A dangerous prank

STATECRAFT demands a calm hand at the helm in moments of crisis. It is not clear if such a hand exists in Islamabad at the moment. An astonishing report in this paper has revealed that a prankster posing as Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was patched through to President Asif Zardari on Nov 28 and threatened military action by India if Pakistan did not act against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. In reaction, Pakistan put its armed forces on alert and threatened to remove its troops from the border with Afghanistan and send them to the border with India. Not until US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to Mr Mukherjee, who denied making a call to President Zardari, did it become clear that the presidency had been the victim of a prank and the tension in the region began to lower. Words fail us to describe what would otherwise be a comedy of errors were it not for the fact that the fate of 1.3 billion Indians and Pakistanis rides on how officials of the two countries handle the responsibility of high office.

‘Mr Mukherjee’ should never have been allowed to speak to the president. Pakistan is long used to its officials abdicating their responsibilities and never paying the price but this is surely an occasion when tradition must be broken and the culprits identified and punished. As the incident demonstrates, checks and procedures bypassed on the occasion exist precisely to ensure reliable communications between the Pakistani head of state and world leaders. Only an amateur would place a premium on speed over reliability, and there is no room for amateurs in a crisis. Pakistan was under enough international pressure already at the time of the prank call to have to deal with the added pressure of a self-inflicted wound. The dim view that world capitals take of Pakistan will only have grown dimmer now that it has been revealed that a major non-Nato ally of the US, a nuclear-armed nation and a country flush with militants and weapons and with the world’s seventh largest standing army nearly catastrophically raised tensions in South Asia in reaction to a prank call. As we said earlier, words fail us.

Since the Mumbai crisis is far from over, the presidency, indeed every high office in the land, needs to urgently review its procedures for communications both internal and external. The officials handling such communications must be career professionals who are well-trained and have up-to-date knowledge about safety procedures and possible threats. Political appointees, if any, must be shown the door. Making the mistake was bad enough; not learning from it would be even worse — with potential consequences we do not even want to contemplate.

Tackling terrorism head-on

WHILE it is true that terrorism knows no borders, it is equally evident that certain parts of the world serve as terrorism’s points of origin. Only those who either sympathise with the perpetrators or have been blinded by ‘patriotism’ can deny that one such hub of the violence that is wracking the region, and indeed the world, is Pakistan’s largely lawless tribal belt. For myriad reasons — the legacy of the Afghan ‘jihad’, the rising wave of Talibanisation, unemployment, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, US foreign policy — our tribal areas have become a breeding ground for militancy and terrorism. There is no shortage of recruits there for those bent on mayhem in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond. Note the distinction here between militancy and terrorism, for the two can be distinct phenomena until they overlap. When the Pakistani Taliban hit military targets in their battle against the state, troubling as that is, they can indeed be described as militants or even insurgents. But they become terrorists, and nothing but terrorists, when they target innocent civilians in bazaars or mosques or any other place for that matter. The military’s push into the tribal belt has resulted in civilian casualties and these are naturally decried by all right-thinking people. But those who vociferously demand an end to military operations must see this conflict in its entirety. This applies particularly to those who have a soft spot for the Taliban. Their ‘holy warriors’ are not just taking on trained combatants but killing civilians in the streets. That is terrorism. Period.

This war against the people of Pakistan was brought home, yet again, when a massive blast in Peshawar killed over 20 people and injured nearly 100 on Friday. The same day a suicide attack on a jirga in Orakzai Agency left at least seven tribesmen dead. It needs to be asked why such incidents are on the increase. One reason could be that the upsurge in military operations in Bajaur and elsewhere have hit the Taliban hard and, finding themselves in a tighter corner, they are now opting for softer targets in areas within easy reach. As the military does its job in the theatre of war it is up to the police and the intelligence agencies to provide greater security to the citizens of the state. The short-term costs could be high but there must be no let-up in the fight against terrorism. This is a war we cannot afford to lose.

OTHER VOICES - Indian Press

Denial or worse?

The Hindu

THE unprecedented terror strikes in Mumbai ... put enormous pressure on what a Pakistani commentator, writing in this newspaper, characterises as his country’s “tentative transition to democracy” — a vulnerable state in which the tensions between the military and the elected civilian government have not been resolved.... Once it became clear that the terrorist group came from Pakistan and the captured terrorist, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Iman, began to sing to the Mumbai police about his being on a Lashkhar-i-Taiba mission, it was natural for the Indian government at the highest level to take this up directly with Pakistan’s political leaders and ask for the controllers, including the organisation’s supremo, to be handed over to India and for strong action to be taken against the ‘banned’ organisation working behind a charitable front.

The initial responses were positive but after that it was backsliding all the way. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani first acceded to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s request to send the chief of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to India ... but hours after that, President Asif Ali Zardari lamely explained to an Indian interviewer that there had been a “miscommunication” and that an ISI official of the rank of director ... would be sent to India.... Even that offer, which came with expressions of solidarity with the people of Mumbai and assurances of the highest degree of cooperation, was cancelled after the All Parties Conference shifted the focus from what to do about Mumbai to rubbishing Indian accusations and expressing “support [to] the government and the armed forces in defending Pakistan’s security interests”.

Everything suggests that a convergence of the interests of the military, the jihadists, and the right-wing political parties has overwhelmed the democratic element in the initial response and forced the Pakistan People’s Party regime to take a do-little, if not do-nothing, stance. Political and social Pakistan is in costly denial, with national chauvinism and conspiracy theories shaping public opinion on who authored the Mumbai terror strikes, Mr Zardari speaking vaguely about “non-state actors” and even “stateless actors” working to instigate conflict between the two countries, and the army setting the terms of the practical response.

Pakistan seems to be responding as though it was the aggrieved party in the aftermath of the terror in Mumbai. The complexity of this situation, its seeming intransigence, will challenge India’s political and diplomatic capabilities in the coming weeks — and the sane answer is certainly not jingoism and military threats. — (Dec 6)

Lyari: another bloodbath?

IT is more than a travesty of humanity that a metropolis such as Karachi has pockets that writhe in pain and fear. The strife-torn suburb of Lyari is in sharp focus once again — one of its gangster-infested neighbourhoods formed the backdrop to significant violence on Thursday, following an exchange of heavy gunfire between rival crime gangs, killing approximately three people and leaving two injured. This is yet another petty turf war that harks back to the time, not more than a few months ago, when the beleaguered area became a virtual ghost town as hundreds of residents fled to other parts of the city. This time round competing bands of criminals were trying to wrest control of Ali Mohammad Mohalla, forcing shops to close as traffic and locals disappeared from the streets. Regrettably, these are neither Lyari’s first wounds nor victims in recent weeks; a 25 year-old suspected gangster from the Rehman Dakait gang was killed in early November by unidentified attackers. The locality’s anxious populace was fairly vociferous about its suspicions that the police was protecting the notorious Ghaffar Zikri mob, allegedly responsible for the murder. Three days later, the already fraught district was beset with more tension following the slaying of a Baloch leader, with sporadic firing in volatile areas such as Baghdadi that brought all economic activity to a grinding halt.

In view of the fact that Lyari’s ‘anarchic’ territory constitutes a mere six per cent of the hamlet it is a wonder that the home department, police and the Rangers have repeatedly failed to bring lasting peace to the area. It must also be remembered that the dispossessed locality, that appears to be of negligible consequence to provincial and city governments, is a PPP stronghold. Rebuilding is far cry for a place where authorities have continuously failed to implement foolproof security apparatus — CCTVs, helplines and an empowered and impartial police patrol. The focus rarely veers beyond momentary ceasefires, perhaps because it entails the eradication of political patronage to warring gangs. Few can deny that Lyari is simmering again; and the human and economic cost threatens to surpass that of the last round of conflict.

Lull before the storm

PAKISTAN has a case; Pakistan doesn’t have a spokesman — at least not one whom the world could recognise as Pakistan’s authentic voice. It’s a case that goes by default, and in an extraordinary reversal of images we are being branded sponsors of terrorism instead of being what Pakistan is — its victim.

The Oct 18 attack last year on Benazir Bhutto’s procession in Karachi killed 139 people and injured 450; the fire-bombing of Marriott Islamabad on Sept 20 left 60 dead and 260 injured. In Sindh, according to the figures released in the provincial assembly on Nov 27, there were 184 acts of terrorism during the last 10 years (1998-08), resulting in 1,770 casualties. In Fata, our security forces have lost over 1,200 soldiers fighting the Taliban terrorists. If we take 10 injured for every single dead, Pakistan’s total military casualties alone amount to 12,000.

Try to count the dead, the injured and those maimed for life in Balochistan, Punjab, the NWFP and the federal territory, and you will arrive at a casualty figure close to a staggering six digits. Do we have in Islamabad any personality who can put these cold facts across to friends and foes effectively, logically and with the kind of credibility that only emerges from the innermost recesses of one’s wounded heart?

The variety of targets attacked in Pakistan by terrorists is mind-boggling — Shia and Sunni mosques, churches, shopping centres, restaurants, five-star hotels (Marriott wasn’t the only one), Eid congregations, embassies, UN relief agencies’ offices, military establishments, girls’ schools, population welfare centres, student vans, hospitals, presidential and prime ministerial motorcades, election commission offices, corps commanders and generals, religious divines, foreign tourists and newsmen, Chinese engineers, police stations, hundreds of checkposts, party offices, political rallies, peace jirgas, funeral processions, Moharram processions, at least one Eid-i-Milad-un-Nabi congregation, newspaper offices, gas and power installations, bridges, train tracks, and exhibition and entertainment venues.

Barring Iraq and Afghanistan, no country has been so mauled and traumatised by terrorism as Pakistan. Yet the tragedy is that this country — in spite of the regime change — is accused of harbouring terrorists and providing them safe havens. That our case should go by default constitutes a damning indictment of our leadership.

There is another curious phenomenon: India’s involvement in acts of terrorism in Fata and Balochistan is told to the public at the second rung of leadership. Last time it was the Frontier governor Owais Ghani and the prime minister’s adviser Rahman Malik who spoke of India’s support for acts of terror. The president, the prime minister and the foreign minister have never uttered a word. (Pervez Musharraf was on record as having said that India and Afghanistan were helping terrorists in Balochistan and Fata.)

Either India is helping the Taliban or India is not doing so. If New Delhi is indeed doing something that is in line with its traditional policy towards Pakistan, why is the articulation of this fact left to Governor Ghani and Adviser Malik and why do Asif Ali Zardari, Yusuf Raza Gilani and Shah Mahmood Qureshi keep mum? In sharp contrast, the top leadership in India doesn’t mince words and blames Pakistan directly.

India this time has not mobilised troops. This is nothing to rejoice about. In 2002 they mobilised half a million men, forcing Pakistan to respond in kind. After months of an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation the Indian army withdrew. The BJP government gained nothing from this confrontation. Instead, two years later, the two countries began their composite dialogue. Obviously the Congress-led government is wise enough not to repeat the bravado for fear of a negative public reaction in India. But what they could do could be something more pernicious. Most probably the Manmohan Singh government will wait for the Obama administration to settle down.

Obama’s remarks at his Dec 1 press conference when he unveiled his cabinet team lacked even a semblance of impartiality and must have made Indian foreign policy managers euphoric. For that reason New Delhi is unlikely to show haste and act unilaterally against Pakistan or do anything that may not necessarily have American approval, for in Obama New Delhi sees a wonderful opportunity.

The present situation is the lull before the storm. Every act of terror provides India with a fresh pretext to act against Pakistan. The attack on the parliament building in December 2001 didn’t lead to war because the Bush administration was careful not to add to Islamabad’s problems or do anything that could distract Pakistan from the war on terror.

This time the picture has vastly changed, for India has now emerged as America’s policeman in the region, Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally being a wonderful and deceptive myth. Most probably India will synchronise its move against Pakistan with a Karzai administration not only too willing to oblige but enjoying Obama’s tacit support. The absence of troop movements is a deception. A greater crisis is going to give way to the superficial calm currently prevailing in South Asia.

Ruling on DNA records

THE fingerprints and DNA samples of more than 857,000 innocent citizens in the UK who have been arrested or charged but never convicted of a criminal offence now face deletion from the country’s national DNA database after a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

In one of their most strongly worded judgments in recent years, the unanimous ruling from the 17 judges, including a British judge, Nicolas Bratza, condemned the “blanket and indiscriminate” nature of the powers given to the police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to retain the DNA samples and fingerprints of suspects who have been released or cleared.

The judges were highly critical of the fact that the DNA samples could be retained without time limit and regardless of the seriousness of the offence, or the age of the suspect.

The court said there was a particular risk that innocent people would be stigmatised because they were being treated in the same way as convicted criminals. The judges added that the fact DNA profiles could be used to identify family relationships between individuals, meant its indefinite retention also amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their private lives under the human rights convention.

The case provoked an expression of disappointment from the home secretary (UK minister of the interior), Jacqui Smith, and the promise that a working party, including senior police officials, will report back to Strasbourg by next March on how the British government will comply with the judgement.

“The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice. The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement.”

It is thought that the policy in Scotland, where DNA samples can only be held for a maximum of five years and only in serious violent and sexual cases, even if the suspect was not convicted, will be the first option to be looked at.

The Strasbourg court ruling came in a case brought by two men from Sheffield , northern England, who asked for their DNA records to be destroyed. The first man, Michael Marper, aged 45, was arrested in 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was dropped three months later after the couple were reconciled. He had no previous convictions.

In the second case, a 19-year-old named only in court as S was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001 when he was 12, but was cleared five months later.

Both asked the South Yorkshire police to remove and destroy their DNA samples and profiles and fingerprints. But police said they needed to retain them “to aid criminal investigation”.

Their lawyer, Peter Mahy, said last night: “This is a fantastic result after a seven-year hard fought battle against the UK government. We are obviously delighted that the European court of human rights found in our clients’ favour. It will be very interesting to see how the government respond — they should start immediately to destroy the DNA records of innocent people on the DNA database.”

The ruling will have a major impact in shaping the future development of the DNA database in Britain and its use across Europe. Set up in 1995, the British DNA database which now holds the samples of 4.3 million individuals in Britain, including children, is already proportionately the largest in the world.

The Home Office acknowledged that its plans to extend the retention of DNA to low level, so-called non-recordable offences, including littering and minor traffic offences were now dead in the water.

Tony Bunyan of Statewatch, the European civil liberties monitoring group, also said it put a question mark over EU plans to share fingerprint and DNA data across the 27 member states.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said the ruling would have profound impact on their use of DNA technology.

— The Guardian, London