosque is not going out of the news just yet. There was more bloodshed on July 6 as supporters of the mosque’s former clerics congregated to commemorate the first anniversary of the military operation in which approximately 150 people died.

This time round the death toll was about 20. By the look of things, it doesn’t seem that the original Red Mosque incident will be erased from the minds of the people any time soon.

The suicide attack, which killed mostly policemen on duty near the mosque, says something about the problems that the Pakistani state and society are confronted with. Reports on the July 6 incident point to two interesting developments: (a) the composure of the young suicide bomber, and (b) the security lapse. Unlike the suicide attacks of the past, in this case the perpetrator of violence did not rush into the crowd but calmly had a cup of tea before walking towards the police contingent posted on duty that day. Moreover, he had walked around with his explosive-laden jacket on a hot summer day without anyone stopping him or noticing that he was wearing inappropriately heavy clothing.

This background information raises certain questions about the mental health of the law and order and security establishment in the country. Is this an indicator of some change that people have not noticed? How is the Red Mosque incident perceived by those tasked with the protection of the state and how do they connect it with the future of the state?

The underlying assumption is that the security lapse mentioned earlier is not an ordinary or random occurrence but an indicator of how a portion of the law and order and security establishment, especially the junior and middle ranks, might have begun to view last year’s events at the Red Mosque. Is it possible that the suicide attacker was not stopped because those on duty were not sufficiently vigilant as they did not consider the crowd which had congregated that day to be threatening?

People, particularly police officials, are dying every day. So then why not suspect those with a Taliban-like agenda? The issue, however, is that the majority of people are suspicious of the manner in which the entire Red Mosque operation was handled. Although opinion is divided on how many people actually died during the operation, the scepticism is dangerous. If the perception amongst the law and order establishment is that Maulana Abdul Aziz was purposely humiliated and that there wasn’t a huge stash of weapons inside the mosque, which the army claimed to have recovered, then we are looking at a real problem. The lack of trust amongst the various agencies of the state is bound to create problems of coordination, cooperation and efficiency.

Reportedly, the operation was handled mainly by the army’s Military Intelligence (MI) while the other agencies were kept in the background. So what happened in Islamabad around the Red Mosque after July 3 was really within the purview of the army more than anyone else. Hence the perception is that the MI or the army might have acted on orders from outside the country or fulfilled an external agenda. This makes the Red Mosque gang and the Taliban-type appear innocent in comparison with segments of the establishment.

The other issue pertains to the perception of the Taliban-type in general. Lest we forget, the bulk of manpower in the country’s civil and military bureaucracies as well as the law and order institutions comes from the lower-middle or the lower classes. These are the people who have always been marginalised by the ruling elite and are yet to reap the benefits of good or even better governance. These are the people who have become increasingly sceptical of the ruling elite’s credentials vis-à-vis the delivery of justice and good governance.

The Taliban-type, hence, are seen as a way out of the morass. With the hopes pegged on the present government quashed within months, there are many who have begun to talk about the Taliban being the only hope for the country. There are those who believe that the Taliban will wipe out the myopic ruling elite of the country which cannot be punished and obliterated because the possibility of a full-blown revolution does not exist in Pakistan. (The general understanding here is that our country is not ready for an Iran-style revolution though it badly needs one.)

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s ruling elite is comparable to what we can find in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique and Cambodia. In the last 60 years it has not learnt to share resources and power or understood that creating bottlenecks for too long does not help. It has not even learnt from others about the ruthless power of the masses mainly because the perception is that Pakistan will not have a revolution.

After the 2008 elections it was hoped that the political elite, which is a segment of the ruling elite, might have learnt from its past mistakes and would mend its ways. But such an expectation seems to be a mistake in itself. The infighting continues while threats to the people multiply. It is sad indeed if segments of the population have come to think that the Taliban might rescue the state and society. They will, in fact, increase the external dangers to the state, especially to one armed with nuclear weapons.

The global forces that include the US, China, Russia and others will not allow Pakistan to retain nuclear weapons if there is a threat of a Taliban takeover or an increase in their influence. If the recipe then is to conduct a direct attack, which seems more likely now than ever before, the risk of greater instability will increase manifold. It is not just a matter of American interests but that of other nations as well, including Pakistan’s ‘all weather’ friend China which is highly nervous about the activities of religious fundamentalist forces in its adjoining regions.

Returning to the recent Red Mosque incident, what is most obvious is the fact that the law and order and security apparatus seems to be crumbling because those who are part of it no longer believe in the innocence of the top-most decision-makers. Such lack of faith generates inefficiency which will put the state under further peril. One wonders what it will take to make the elite conscious of the rapid changes under way in the country. Today the people seek development, governance, progress and justice. Tomorrow might be another day.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

HAVE you ever seen somebody pulling a chicken out of a cage and slaughtering it in front of the other birds which remain inside the cage? The caged chickens make a lot of noise and try to fly in all directions.

However, within a few minutes of the slaughter the chickens resume eating as if nothing had happened. Our reactions in Pakistan are not much different.

On July 6, 2008 I could not resist going to attend the meeting at Lal Masjid. While returning at around 7.45pm when the meeting had ended with some offering their Maghrib prayers and the majority walking back, I saw about 25 policemen standing in line at the Saddar Road roundabout across the petrol pump, not far from the Holiday Inn. They were unarmed and innocently watching the crowd walking past them. The sun was setting and the weather was pleasant and I could not help appreciate my surroundings.

However, the first thought that came to my mind upon seeing these policemen was that they were sitting ducks for a suicide bomber. My car passed these policemen who had been deputed from Faisalabad to serve in Islamabad that day at Lal Masjid and within a minute the suicide bomber struck them. Twenty-one, including a few civilians, are said to have died.

I was told by the depressed policemen at the site that only five of their colleagues, of the hundreds who were stationed less than 50 meters away at the Aabpara police station, rushed to help the blast victims. The remaining were too scared to come forward lest there be another blast.

I experienced this myself at the time of Benazir’s assassination when only four to five persons, including myself, were trying to help the victims and the police was nowhere to be seen although there were hundreds deputed all around Liaquat Bagh. This is actually one of the key problems with the phenomenon of suicide bombing: the psyche of fear has gripped the whole nation and the police is no exception. Thus, the chances are that nobody will be on hand to give you even a few drops of water, the first thing all the injured ask for, before you die lying on the road.

This fear psychosis should be compared with the performance of the British police who grabbed a Brazilian following the July 7 London underground blasts while he was boarding a train, pinned him down and shot him dead. He was innocent and totally unarmed, and the incident was unfortunate. However, the policemen who killed him should be praised for their courage as they were grabbing and then pinning down a potential suicide bomber before he could blow up yet another train. They were willing to risk their lives to save others. How many such cases can you think of in our country?

We try to make heroes when we have none. A policeman is talking on a mobile phone while on duty, which is a common site nowadays, and is killed by an attacker. We make him a martyr. Is he? Almost all the policemen who have been killed in suicide attacks were caught off guard.

Every time one goes to a public event, like the July 6 Lal Masjid or the December 27 Liaquat Bagh meeting, the police gives the impression as if that particular day is a terrorist-free day and such incidents happen elsewhere and on other days. They exude a carefree attitude with a sub-machine gun or an old rifle in one hand, and a mobile or a cigarette or a cup of tea in the other. You will seldom see an alert policeman anywhere in the country.

The police lack proper training and are also underpaid. The policemen who were killed on July 6 had been on duty since eight in the morning and were standing in the ‘fall-in’ position when the attack took place. They were waiting for the final countdown and attendance-taking before they could rush to catch up on their sleep. What kind of service can you expect from a police contingent that has been on active duty for 12 hours, which incidentally is also against the law? There is no reason why the country cannot hire more policemen in this period of acute unemployment. To make matters worse, they are not paid overtime and are underpaid. While they stand for 12 hours without a break in the hot or cold or humid weather or in the midst of rain, their superiors sit in air-conditioned offices and engage in PR.

The suicide bomber is obviously the main culprit behind the July 6 incident. However, the officer who asked these policemen to ‘fall-in’ at that public roundabout in full view of everybody is equally at fault.

Some may ask after reading the above criticism, how can a suicide bombing attack be averted? All one has to do is see the extensive police surveillance in London nowadays. There are CCTV cameras almost everywhere which can also be installed in all our markets and roads (and they should remain functional too). In addition, two policemen or policewomen with small wirelesses in their hands — but carrying no guns — can be seen everywhere in Central London. However, they have searching eyes that look all around.

What can be a more attractive target for a terrorist than the United States nowadays? Despite this, America has not experienced any major terrorist incident since 9/11, which happened nearly seven years ago. Have you ever wondered about the reason? It is not because the American nation is homogenous and there is nobody available in the country who does not wish to harm America. The reason is that the police is simply not giving the extremists a chance to strike.

Guns are readily available but explosives are hard to find in the US (in our country, unfortunately, they are sometimes easier to find than atta). Potential terrorists are constantly being traced and monitored in every possible manner and their attempts foiled before they materialise.

One only wishes that the police and the intelligence agencies in our country wake up from their slumber and muster a little bit of courage and intelligence to catch the terrorists before they are able to press the levers of their suicide jackets. We need to remember that a thick head can do as much damage as a hard heart.

AH — there’s nothing like a tragic love story. And indeed what follows is nothing like a tragic love story. For, if you listen carefully, you may just be able to catch the sound of high-end scuttling among the steep-sided canyons of New York. That would be the Manhattan rats leaving the sinking ships or sinking husbands — pretty much the same thing.

It appears that the credit crunch has sent top-flight New York divorce business rocketing, up 40 per cent, as the trophy wives of Wall Street’s beleaguered super-wealthy (executives, hedge funders, property developers) race to lawyers to cite ‘irreconcilable differences’, which in this case roughly translates as: ‘He’s poor now.’

It’s got so bad that some Wall Street husbands are trying to hang on to their wives by taking out huge loans to maintain their mansions, yachts and Saks accounts. However, lawyers are saying that wives aren’t interested in standing by their men, opting instead to end their marriages as quickly and clinically as a bad credit card snipped in half in front of you in a restaurant. The whole debacle amounts to a somewhat ruthless: ‘If the gravy train is over, then so are we, darling.’

The only appropriate response is how appalling. What kind of cow leaves a marriage just because the helicopter has left the lawn? Indeed, any decent person should despise these women, right?Well, no, actually, wrong. It seems to me that these women are loyal to a fault, that is, loyal to the deal that was originally struck. When you think about it, there is a world of difference between being a trophy wife — waving hubby off on his private jet while you face another day of lonely, unfulfilled spending in Barneys — to being a real wife — having some sacked bitter bozo under your feet all day, reliving past glories, hogging the remote control and asking too many questions about your lipo-fund.

More to the point, before we all start working ourselves into a righteous lather over the behaviour of the trophy wives, these masters of the universe knew what they were getting into. After all, weren’t they the ones who brokered the ‘deal’ in the first place — their cash and status for a trophy wife (someone to make their peers drool)?

So, no cash, no trophy wife. It’s a simple enough psychosexual equation. Cold yes, but only as cold as the one that makes it clear to the trophy wife that she will be unceremoniously dumped, Trump-style, for a new hottie if she commits the crimes of becoming fat, old or Ivana (the patron saint of failed trophy wives). In short, in the land of the deal, the fleeing rat-wives have a point — what does love have to do with it?

Indeed, while the new breed of credit-crunch bailer-wives might be ruthless, maybe they learned from their masters. Only last week, I was hard at work doing research (OK, sprawled on the sofa reading the newspaper) and came across the tale of Arpad Busson, the hedge-fund philanthropist and multi-millionaire, who had a nine-year, two-children relationship with model Elle Macpherson, allegedly couldn’t marry her, because he was a strict Catholic, and she was a divorcee and then went on to propose to twice-divorced Uma Thurman.

Just as I was thinking :’Nice guy — way to go, Uma’, I came across another tale of Super-rich Lurrve Gone Sour. Christie Brinkley’s Hamptons’ paradise was shattered when her husband was discovered paying off a neighbour’s teenage daughter to keep quiet about their affair.

Just in case Christie hadn’t been humiliated enough, the divorce judge commented that she might care to ‘examine her taste in men’.

At which point, you think, enough already! Whatever happened to the great high-end romances, the ones that were examples to us all — Bogie and Bacall, Scott and Zelda, Bill and Monica? Which, for their sins, were about love, sex and madness. Anything but money.

So what are we seeing here — the revenge of the trophy spouse? Certainly it’s a timely reminder to the rich of Manhattan that the first law of the trophy wife is that she, natch, atrophies at the first sign of trouble. For the rest of us, it’s culturally interesting.

In the aftermath of 9/11, another great period of international stress, it was noted, rather droningly, that every day brought a new life lesson. With this in mind, maybe we should take heed of the morality tales emerging from the credit-crunch crisis.

Certainly, it seems to say something that the relationships of the rich seem to be the first ones to go. While the poor are sticking together, the rich are splitting like atoms. Has schadenfreude ever tasted so sweet?

— The Guardian, London