What's new

Jamaat-ud-Dawa to approach ICJ over sanctions: Hafiz Saeed

hmm.. i would like to understand some points regarding all these..

1) How many charity org. is thr @ pakistan and why the India and UN is blaming Jamaat-ud-Dawa only ? Either the US / India intelligence is lying or Pakistan is in self denial mode.

:tup: Good question and yes, something for people to think about (unfortunately I saw attempts to not confront it, and explanation of what intelligence actually means instead..)

2) If JuD doesnt support terrorism then whats the use of all these effort of banning it? there must be something behind the scene going on?

Again, hitherto correct. JuD, supposed parent of LeT has been engaged in anti India activities openly, (see a post from Vinod earlier in this thread) and they are pretty SEVERELY against India. It is mere joining the dots to see that it was probably involved directly or indirectly in creating the setup responsible for the attacks. BTW, Abdullah Muntazir, when asked if Kasab was indeed from LeT responded with a short but insightful answer,
"Even if he did, we are not responsible for what any one of our students do after passing out."

HINDUSTAN TIMES SPECIAL: TEHELKA EXCLUSIVE
 
My remarks were not directed towards a particular member but a comment on the general approach of ppl here.
Again, please do not generalize.

Where is the rule of law when an international body blacklists a " charitable" orgnisation inside Pak ? Is there an international law that says the UNSC cannot ban orgnisations within a member nation if it has conclusive proof that the Org is up to no good ?.. & the Govt is unable / incapable to control it ? Has it not happened in the past ?
The rule of law is in following what the UN has decreed. I don't think that I have argued against following the UN's lead and banning the JuD, in fact I have said the Pakistan has to implement UNSC resolutions as part of her obligations as a member of the UN.

The UNSC resolutions, AFAIK, do not however prescribe anything beyond the ban. My concerns stem over what has to be done next. People have been detained, offices shut down, and the JuD has threatened to go to court. Those detained need due process, they need access to the justice system, and they need a fair trial. That is the main issue I have been arguing about.
I am sorry if u feel my remarks are intended to provoke, it was / is not the intention.

The options before GOP have been spelt out and the lesser of the two evils was chosen. Where is the 'huge ' diff between the 2 situations ? In both cases it was a wise decision, in both cases Pak had no choice.. i.e. accept or be scrapped, in both cases GOP was on the wrong foot. In both cases the ultimatums came from overseas ( in the 2nd case with the tacit Ok of US).

Isn't there a pattern of inconsistencies on part of GOP ? It doesn't matter if the ruler sits in Islamabad or Rawalpindi. The responses to stimuli are the same coz the follies are the same.
Your comments remain of topic, and the manner in which they were phrased was inflammatory and I have already asked you to stay on topic. My answer to your argument remains the same as my last post.
 
Last edited:
:tup: Good question and yes, something for people to think about (unfortunately I saw attempts to not confront it, and explanation of what intelligence actually means instead..)
Its not a good question, and you missed the gist of my argument by merely focusing on the intelligence part. Intelligence does not establish guilt, nor can, or should, the GoP punish any of these individuals on the basis of 'intelligence'. A fair trial is the only way to establish guilt, and that was my point.

All this stuff about how many charities exist in Pakistan and why only one was targeted has nothing to do with the issue of having a chance to use the justice system to clear ones name, or be found guilty and punished.

Again, hitherto correct. JuD, supposed parent of LeT has been engaged in anti India activities openly, (see a post from Vinod earlier in this thread) and they are pretty SEVERELY against India. It is mere joining the dots to see that it was probably involved directly or indirectly in creating the setup responsible for the attacks. BTW, Abdullah Muntazir, when asked if Kasab was indeed from LeT responded with a short but insightful answer,
"Even if he did, we are not responsible for what any one of our students do after passing out."

HINDUSTAN TIMES SPECIAL: TEHELKA EXCLUSIVE

And as I suggested to Vinod, finding something 'distasteful' and rumor and speculation (which may or may not be true) in the media is not any way to condemn someone. If those things mentioned are true, and they violated some law, then it should be proved in a court of law and the guilty punished in accordance with the PPC.
 
Its not a good question, and you missed the gist of my argument by merely focusing on the intelligence part. Intelligence does not establish guilt, nor can, or should, the GoP punish any of these individuals on the basis of 'intelligence'. A fair trial is the only way to establish guilt, and that was my point.

I think we are being a little too theoretical here now, but yes I agree to your intent.

All this stuff about how many charities exist in Pakistan and why only one was targeted has nothing to do with the issue of having a chance to use the justice system to clear ones name, or be found guilty and punished.

Beyond doubt correct, but his point is again not aimed towards the judicial system here, but those who are questioning the validity of claims from the international community now. Definitely there are many such organizations in Pakistan (no research, just a generic assumption) and the named organizations need to be looked with some suspicion now and certainly not as those with purely social welfare as their agenda.

And as I suggested to Vinod, finding something 'distasteful' and rumor and speculation (which may or may not be true) in the media is not any way to condemn someone. If those things mentioned are true, and they violated some law, then it should be proved in a court of law and the guilty punished in accordance with the PPC.

Who do you think is going to come and prove it for you? The system has to book them up and try the trial atleast and put it to rest! I've mentioned it before, and I repeat it here - even in a moderately humane system if you have international community pointing some things to you, (and I can not foresee they are not providing any evidence behind the closed doors to pakistan - though it may be unfit for the masses and will never see the light probably), it just makes for a responsible call to book them up yourself and try things out to identify. Even if you can not sell their "guilt" or "innocence" to external community, you have shown your intent and atleast got some headway and most probably would succeed in proving their crimes to put things to rest.

If in a similar situation personally, I would not question incessantly for evidences and be bent on its rebuttal if there are more than one persons coming to tell me about certain falacy under my control, I'l probably wake up and do something about it at the end of the day.

And that something in this case, as you and Asim seem to be strongly in favour of, can be through proper internal judicial system of Pakistan, no body minds that.
 
Who do you think is going to come and prove it for you? The system has to book them up and try the trial atleast and put it to rest! I've mentioned it before, and I repeat it here - even in a moderately humane system if you have international community pointing some things to you, (and I can not foresee they are not providing any evidence behind the closed doors to pakistan - though it may be unfit for the masses and will never see the light probably), it just makes for a responsible call to book them up yourself and try things out to identify. Even if you can not sell their "guilt" or "innocence" to external community, you have shown your intent and atleast got some headway and most probably would succeed in proving their crimes to put things to rest.

If in a similar situation personally, I would not question incessantly for evidences and be bent on its rebuttal if there are more than one persons coming to tell me about certain falacy under my control, I'l probably wake up and do something about it at the end of the day.

And that something in this case, as you and Asim seem to be strongly in favour of, can be through proper internal judicial system of Pakistan, no body minds that.
Dhruv,

We agree for the most part then.

Personally I think the JuD and Hafeez will force the issue by going to court themselves. I do think there is merit to the GoP's pleadings with India to pursue a joint investigation. The symbolism of an India working with Pakistan to get justice for the families killed, vs an India demanding that Pakistan act, with no assurances that she will actually accept the results of whatever actions Pakistani initiates, woudl IMO make a difference in terms of public opinion, and therefore in terms of public pressure on politicians.

On a side note, it was good to hear that Nawaz Sharif expressed much the same sentiments as the GoP in an interview with a TV channel. It should help calm some nerves for political watchers who feared that the political opposition might play politics with the crackdown and try to take the GoP down.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
Personally I think the JuD and Hafeez will force the issue by going to court themselves. I do think there is merit to the GoP's pleadings with India to pursue a joint investigation. The symbolism of an India working with Pakistan to get justice for the families killed, vs an India demanding that Pakistan act, with no assurances that she will actually accept the results of whatever actions Pakistani initiates, woudl IMO make a difference in terms of public opinion, and therefore in terms of public pressure on politicians.

The idea is good but let's see the other side of the story.

Do you think Pakistan will do what it is doing NOW under tremendous international pressure, had it been a joint India-Pak investigation? Would the world have come for India's aid to this extent?

Historical mistrust and inaction was enough for India to see (and for a change do something wise!) by getting international attention instead.

Though I wouldn't read too much into it personally, it is a diplomatic victory for India in that sense.
 
The idea is good but let's get real a bit.

Do you think Pakistan will do what it is doing NOW under tremendous international pressure, had it been a joint India-Pak investigation? Would the world have come for India's aid to this extent?

Historical mistrust and inaction was enough for India to see (and for a change do something wise!) by getting international attention instead.

Though I wouldn't read too much into it personally, it is a diplomatic victory for India in that sense.

Oh, but you see I would still expect India to continue to explore the various other avenues she has.

A joint investigation with Pakistan does not mean she not share intelligence with the US, or not get the concerned individuals and entities banned through the UN. It merely opens up one additional avenue of pursuing justice, and it potentially, if my analysis is correct, eases the path for the GoP to take action.

I do not see why a joint investigation with Pakistan has to preclude any of the other actions India has taken.
 
Oh, but you see I would still expect India to continue to explore the various other avenues she has.

A joint investigation with Pakistan does not mean she not share intelligence with the US, or not get the concerned individuals and entities banned through the UN. It merely opens up one additional avenue of pursuing justice, and it potentially, if my analysis is correct, eases the path for the GoP to take action.

I do not see why a joint investigation with Pakistan has to preclude any of the other actions India has taken.

Easy. Snapped ties, and a dangerously real threat of war between two nuclear armed nations. Can India ask for more attention and importance for this?

Joint investigation would just spoil it for them completely.
 
Easy. Snapped ties, and a dangerously real threat of war between two nuclear armed nations. Can India ask for more attention and importance for this?

Joint investigation would just spoil it for them completely.

I see, but that points more to an Indian distrust of the US, in that India cannot trust the US to put any pressure on the GoP unless the US sees the possibility of imminent war in the subcontinent.

I think however that such a policy will lose value, you can only hold out the possibility to go to war, as a bargaining chip, for so long. I think India also has to realize what will drive meaningful change in Pakistan - public opinion, especially if a democratic government continues. Public opinion however is going in the wrong direction precisely because of the stance India has taken.

Now, if there is truth to the argument that the US would not have mediated and gotten Pakistan to act (though I personally believe that Pakistan would have acted on her own, and had made assurances to that effect), then India's actions so far were necessary, but as I said, to actually have meaningful change, the people of the two countries need to breathe easy and view the relationship as cooperative, not as the hegemony of one over the other.

I woudl argue that over the next couple of months, it woudl be wise for India to accept the Joint investigation offer.
 
[size=-2]
The idea is good but let's see the other side of the story.
Do you think Pakistan will do what it is doing NOW under tremendous international pressure, had it been a joint India-Pak investigation? Would the world have come for India's aid to this extent?

Historical mistrust and inaction was enough for India to see (and for a change do something wise!) by getting international attention instead.

Though I wouldn't read too much into it personally, it is a diplomatic victory for India in that sense.
Oh, but you see I would still expect India to continue to explore the various other avenues she has.

A joint investigation with Pakistan does not mean she not share intelligence with the US, or not get the concerned individuals and entities banned through the UN. It merely opens up one additional avenue of pursuing justice, and it potentially, if my analysis is correct, eases the path for the GoP to take action.

I do not see why a joint investigation with Pakistan has to preclude any of the other actions India has taken.
........ but as I said, to actually have meaningful change, the people of the two countries need to breathe easy and view the relationship as cooperative, not as the hegemony of one over the other.

I would argue that over the next couple of months, it woudl be wise for India to accept the Joint investigation offer.
[/size]
[size=-1]My two cents here....
The real answer to AM's question can only be answered by Indian officialdom. But we can guess the answers.....

Is because of the trust deficit between our nations, as indicated by Dhruv (Historical mistrust & inaction).
India should be afraid that such a move would become a real cropper, because of the overt & covert involvement of Pak intelligence agencies (ISI) in supporting this terrorist elements.
Enough indications of this involvement (even today) are in the open, and there are reports about US & India providing evidence to such complicity to GoP (w.r.to Kabul embassy blast).
Now how strong is that involvement, is it only rogue elements within ISI, without official (Army) sanction & knowledge OR with tacit approval, is not known clearly.
For that matter I dont think anybody in Pakistan knows, other than involved personnel & God. (figuratively)
It is definitely clear (my view & possibly many indians) that GoP is not involved, or even in the know how. But everybody knows GoP is powerless & do not call the shots w.r.to foreign policy related to india, afganistan, china & intelligence, let alone covert support to terrorist elements.

Any joint terror mechanism running in such a messy environment in Pakistan, (without real cooperation from Pak military/intelligence) one does'nt need rocket science to predict the results.
Now all the high pedestal & moral talk about due judicial process, rule of law etc etc, in such a Pakistani realpolitik environment, if not BS (sorry), is highly NAIVE.

I do not think AM & AA are not aware of this fact, if their intelligence is not being insulted!
I think people has to wakeup (if they are really sleeping & not pretending sleep) & face reality.
I know it is difficult to swallow for people with pride, and my friends in Pakistan do have that in abundance. I am not being sarcastic here, but only philosophical.
I do think the polity in Pakistan has to come up with some realistic answers has to how to move ahead, keeping the interests & honor of all parties concerned.[/size]
 
Now all the high pedestal & moral talk about due judicial process, rule of law etc etc, in such a Pakistani realpolitik environment, if not BS (sorry), is highly NAIVE.

I do not think AM & AA are not aware of this fact, if their intelligence is not being insulted!

Flaws and corruption in the judicial process and law enforcement agencies do exist in Pakistan, as do they in India - I don't believe either one of us has suggested that they do not.

However, just because we have flaws in our systems does not mean that we completely circumvent the system, and perpetuate the actions that have been unconstitutional and illegal. If the system is not resorted to, it will continue to be flawed and disrespected.

So I disagree with you, the argument of due process is the correct and necessary one.
 
Singh says ties depend on militant crackdown

* Indian PM says some people in Pakistan are always ready to carry out attacks in India
* Wants resolution of disputes

KHUNDROO: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday that relations with Pakistan could only be normalised when it no longer provided safe havens for terrorists.

Singh, speaking at an election rally in the Indian-held Kashmir (IHK), stressed India was open to better ties with Pakistan but that depended on Islamabad taking action against groups such as the one he said were behind the Mumbai attacks.

“Our desire to normalise relations with our neighbour will not get fulfilled until our neighbour prevents its land from being used for terrorist activities against India,” he said.

“There are some people in Pakistan who are always ready to carry out such attacks against our country.”

Singh was speaking to supporters in the IHK, where ongoing state elections are being boycotted by separatists who argue that voting strengthens New Delhi’s hold over the Muslim-majority region.

The Lashkar-e-Tayyaba group blamed by India for the Mumbai siege was founded to fight Indian rule in the IHK.

“Our desire for friendship should not be construed as our weakness,” Singh told hundreds of Kashmiris at the Congress party rally in Khundroo, 70 kilometres south of summer capital Srinagar.

The crowd, many carrying posters of Singh, chanted “Singh is king” and “Congress will win”.

The prime minister said New Delhi wanted to resolve all disputes with Pakistan, including Kashmir, “through friendly dialogue and in a peaceful atmosphere”.

The seven-stage elections in India that started on November 17 are due to end on December 24, when Srinagar goes to the polls. agencies

Home | Main


Share this story! Brown tells Pakistan it’s time to take action
Singh says ties depend on militant crackdown
French FM hails Pak response to Mumbai attacks
Taliban kill rival cleric, eight followers in Swat
Government launches action against Al-Amin Trust
Blasts damage shops, checkpost in Peshawar
TTP owns attacks on NATO supplies, warns of more assaults
Two killed in Dera Bugti bomb blast
‘Pakistan needs improved gear to fight Taliban’
 
I think GOP should also back this up rather then following blindly behing the US/India propaganda and should contest this unfair and unjust one sided action of the UNSC.

Why should back it ? Is the LET innocent. This lunatic should be in a jail.

Regards
 
Why should back it ? Is the LET innocent. This lunatic should be in a jail.

Regards

First of all this is not LET we are talking about here, secondly on what basis have you come to this fancy conclusion of yours?
 
Pakistan groups banned but not bowed
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Dec 18, 2008

KARACHI - Pakistan submitted to the will of the international community and cracked down on the Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure - LET), already banned as a terror outfit and linked to the Mumbai attacks last month, and the Jamaatut Dawa, last week labeled by the United Nations Security Council as a front for the LET.

One of the more sensational arrests was that of Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, the LET's operations chief who had been characterized as a villain in dozens of Indian Bollywood movies; his picture was released for the first time ever to the media.

The Pakistani electronic media, though, were unimpressed by the international pressure, and hit back. They showed footage of the massacre of Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002; of atrocities committed by Indian forces against Muslims in Indian-administered Kashmir and called the Mumbai attack a reaction from within Indian society.

At the same time, on the 37th anniversary on the fall of Dhaka and the split of Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, the media played up Indian intelligence's proxy operations and the attack of the Indian armed forces that resulted in the separation of East Pakistan.

In this perspective, the media were vocal against the crackdown on the LET and the Jamaatut Dawa. They showed footage of the invaluable services rendered by these groups, especially the Jamaatut Dawa, after the devastating earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in 2005 and the one in Balochistan province in Pakistan in October.

With regards to the Kashmir quake, in which officially 79,000 people died, the media pointed out that United Nations officials and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces working in the region coordinated with the Jamaatut Dawa and even justified its armed struggle for the "liberation" of Indian-administered Kashmir.

Zaid Zaman Hamid, head of the think-tank Brasstacks, which is considered to be very close to the Pakistani military establishment, told Asia Times Online, "There are two aspects to be understood. The people who favor Jamaatut Dawa are doing so simply in opposition to Indian and United States designs. After America moved a resolution in the [UN] Security Council [to outlaw Jamaatut Dawa] it caused a lot of embarrassment to Pakistan, therefore, there is a psychological reason and a need to counter this Indian game. Even those people, groups and parties which disagree with Jamaatut Dawa are with it only because India and America are against it. This is purely a geopolitical issue."

Zaid also hosts a television show in Pakistan and often appears as a defense analyst in other shows. He is an engineer by training and was a close aid of Northern Alliance Afghan guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated in 2001. Zaid has direct connections with various players in the region.

Zaid continued, "Secondly, there is another reason [for the crackdown], and that is the government's intention to control all relief from NGOs [non-governmental organizations]. Now all relief NGOs feel threatened that they could also be targeted like Jamaatut Dawa, so people are voicing their support for the Jamaatut Dawa. Already under American pressure, Muslim charities are under fire all over the world. Forty to 50 Muslim charities have been closed down," said Zaid, who is termed a hawk by Indian newspapers.

“One reason to support Jamaatut Dawa is its clean record, whether or not it is [a front for] Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jamaatut Dawa. It was never part of domestic terrorism nor has it ever been involved in any sectarianism or sectarian violence. The main reason for the action against Jamaatut Dawa is to malign the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] because the ISI is said to be behind its formation. Trapping the ISI and the Pakistan army is the main objective and the Jamaatut Dawa is just the bait in the process," said Zaid.

Other prominent Pakistani electronic media celebrities, such as Kamran Khan, Hamid Mir and Mubashir Lucman, have expressed similar ideas in favor of the Jamaatut Dawa and questioned the authorities over who will fill the vacuum in the services it provides in the field of charity with its chain of schools and medical clinics - no other group has similar resources.

Emergence of the LET
This sympathetic viewpoint of the Pakistani intelligentsia represents the subconsciousness of a nation that has slowly evolved after the debacle of 1971. Pakistan's breakup was fueled by Indian intelligence proxy operations under which a separatist Bengali militia was built and trained in Indian West Bengal and then launched in a war of attrition against the Pakistan army, boosted by an Indian invasion.

Pakistan lost half its territory after the Indian intervention and despite Pakistan being a signatory of Western defense pacts, such as the Central Treaty Organization and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, the US and other countries did not help Pakistan.

Three main lines of thought emerged in Pakistan's strategic quarters following the 1971 war:

Winning a conventional war against India, which is several times bigger in size and resources than Pakistan, is impossible.

Ensure that the country's national strategic interests would be given priority when signing any defense agreements with Western powers.

The Pakistan army needed to be restructured on nationalist lines and with the promotion of Islamic values to get rid of the colonial era's traditions.

Two major events took place within a few years of the 1971 debacle which helped fine-tune these rudimentary strategies. Islamist chief of army staff General Zia ul-Haq staged a military coup in 1977 and in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, which gave rise to the Western-sponsored Islamic resistance against the Soviets.

Haq handed over the task of commanding the whole resistance to the ISI and personally selected officials for this task who would be the most professional, ideologically motivated and practicing Muslims. Later, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and Ameer Sultan, also known as the father of the Taliban, emerged as strategists for the regional Islamic guerrilla struggle.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) provided the money and resources and the ISI utilized these according to its military doctrine, which rotated around two major principles: The adoption of a forward strategy under which while fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, Islamic resistance groups would also be established in the Central Asian republics to fight against communism.

The Pakistanis acknowledged that the 1,000-year Muslim rule in India was only able to last because of its strategic depth in Central Asia; when the Mughal rulers disconnected from this region after the death of the sixth Mughal ruler Aurangzeb in 1707, they lost their writ in the Indian states and eventually British rule was established.

Under these two major principles, with the American money being funneling to aid the Afghan resistance, Pakistan started building its strategic assets in Afghanistan to guarantee its dominance in South Asia.

These assets were non-state actors - the mujahideen. Kashmiris were groomed in Afghan camps and then launched into Kashmir to start an indigenous Kashmiri liberation movement in 1989. The movement was fueled by several big and small Afghan mujahideen groups disengaging from Afghanistan and going to Kashmir.

The best of these was the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In 1988, Abu Abdur Rahman Sareehi, a Saudi and a deputy of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, founded an organization in the Afghan Kunar Valley which recruited Afghan youths and Pakistanis in Bajaur Agency to fight the Soviets. Sareehi was the brother-in-law of Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, now named by the US Treasury and the Security Council as chief of operations for the LET. Seed money for the training camps was provided by Bin Laden.

The organization flourished in the Kunar Valley and in Bajaur. Hundreds of youths from Pakistan belonging to the Salafi school of thought joined the organization, beside hundreds of Afghans.

By 1989, Bin Laden was anxious to set an agenda for global resistance, and then in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden offered Saudi Arabia his volunteers to defend the country, instead of taking American help, sending details of his resources. These clearly outlined Sareehi's setup in the Kunar Valley (before the Taliban, an Islamic Emirates based on Salafi tenets, supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, was founded in the valley). Saudi Arabia did not take the offer seriously and signed a military agreement with the Americans to protect Kuwait and allowed US soldiers to be based in the kingdom.

Bin Laden, already angered by the Americans for their support of Israel, condemned the Saudi rulers and called on the US forces to leave the holy land or the mujahideen would carry out attacks on them. The Saudis were aware of Bin Laden's influence in Saudi Arabia and of his considerable resources so they and the CIA launched a joint operation to counter Bin Laden's network.

Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed Bahaziq, (described by the US Treasury as the main LET financier in the 1980s and 1990s and now named by the Security Council as a terrorist) was a Saudi intelligence proxy planted in the network.

He built up his influence in the network with Saudi money and eventually established Markaz Dawa wal Irshaad. The name related to a renowned Saudi office for preaching Islam. This organization was then completely hijacked by Saudi intelligence and the CIA and later operated under the name Lashkar-e-Taiba. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, it renamed itself Jamaatut Dawa and clearly distanced itself from al-Qaeda.

The ISI groomed several groups, such as the Harkat-e-Jihad-i-Islami, the Harkatul Mujahideen and the Jaish-e-Muhammad, but none was as near or as dear to the military establishment as the LET. There were several reasons for this.

First was the ethnic connection. Most of the Pakistan army comes from central Punjab, as do LET members. Second, its members were extremely disciplined, patriotic and tough fighters. In some cases, the LET was provided as good a training as the army’s elite commando force. Indeed, the LET was groomed as a paramilitary force to enable Pakistan to launch massive guerrilla operations in the event India tried to engage Pakistan in conventional warfare.

The experiment was successful and Pakistan, with the help of Kashmiri guerrillas, engaged over 800,000 Indian forces in restive Indian Kashmir. The finest contributor was the LET.

After the brief Kargil war of May-July 1999, (when Pakistani troops and insurgents, including those of the LET, were forced to withdraw from peaks on the Indian side of the Line of Control that separates the two Kashmirs), the outfit launched its suicide attacks strategy. Under this, small groups of two to five members of fidayeen (suicide squads) would storm a security camp or base. In another frequently used tactic, groups of LET insurgents, dressed in security forces fatigues, would arrive at remote hill villages, round up Hindu or Sikh civilians and massacre them. These two tactics were designed to achieve maximum publicity and to extract public allegiance, mainly out of fear.

In coordination with groups like the ones associated with revered Pakistani sufi Syed Mubarak Ali Gilani - to whom US reporter Daniel Pearl was desperate to talk and was killed in the process - whose network is deep inside southern India, the LET is the most important, unconventional strategic arm of the Pakistani armed forces which, in the event of war, will play a major role by providing frontline troops. The LET is estimated to have about 10,000 to 15,000 trained fighters.

The Western media reported that after the Mumbai attacks in late November, Indian was on the brink of conducting surgical strikes on militant camps inside Pakistan, but stayed its hand on the advice of Indian strategic institutions which were very cognizant of the reaction that could be expected from the LET and non-state actors trained by Pakistan as a lesson from the fall of Dhaka in 1971. Instead, Delhi was advised to tighten the noose around Pakistan through the United Nations.

The LET, meanwhile, though officially banned, lives on.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief.
 

Back
Top Bottom