by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - December 10,
2008
On this Sunday past Michael
Faulkner, in his “Letter from the UK” column, published an elegant article on
the historical background of the horror. I recently published an article on BuzzFlash under the above title. It follows,
here.
In the past month or two, peace
talks have been going on between the new, democratically elected (!) government
of Pakistan and the Congress Party government of India (democratically elected,
of course). The peace talks would eventually have to get to the status of the
disputed region of Kashmir, of course. Of course, they would ultimately be
considered successful only if a final settlement was reached of that dispute
which was set up by the British when they left the Indian Raj split in two in
1947. (It was in three, actually,
for the original Pakistan had an East portion, now Bangladesh, and a West
portion, now Pakistan proper). Initiated by the new Pakistani President, a
businessman, the talks have however first focused on matters such as visa-free
travel (at present there are not even scheduled flights between the two
nations' capitals), the opening up of trade between the two countries on a
broad scale (essential for the Pakistani economy, now heavily dependent on the
International Monetary Fund for its survival), and a joint "no nuclear
first strike" treaty.
Who would benefit from the success
of these talks? First, many businessmen in both countries,
and fairly quickly too, most likely. (That is not unusual, even for
countries considered to be mortal enemies. Before the 2000 Taba peace talks between Israel and Palestine broke down in early 2001 in the face
of the oncoming “No Peace at Any Price” Sharon and Bush Administrations,
Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian businessmen had concluded deals to benefit
all three countries. They were
ready to move within two weeks of the signing of the proposed agreements.)
Second, the masses of the people on both sides would benefit+-, if from nothing
else than that arms expenditures on both sides could be significantly reduced.
Third, the Muslim population of India (India being the second largest Muslim
country in the world, after Indonesia) could then freely exchange visits with
family members descended from those who moved (fled) to Pakistan at the time of
partition, and vice-versa. Fourth, of course, the people of Kashmir who live in
proximity to the truce line, Hindu and Muslim alike, who could live without fear
for the first time since partition. Fifth, a gradually increasing Indian
presence in Afghanistan, which makes the Pakistanis understandably very
nervous, might be tamped down with US involvement, as part of any
India-Pakistan deal. Finally, both governments, once having sold a peace
settlement to their own parliaments, assuming that it would be fair one, would
benefit hugely both domestically and abroad in their respective political
arenas.
The United States would also
benefit, first from the reduction in tensions in the region in general. Second,
it would possibly have a Pakistani ally in the conflict with the Taliban (which
in my view also has to eventually be settled peacefully) which ally itself
would not be conflicted as it is now. Third, the new administration might be
able to amend the Bush Administration nuclear agreement with India such that it
would not put the US down so much on the side of possible further nuclear
weapons development by the Indians.
It is into this atmosphere of
possible long-range and wide-ranging peace talks that these particular terror
attacks, to be sure just one in a long series of both domestic and foreign
terror attacks occurring in India, were launched. And so what happens to those
talks in light of the Mumbai Massacre? Well, for the time-being at least they
would appear to be suspended. And they might be completely scuttled. While the list of the beneficiaries of
any Indo-Pakistani peace agreement is clear, there is also a list of parties
who would benefit from the collapse of the present talks. It includes a number of actors, on both
sides of the border.
To understand who would benefit
from such a breakdown, it is important to understand that the parliamentary
government of Pakistan has everything to lose and nothing to gain if the peace talks are abandoned by the Indians. Thus they are to
be believed when they say that their government had nothing to do with the
attacks, that they are outraged and horrified by them, and that they are
offering senior level intelligence aid in hunting down the organizers and
commanders of perpetrators, who clearly launched the raids from Pakistani
territory.
So, first on the list of who
benefits from the attacks are those political, military, and intelligence
agency elements, and the segment of the Pakistan power elite that they serve,
who supported and very likely still support the deposed dictator General Musharraf (former friend of the Bush Administration). If
the talks are suspended, if the economic situation in Pakistan becomes even
more precarious, even if such developments were originally caused by their own
policies (sound familiar?), they could see a route back into power, blaming it
all on the Indians and "government weakness," of course. Second, the
fiercely anti-Pakistan Hindu nationalists in India, thrown out in the last
election two years ago, could stand to benefit politically, charging the
Congress with being “weak on terrorism” (sound familiar?) Third, those elements
of "Pakistani militancy" which have a place in the sun only because
of the continuing disputes over Kashmir would clearly benefit. Indeed, an
organization called Lashkar-e-Taiba, which exists
directly to challenge the Indian government in Kashmir, is widely acknowledged
to have been at the center of the very well-organized attacks. Lashkar is thought to have ties to al-Qaida. Other
Pakistani militant groups would benefit from an increase in tensions as well.
Finally, according to the
reporting of James Fanelli of the New York Post there
is a fascinating wild-card here. It is an organized
crime syndicate led by an Indian mobster named Dawood Irbrahim Kaskar (who likely
does not go in for psychotherapy). Originally from Mumbai, originally a Hindu
but now apparently a devout Muslim (for whatever reason), he is thought to be
living in Karachi, Pakistan. He
ranks third on the Forbes international criminal most-wanted list (bin Laden
being first). He is believed to have ties to the infamous Pakistani
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. That may account for the fact that
while he has been sought by Interpol for ten years, he
has never caught. For openers, Kaskar owned the
vessel from which the attacks were originally launched. Oh, yes. Kaskar's main
criminal businesses? Drug smuggling and illegal arms
sales. Both of these would be severely crimped by any comprehensive
regional settlement, including that of the Afghanistan problem that could
easily follow on from a comprehensive India-Pakistan settlement.
Amazing, isn't it, how when in
certain parts of the world peace talks finally get underway, various elements
whose interests --- political, economic, and otherwise --- would be harmed by
their successful conclusion, conspire (and yes, I am not at all bashful about using
that word to do their best to scuttle them.
This article is based, in part, on
J. Perlez, "Ringed by Foes, Pakistanis Fear the U.S., Too," and "New Risk in Danger Zone,"
and K. Bradsher, "Armed Teams Sowed Chaos with
Precision," all from The New York Times, respectively Nov. 23 [before the
attacks], Nov. 28 and Nov. 29, 2008; J. Fanelli (jfanelli@nypost.com) "Mumbai terrorist bares all on plot," NY Post,
Nov. 30, 2008; "Terrorists Strike Mumbai," The Progress Report, Dec.
1, 2008; and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2136, Dec. 1, 2008. 
An earlier
version of this article appeared on BuzzFlash.com on December 2, 2008.