Unanswered Questions

In this article I will try to answer some of the questions which I havereceived from readers of my articles on the Mumbai terrorist strikes.

How strong is the evidence of the involvement of Pakistan'sLashkar-e-Toiba (LET)?

It is very strong. The evidence collected till now is partly direct andpartly circumstantial. The direct evidence has come from the interrogation ofone of the perpetrators (Mohammad Ajmal Amir, son of Mohammad Amir Imam, ofvillage Faridkot in the Okara district of Pakistan's Punjab), who has beenarrested and who is under interrogation. He has given details of the entireconspiracy and the involvement of the LET in it. The circumstantial evidence hascome from the interrogation of four Indian Muslims arrested by the Uttar PradeshPolice in February,2008, during their investigation of the terrorist attack on acamp of the Central Reserve Police Force in Rampur on January 1,2008. They hadreportedly spoken of the plans of the LET  for future terrorist strikes,one of which was planned in Mumbai. One of them, Faheem Ahmed Ansari, wascarrying a fake Pakistani passport and a list and maps of nine targets insouthern Mumbai, including the Taj Mahal Hotel and other sites attacked onNovember 26, 2008. Some other circumstantial evidence  has also come fromtechnical intelligence  reportedly collected by the Research & AnalysisWing (R&AW) in September, 2008, which spoke of the plans of the LET tolaunch a sea-borne terrorist strike in Mumbai.

Were there only 10 terrorists involved?

That is what the Mumbai Police and the Maharashtra government  have beensaying, apparently on the basis of the interrogation of the arrestedperpetrator. The operation involved detailed intelligence collection, reconnoiteringthe places to be attacked and the final planning and execution. It is difficultto accept that the same 10 persons performed all these tasks. There must havebeen definitely more people in the conspiracy-- at least performing peripheralroles such as intelligence collection and reconnoitring.

What are your comments on  the modus operandi used?

Jihadi terrorists indulge in acts of collective brutality and individualisedbrutality. The collective brutality is in the form of planting improvisedexplosive devices (IEDs) in public places, throwing hand-grenades into crowdsetc. There is no face-to-face brutalisation. Individualised brutality isface-to-face brutalisation of targeted individuals. Examples of individualisedface-to-face brutality: the kidnapping and murder of Ravi Mhatre of the IndianAssistant High Commission in Birmingham by the Jammu and Kashmir LiberationFront (JKLF) in 1983, the kidnapping and murder of the Vice-Chancellor of theSrinagar University and two others by the JKLF in 1990, the kidnapping of someWestern tourists by the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) under the name of Al Faran inKashmir in 1995 and slitting of the throat of one of them,the slitting of thethroat of a young Hindu passenger of the Indian Airlines aircraft, which washijacked by the HUM to Kandahar in December,1999, and the kidnapping andbeheading of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, in Karachi inJanuary-February,2002, in which the HUM, the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI),the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JUM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) were reported to havebeen involved.  

We had in the past seen instances of individualised brutality in J&K, butnot in Indian territory outside J&K.There are many reports of individualisedface-to-face brutality against Indian and Israeli nationals and other Jews.Reports of individualised brutality against Indian nationals have mainly comefrom the Taj Palace Hotel and against Israeli nationals and other Jews mainlyfrom the Narriman House. While some Indian nationals in the Taj Palace Hotelwere allegedly lined up and shot dead, Israelis and other Jewish persons in theNarriman House were allegedly tortured and killed in a savage manner. Of the sixAmericans killed, at least two seem to have been killed in a brutal manner notbecause they were Americans, but because they were Jewish, holding the dualnationality of the US and Israel. India's home-grown jihadis outside J&Khave till now not come to notice for indulging in individualised brutality.Slitting the throat of an infidel or of a Muslim apostate is a typical MO of AlQaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistani jihadi organisations. They do it not onlyto intimidate non-Muslims, but also as an act of religious sacrifice to Allahjust as one slits the throat of a goat before Id.

The LET is reported to have denied its involvement

This does not mean anything. In fact, it is not the LET which has deniedinvolvement. It is the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), of which Prof.-Hafiz Mohd.Sayeed isthe Amir, which has denied involvement. Indian and American intelligenceprofessionals look upon the JUD as the political wing of the LET. The Americanshave included the LET as well as the JUD in their list of terroristorganisations. The Musharraf government, which banned the LET as a terroristorganisation on January 15,2002,  refused to ban the JUD on the ground thatit has nothing to do with the LET. In fact, it was the contention of theMusharraf government that the LET had ceased to exist in Pakistan as a result ofthe actions taken by it  and  that what operated in India under thename of the LET was a purely Indian organisation. However, even large sectionsof the Pakistani media have refused to accept the govt's  contention anddescribe the JUD as the political wing of the LET.    While theLET sometimes accepts responsibility for successful strikes in J&K, it neverclaims responsibility for terrorist strikes in Indian territory outside J&K,lest it embarrass the Pakistan government.

An organisation called the DeccanMujahideen (DM) is reported to have claimed responsibility in a message sentto the Indian media. Some reports say this message had originated from acomputer in Pakistan?

The word Deccan refers to South India and was widely used during the Moghuland British rule. It is now rarely used in India, but in Pakistan it continuesto be used widely. Many Pakistanis refer to the Indian Hyderbad as Hyderabad,Deccan, to distinguish it from Hyderabad in Sindh. After independence in 1947,the ruler of the state of Hyderabad, who was known as the Nizam of  Hyderabad, and the ruler of the state of Junagadh in Gujarat, who was known asthe Nawab of Junagadh, hesitated to join the Indian federation. JawaharlalNehru, the then Prime Minister, sent the army into Hyderabad  to merge itwith India. Junagadh also joined India without the need for using the armythere. Many pro-Pakistan Muslims from Hyderbad fled to Karachi and settled downthere. The LET has long enjoyed some support from the descendents of someMuslims who migrated to Karachi from Hyderabad and Junagadh. It describesHyderabad and Junagadh as Pakistani territory illegally occupied by  India.One of its objectives is to liberate J&K, Hyderabad and Junagadh from whatit describes as Hindu rule. It is possible that some of these Muslimsoriginating from Hyderabad have been constituted by the LET into an organisation called  the Deccan Mujahideen and told to claim responsibility for theMumbai terrorist strike. The ISI and the LET are known to adopt this MO ofasking someone else to claim responsibility in order to conceal their owninvolvement. During the Kargil conflict of 1999, the Pakistani Army shot down aplane of the Indian Air Force. The Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), an Indian terroristorgnisation whose leader Syed Salahuddin is based in Pakistan, claimedresponsibility for the shooting down. Subsequently, the R&AW intercepted atelephone conversation between Lt.Gen.Mohammad Aziz, the then Chief of theGeneral Staff (CGS), and Musharraf, who was then in Beijing. In that tape, whichwas released by the Govt. to the media, Aziz clearly said that the Army shotdown the Indian aircraft and asked the HM to claim responsibility. Musharrafreplied : "Very good."

Has there been the involvement of home-grown jihadis in the Mumbaiterrorist strike?

Very likely. It is very difficult to carry out an operation of this nature bya group of Pakistanis without at least the logistic support of some indianMuslims. India's home-grown jihadis fall into two groups. The first groupconsists of those who have joined the LET and the HUJI and have been helpingthem. These are the fifth columnists in the Indian Muslim community. The secondgroup consists of those calling themselves the Indian Mujahideen (IM), whomaintain they have no links with the ISI or the Pakistani jihadi organisations.The IM was responsible for the serial explosions in many cities since November2007. It has also claimed responsibility for the Mumbai suburban train blasts ofJuly,2006. There is so far no evidence to show that the IM might have beeninvolved in the Mumbai terrorist strike. The involvement of the group of fifthcolumnists is a strong likelihood. This possibility was also corroborated by theinterrogation  of Faheem Ahmed Ansari.

What are the links of the LET with Al Qaeda? Is there a possibility of theinvolvement of Al Qaeda in the Mumbai terrorist strike?

The LET is a member of the International Islamic Front (IIF) for JihadAgainst the Crusaders and the Jewish People formed by Osama bin Laden in 1998.Abu Zubaidah, then projected as No.3 in Al Qaeda, was arrested from the house ofan LET operative in Faislabad in Pakistani Punjab in March,2002. In 2002, whenthe command and control of Al Qaeda was disrupted by the US military strikes inAfghanistan, the LET took over the responsibility for the co-ordination of theoperations of the IIF.Subsequently, suspected individual members of the LET inthe local Muslim communities were arrested in a number of countries and an LETcell getting itself secretly trained in the US with the help of some localMuslims for operations in India was neutralised in the US.  A press noteissued by the US Department of Treasury on October 16, 2003, after designatingDawood Ibrahim as a global terrorist said: 

"Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian crime lord, has found common cause with AlQaida, sharing his smuggling routes with the terror syndicate and fundingattacks by Islamic extremists aimed at destabilizing the Indian government. He is wanted in India for the 1993 Bombay Exchange bombings and is known to havefinanced the activities of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (Army of the Righteous), a groupdesignated by the United States in October 2001 and banned by the PakistaniGovernment -- who also froze their assets -- in January 2002. Ibrahim'ssyndicate is involved in large-scale shipments of narcotics in the UK andWestern Europe. The syndicate's smuggling routes from South Asia, the MiddleEast and Africa are shared with Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network.Successful routes established over recent years by Ibrahim's syndicate have beensubsequently utilised by bin Laden. A financial arrangement was reportedlybrokered to facilitate the latter's usage of these routes. In the late 1990s,Ibrahim travelled in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban.Ibrahim'ssyndicate has consistently aimed to destabilise the Indian Government throughinciting riots, acts of terrorism and civil disobedience. He is currently wantedby India for the March 12,1993, Bombay Exchange bombings, which killed hundredsof Indians and injured over a thousand more.Information from as recent as Fall2002, indicates that Ibrahim has financially supported Islamic militant groupsworking against India, such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET). For example, thisinformation indicates that Ibrahim has been helping finance increasing attacksin Gujarat by LET. "  

See my article TheGlobal Terrorist. The meticulous planning and execution of the Mumbai strikeand the targeting of Israelis and other Jews and the use of shocking brutalityagainst them indicate strongly an Al Qaeda mind. The mind that planned andorchestrated was Al Qaeda's, but the hands that killed were of the LET.

What about the involvement of the ISI?

The terrorist organisations operating from Pakistani territory fall into fourgroups: Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, which is mainly active in Afghanistan fromsanctuaries in Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban, which poses a threat toAfghanistan as well as Pakistan, and the LET and other organisations, which areoperating against India from sanctuaries in Pakistan. Pakistan has been actingonly against the Pakistani Taliban known as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)and co-operating with the US against Al Qaeda. It has not taken any actionagainst the Afghan Taliban and the anti-India organisations, which it looks uponas strategic assets to promote its national interests in Afghanistan and againstIndia. It has not taken any action against their terrorist infrastructure inPakistani territory. There are two old definitions of what constitutes statesponsorship of terrorism given by George Shultz, the Secretary of State underPresident Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, the father of the present President,who was Vice-President under Reagan. They gave these definitions after theterrorist strikes against the US Marines  and the French commandoes inBeirut. They said that any State that provides sanctuaries or  training or arms and ammunition, or funds or travel documents to terrorists  is astate-sponsor of terrorism. In subsequent years, the State Department clarifiedthat these facilities must have been provided by the guilty State repeatedly.One or two isolated instances would not bring a State under this category. TheLET entered India via J&K in 1993. Before that it was active only inAfghanistan. Since 1993, it has been enjoying all these facilities in Pakistaniterritory with the co-operation or at least the connivance of the ISI. Theaccumulated evidence of nearly 15 years collected not only by the Indianintelligence, but also by the agencies of the US and many West Europeancountries clearly shows the involvement of the ISI in propping up the LET andusing it against India. There is, therefore, enough evidence to act against it.

How about the denials of President Asif Ali Zardari? He has even deniedthat the arrested LET perpetrator is  a Pakistani?

This is nothing surprising. By his denials, Zardari has shown that he has thesame reflexes as the previous Pakistani rulers. In 1999, regular Pakistanitroops posing as militants infiltrated into Indian territory. the Indian Armykilled many of them. The Pakistan Army refused to accept the dead bodies of itsown soldiers and contended  that they were Indian militants and notPakistanis. It is immature on the part of us to expect that Zardari or any otherPakistani ruler would do a mea culpa.

How about suggestions for joint investigation emanating from the US andsome sections of our own elite?

These, if accepted, would give an escape valve to Pakistan. After the Mumbaiblasts of March,1993, the US and China, independently of each other, proposedthat the chiefs of the ISI and the R&AW meet secretly to discuss the Indianallegations of ISI involvement. Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, rejectedtheir suggestion. He had many reasons for doing so. One of his reasons was thatthe ISI would find out during these meetings what evidence the Indian Police hadbeen able to collect and try to cover up its tracks.

Zardari says that India has not been able to produce any evidence againstpersons living in Pakistan whose arrest and handing-over it has been demanding.

Thepeople, whose arrest and handing-over India has been demanding fall intofour groups. In the first group are the Khalistanis, who hijacked Indianaircraft to Lahore. Pakistan terminated the hijackings and returned theaircraft, but refused to hand over the hijackers to India for trial. Thehijackings were covered by the internatinal media, including the pressconferences addressed by the hijackers. Pakistan did try Gajendra Singh, thehijacker of the Dal Khalsa. The court found him guilty and sentenced him toimprisonment, but he was allowed to spend the period in a gurudwara instead ofin a jail. He used to meet and address the Sikh jathas visiting the NankanaSahib in the Lahore area. When Pakistan was asked to re-arrest him and hand himover to India for trial in cases pending against him in Indian courts, it deniedthat he was in Pakistan.

In the second group are Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon, who are wanted fortrial in India in connection with the March,1993, Mumbai blasts. The evidenceagainst Dawood Ibrahim has been produced not only by the Indian intelligence,but also by the US intelligence as could be seen from the press release datedOctober 16,2003 of the US Treasury Department. 

The third group consists of  terrorists from J&K operating fromPakistani territory such as Syed Salahuddin, the Amir of the HM. 

The fourth group consists of Pakistani nationals such as Maulana Masood Azhar,the Amir of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), Hafiz Mohd Sayeed, the Amir of the JUDetc. 

Pakistan's stand has been consistent, whoever might be the ruler. In the caseof the Indian nationals in the first two groups, it denies their very presencein Pakistani territory even though sections of the Pakistani media have beenreporting about their presence and activities in Pakistani territory. In thecase of the Kashmiris in the third group, it denies that they are Indiannationals and projects them as freedom fighters and not as terrorists. In thecase of the Pakistanis in the fourth group it says that India has not been ableto produce any evidence against them.

Since India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, there has not been asingle criminal case involving a Muslim in which it has extended mutual legalassistance to India-- whether it was a  case of terrorism, robbery,cattle-lifting, narcotics smuggling, rape or even child sex. It has had nohesitation in handing over nearly 200 Muslims suspected by the US as Al Qaedamembers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US without following thedue process of law, but it has never handed over a single Muslim criminal toIndia for trial. Even in the case of the US, it avoids handing over personswhose interrogation might bring out their links with the ISI.A typical exampleis the case of the accused in the Daniel Pearl murder case.