Recent disclosures in a Chicago court by Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Canadian of Pakistani origin, would appear to have placed in political difficulty not only the Americans but Indians as well. Rana dropped a bombshell when he informed the court in a pre-trial statement earlier this week that he was a part of the 26/11 attack on
Mumbai as a reconnaissance agent (along with David Coleman Headley or Dawood, a Pakistani American) at the instance of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and not the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. When the news hit the American media, ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, then on a trip to Washington to confabulate with his CIA counterpart and others in the US establishment, is reported to have hurriedly rushed back home. It is easy to see why. Whatever the legal technicalities about standards of proof, it was plain that the ISI, officially Washington’s key ally in the so-called war on terror and the bulwark of its AfPak policy, had meticulously orchestrated a defining attack on innocent civilians in India. The United States has not only sought to befriend India in recent years, it also renders New Delhi constant advice to reassure Pakistan that it has no hostile intentions toward its troublesome neighbour.
Mr Rana’s statement, of course, refurbishes the stated Indian view on the ISI’s explicit “non-peripheral” role in 26/11. His exoneration of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba need not detain us here, especially when it has been noted around the world in recent years that the ISI engages in terrorism through the LeT: in short, the two do no not inhabit separate, watertight compartments. Why Mr Rana chose to name the ISI while pointedly leaving out the LeT (he could have omitted reference to the latter) is a matter of conjecture at this stage, and is likely to be revealed in course of the trial which begins in May. But concerns for his own safety is likely to have been uppermost in his mind. The arms of the LeT are said to stretch far. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee earlier this week, the US Pacific Command chief, Adm. Robert Willard, spoke of the “global reach and ambition” of the LeT which was “no longer intent on targeting only India”.
Damaging revelations about the ISI’s role in the made-in-Pakistan terrorist assault on Mumbai cannot augur well for the fresh lease of life infused into India-Pakistan ties with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh making the perfect pitch with his cricket diplomacy late last month. In short, New Delhi’s dilemma is not dissimilar to that of Washington in seeking to maintain steady relations with Islamabad. Now external affairs minister S.M. Krishna tells us that India’s unease flowing from the Rana statement will be taken up with Pakistan. The expected denials, and denunciation of the reconnaissance man, may follow from Islamabad. But none of this is apt to quell doubts here, whatever the official line. In principle, we have agreed to restore cricketing and hockey ties with Pakistan. As a way to build bridges at the people level, this is laudable. But questions will be raised about the security of our sportspeople. In 2008, six Sri Lankan cricketers were fortunate to escape with relatively light injuries in a suicide attack.
Given the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to build durable ties with our neighbours, including Pakistan, it is probable that we will re-engage Islamabad across the board. But this is apt to become difficult once the Rana trial opens and new facts tumble out. Mr Krishna has said India will seek to extradite Rana, but will New Delhi’s heart be in such a venture? Post-cricket diplomacy official bonhomie and Rana spilling trade secrets can’t go hand in hand.