In a suicide attack intended to target the Indian Consulate at Jalalabad, the capital of the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan, nine Afghans, including at least eight children, were killed, and another 24 were wounded on August 3, 2013. The three attackers were also killed. All Indian officials in the Consulate were safe. Nangarhar Province Police Chief General Sharifullah Amin confirmed that the consulate was the intended target of the blast.
According to reports, when Afghan Security Forces (SFs) intercepted the attackers' red Toyota Corolla at the first checkpoint leading to the Consulate, at a distance of about 15 to 20 metres, two terrorists wearing suicide jackets got off and opened fire on them. While one of the attackers was killed by the SFs, the second detonated his suicide jacket. Simultaneously, the third militant detonated the explosive-packed car. Deputy Police Chief of Nangarhar Province Masum Khan Hashimi disclosed, "It was a very heavy car bomb that totally destroyed the nearby market." Reports also said that the explosion was followed by gunfire which lasted for at least an hour.
This was the second attack on the Consulate at Jalalabad. On December 15, 2007, two bombs were lobbed into the Consulate. There was, however, no casualty or damage on that occasion. India has three other Consulates in Afghanistan— at Kandahar, Heart, and Mazar-e-Sharif.
The Consulate attacks fall into a larger pattern. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) database, a range of Indian interests in Afghanistan have been systematically targeted, including the Embassy in Kabul, other Consulates, and numerous developmental projects as well as people involved in these. Partial data indicates at least 13 such attacks, resulting in 103 fatalities since 2003. In the worst such attack, on July 7, 2008, a suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul killed 66 persons. Five Indian Embassy personnel, including two senior diplomats— Political Counsellor V. Venkateswara Rao and Defence Adviser Brigadier Ravi Datt Mehta— and Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) staffers Ajai Pathaniya and Roop Singh, were killed in the attack.
The last attack on Indians in Afghanistan had taken place on October 11, 2010, when two Indian nationals were killed in a missile strike launched by Taliban terrorists on an Indian NGO's office in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan.
Though no group has taken responsibility for the latest (August 3) attack, direct involvement of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligent (ISI) as well as ISI-backed terrorist groups, primarily the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Haqqani Network is suspected. Both the LeT and the Haqqani Network operate out of Pakistan and have a strong presence in the eastern region of Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan and where the city of Jalalabad is situated. Though the Afghan Taliban, in a text message, denied its role in the attack, involvement of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), its Pakistan affiliate, has not been ruled out too. TTP also has significant presence in the region. However, past experiences as well as recent reports indicate the strongest possibility of the involvement of the Haqqani Network, the LeT, or both.
ISI's direct role in this latest attack is suggested in prior disclosures by the Afghanistan National Intelligence Agency spokesperson Lutfullah Mashal, on May 10, 2011, who had revealed that the ISI had hired two persons, identified as Sher Zamin and Khan Zamin, to kill the Indian Consul General of Jalalabad. The ISI's role in the July 7, 2008, attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul had also been confirmed by former Afghan intelligence Director Amrullah Saleh, who, in a media interview published on January 17, 2011, disclosed: "We had sufficient evidence that it was ISI's plan. We knew they were trying to do something against the Indian Embassy." Referring to ISI's role in the Kabul attack, Mike Waltzin, a US official, had stated, in a TV interview, released on November 2, 2011, "The question was how high in the Pakistani state this went. And the answer was pretty high." An Indian news report, on August 3, 2013, the day of the Jalalabad attack, quoting official sources, had claimed that intercepts confirmed that the ISI paid half a million rupees to two Haqqani Network terrorists in Afghanistan to attack the Indian Envoy in Kabul, Amar Sinha, two weeks earlier. Indeed, security officials from India had visited the Kabul Embassy and the four Consulates thereafter to check preparedness. Significantly, Nangarhar Province Police Chief General Sharifullah Amin admitted that Police in Jalalabad were on an alert for such an attack.
A Pakistani security official has argued: "Why would we do such a thing when we are trying to improve economic ties with India?" Nevertheless, in a veiled reference to Pakistan, India's External Affairs Ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin observed: This attack has once again highlighted that the main threat to Afghanistan's security and stability stems from terrorism and the terror machine that continues to operate from beyond its borders. This was clearly an attack not just against India but an attack against the efforts to help the Afghan people overcome the tragic hardships they have endured due to several decades of war.
Akbaruddin asserted further that India would not be deterred by this attack and would continue to assist Afghanistan in its reconstruction and development efforts.
Afghanistan has repeatedly and openly blamed Pakistan for attacks on Indian targets in Afghanistan as well as for sustained activities detrimental to peace in Afghanistan. Warning the people behind the attack, Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul stated that those responsible for the Jalalabad assault "and their financial, ideological and logistical sponsors must realize that they cannot shake the close and strong bond of friendship and partnership between Afghanistan and India through terrorism." Rassoul also informed his Indian Counterpart Salman Khurshid that "Afghanistan will leave no stone unturned to ensure the safety of Indian diplomatic personnel and the Afghan Government is determined to counter the efforts of those inimical to India's friendship with Afghanistan."
India's age old relations with Afghanistan have been gaining in strength in recent times. Reaffirming these ties, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Afghanistan in May 2011, and signed the historic Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and India. More recently, on July 30, 2013, the two nations signed a Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) on implementing 60 projects under the USD 300 million Small Development Projects (SDP) scheme, announced during Singh's May 2011 visit. The first two phases of the SDP scheme are nearing completion. A framework MoU for operationalising the third phase was inked in November 2012 during Afghan President Hamid Karzai's India visit. India has already spent $2 billion on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, since 2001, where it is currently involved in several developmental projects, including the construction of the Parliament building in Kabul, the Salma Dam and power transmission lines. Several major projects, including the strategically critical Delaram-Zaranj Highway connecting Kandahar and Herat, opening up a crucial trade route through Iran, have already been completed in Afghanistan by India.
Reports indicate that India is also stepping up the training of Afghan National Army (ANA) recruits and personnel in a major way. Afghanistan's demand for supply of military equipment for the Afghan forces is also under consideration in New Delhi.
Pakistan has been significantly shaken by the rising Indian presence in Afghanistan, the country over which Islamabad seeks complete control in the aftermath of the 2014 US drawdown, and appears hell bent on forcing India out. This latest attack is one such effort in that direction. Vivek Katju, India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, notes, "Pakistan has always sought to limit India's activities in Afghanistan and for this purpose has used a number of instruments, including an attempt to circumscribe the activities of Indian representatives, including Indian personnel involved in assistance projects. There is a valid reason for concluding the involvement of Pakistani state actors in violent attacks on Indian interests in Afghanistan, including our Embassy." Similarly, Jawed Kohistani, a Kabul-based military and political analyst, opined, "Pakistan can't tolerate India's good relations and influence in Afghanistan. Through such attacks, it's trying to push India back, not only from Afghanistan but it also wants India to have less influence in Central Asia."
It is significant that the change of regime in Islamabad has no bearing whatsoever on the orientation of the ISI and the various terrorist proxies it supports and, despite a great deal of 'talking about talks' between India and Pakistan, there is little reason to believe that any significant shift in strategic orientation has occurred, to justify any optimism on this account. Indeed, as the uncertainties of the impending US drawdown escalate, it is inevitable that Pakistan's targeting of the Indian presence in Afghanistan will intensify. It remains to be seen how New Delhi responds to protect not only its own interests, but, crucially, the fragile order that has been established in Kabul.
Ajit Kumar Singh is Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management. Courtesy: the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
This is just a surmise, but if as is mentioned, Dawood Ibrahim was involved in the 26/11 attack on Mumbai, what was Headley doing in Mumbai? Also, when Ibrahim left Mumbai, it must have been by ship, boat or steamer. It would have been known, the next day, after he left, that he did. I think the airport cameras were looked at, after. What if the 'Major' mentioned in the voice communications between the terrorists and people in Pakistan was just a ruse, and there was no army involvement?
This policy paralysed UPA govt. has no idea or guts to take any counter action. A blind half wit could have told them as 2014 draws nearer such attacks on Indian interests will increase on the orders of ISI. All this bunch of nincompoops can do is act surprised each time this happens.
Only a decisive and confident govt in New Delhi can protect India's startegic interest in its neighbourhood especially wrt to Af-Pak and China. For first of all, it has to stop fearing China and being intimidated by it. China can NOT launch any major war against India, but it threatens India with it by claiming more and more of Indian territory in the Himalayas. In simple terms it is blackmail. India must not be afraid of China's military or economic power.
For a start, India should first of all renounce the agreement China made with Nehru on Tibet. India should declare Tibet indepedent and that China is an agressor in that country. That way It will disarm China with all its claims it makes on Indian territory as part of Tibet. What can they do ? Attack India ? Let them try ? No way they can afford to have a major war with its southern neighbour over Himalayas. Their economy will sink with large scale unemployment that will cause a severe global recession.
China will not get any support from the USA/West in its conflict with India. If they start any naval offensive against India on the high seas of Indian Ocean, it will inadvertently provoke the Americans who can easily block China's vital oil supply lines from the Gulf.
India must first deal with China then it can put its poodle Pakistan in its place. The dragon will no doubt blow fumes and fire but thats all it can do ... it will have to go back to its cave and free Tibet if international pressure builds up on it ... It was Nehru who goofed and India is paying a heavy price for that Himalayan blunder ...
The need of the hour is a Ram who stood up gainst the all mighty Rawan ...
DR RIGHT >>> India is a weak state.
NO ITS NOT .. ITS CURRENT GOVT IS ....has no policy strategy or vision for all its neighbourhood esp with Pakistan and China. Sooner it goes better it would be for India.
> "direct involvement of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligent (ISI) as well as ISI-backed terrorist groups, primarily the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Haqqani Network is suspected."
This stands to reason. Secretary of State Kerry is in Pakistan trying to improve U.S.-Pakistan relations. He should bring pressure as well as impose sanctions for such wanton attacks.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT