Shock and woe !

New Delhi

20 March 2010

Washington's reluctance to part with either David Coleman Headley, a

conspirator of the Mumbai attacks, or information about the plot that would have exposed

Pakistan's duplicity, has come as a surprise and shock to India and Indians. Already,

parallels are being drawn with 9/11 in New York. How would the US have responded if a

9/11 plotter were arrested in India? The principal opposition party, BJP, has accused the

US Government of double standards. Its spokesman, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, fears the world

will not know the truth of 26/11 if India is not allowed custodial interrogation of Headley.

The party says nothing less than extradition of Headley should be acceptable to India.

The CPI(M) directed as much ire to the government as it did to the US. Washington needs

to be told that cooperation has to be reciprocal, the CPI(M) Politburo said here in a

statement, recalling how India allowed the FBI to interrogate Ajmal Kasab in Mumbai.

"The US is only concerned about its AfPak strategy. It is not willing to cooperate in an

investigation concerning a prime accused of the Mumbai terror attack. Yet the FBI and

the CIA have access to all our intelligence and security related material and personnel,"

it said, tearing into the government for "pussyfooting" on the Headley episode.

Some wars, it appears, are more equal than others, and it is manifested in the American

responses to the Al-Qaeda / Taliban on one hand and Pakistani terrorist groups such as

LeT on the other. By Washington's own admission, it is "focussed" on the war against

Al-Qaeda and Taliban and how to get Pakistan to act against them. Speaking to media in

New Delhi on Saturday, Robert Blake, the US assistant secretary of state for south and

central asian affairs, said: "We are increasingly focussed on improving the counter

insurgency capabilities of the Pakistan military so that it can deal with the very important

challenges on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and to continue to effectively prosecute

the war against Al-Qaeda and against the various Taliban elements that are located in

Pakistan." But what about the terrorist groups such as LeT, he was asked, to which he

replied: "Pakistan has always said that it will not allow terrorists to operate from its soil

and I think we and the other friends of Pakistan expect Pakistan to abide by that very

important commitment." Blake is one in a long list of American officials who have

transited through New Delhi without calling Islamabad's bluff on terrorism directed

against India. It has been India's longstanding view in the Af-Pak context that it is futile

to make a distinction between the Taliban, operating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan,

and the LeT, which usually focusses on attacking India and is widely believed to be a

creation of the Pakistani security establishment. The LeT shares Al-Qaeda's perspective

and those of the Taliban, the operational contacts of all these groups are continuous,

their enemies are the same, and so are their friends. The only time Washington came

anywhere close to appreciating New Delhi's concerns was when US defence secretary

Robert Gates, in a departure from the standard US formulation on terrorism in the Af-Pak

region, for the first time drew LeT into a common category as Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Mr

Gates spoke of a "syndicate of terrorist operations" under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda,

which has not only plotted to destabilise the region but provoke a conflict between India

and Pakistan. "The success of any one of them is success for all. Victory for one is

victory for all," Mr Gates said. But any hopes New Delhi might have had of making

Washington come around to its view were put paid to by the news of American civilian

aid of 3.2 billion dollars to Pakistan from next fiscal, stepping up of arms sales to the

Pakistan military, and more disturbingly from New Delhi's perspective, plans for cutting

a deal with Taliban in Afghanistan.

Brahma Chellaney, who is Professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Centre

for Policy Research, says the Headley episode has accentuated the "huge divergences"

that exist between India and the US on Af-Pak. Counter-terrorism cooperation is not

proceeding to plan as because the US is withholding information about Headley and the

26/11 attacks from India. "The US is not truly bringing India on board [and is providing]

only secondary information," he notes. Headley's plea bargain would hinder New Delhi

from nailing Islamabad's lie, that State-actors were not involved in the 26/11 attacks. The

American response is particularly striking, as it had insisted and had its way on securing

independent access to Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a top Afghan Taliban commander,

arrested by the ISI of Pakistan.

There is unease in official circles here about Washington's Af-Pak strategy and the

attempts being made to change the game in Afghanistan by reinjecting Taliban in the

power structure there. "The situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan impinge directly on

India, so there are serious problems for us. Cutting a deal with Taliban will have a

blowback effect on India," Prof Chellaney says. He goes on to observe that even the

India-US nuclear deal, which was supposed to be a transformative initiative for bilateral

ties, has belied expectations. For example, Indian agencies such as Indian Space

Research Organisation (ISRO) continue to remain on the US Bureau of Industry and

Security's entities list. India raised the issue most recently as last week when Foreign

Secretary Nirupama Rao, who co-chaired the seventh meeting of the India-US high

technology cooperation group in Washington, urged the US Government to do away with

control restrictions for American exports to India.

New Delhi's woes are compounded by a drift in its ties with other stakeholders in the

region and beyond, notably Iran, Russia and the Central Asian countries. Mending

fences with Tehran should prove to be particularly worrisome for New Delhi given the

drumbeats of war by the West over the Iranian nuclear issue, coupled with India's own

attitude toward Iran in the recent past. Prof Chellaney says India's relationship with Iran,

which was hit after New Delhi voted against it in the IAEA, needs repair.

So are India-US ties running aground? The jury is out on that, but there is a recognition

in official circles here India will have to fight its own battles, without becoming unduly

dependent on the US. The US is expected to remain a key partner for India. But

Washington can be expected to pursue a narrow agenda and not come to India's aid or

do its bidding. Blake, when posed the same question, maintained that both sides had

reasons to be satisfied with the ties. "I'd say cooperation is exceptional between India

and the US [and] counter-terrorism cooperation has really blossomed [after] the Mumbai

attacks."

Excerpts from a media interaction with Robert O Blake, United States assistant secretary

of state for south and central asian affairs, in New Delhi on Saturday:

On extradition of Headley:

The plea bargain agreement was announced and part of the agreement was that the US

would not extradite Mr Headley either to India or to Pakistan or to Denmark on the

charges for which he has now admitted guilt. That does not mean that at some future

date some additional charges could not be brought and so I don't want to speculate too

much about the possibility of future extradition but at least on these charges he cannot

be extradited.

On whether Indian investigators would be allowed access to Headley to learn more about

his involvement in the Mumbai attacks:

The answer to that is yes.

On US aid to Pakistan:

We are aware of India's concerns about that and all I would say is that we have a good

dialogue with our Indian friends about this important matter. We try to reassure our

Indian friends that arms sales to Pakistan -- the character and the nature of our military

relationship is really changing now in Pakistan. We are increasingly focussed on

improving the counter insurgency capabilities of the Pakistan military so that it can deal

with the very important challenges on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and to continue to

effectively prosecute the war against Al-Qaeda and against the various Taliban elements

that are located in Pakistan. We think there's been good progress on that, so that's the

sort of long term trend that is taking place. The other long term that I think is important to

talk about is about that increasingly we are placing a much greater emphasis on civilian

assistance, civilian sector assistance to Pakistan and less on the military side

component because that is equally important. That is a way of enhancing Pakistan's

democracy a way of enhancing economic development energy development and helping

the Pakistani government to be able to deliver services to get at some of the conditions

that give rise to terrorism in the first place.

On access to Headley's associate Tahawwur Rana:

I don't have any comment on that because I don't know enough about that particular

aspect of the case, so I'd refer you again to the US Department of Justice about that.

On anti-India terrorist groups operating in Pakistan:

Pakistan has always said that it will not allow terrorists to operate from its soil and I

think we and the other friends of Pakistan expect Pakistan to abide by that very important

commitment. I think probably the greatest concern now from the US perspective and

perhaps I'm sure from the perspective of India is the operations of LeT. We've said

many times we think that this is a growing concern to the US because of the increasing

global scope and ambition of LeT, which of course targeted Americans in the Mumbai

attacks, six Americans were killed, it is also targeting Americans in other parts of the

world now. So we think its very important that Pakistan take on the LeT threat and not

just because of the security and stability of the US but also of India and other countries.

So this is something that I'm sure we will be discussing on our trip to Pakistan.

On perceived reluctance of US to cooperate with India:

I don't know how you're saying we're not cooperating. We've just had a major case of Mr

Headley so I'd say cooperation is exceptional between India and the US on the Mumbai

attacks and I think that if anything the counter-terrorism cooperation has really

blossomed between the US and India since the Mumbai attacks and will continue to

make progress. Your home minister Mr Chidambaram had a very successful visit to the

US last fall and as a result of that visit we are proceeding in a number of directions to try

to expand our counter-terrorism consultations and specific cooperation but also

increasingly US and Indian counter-terrorism law enforcement officials have a wide web

of exchanges and again cooperation on all of the very important issues that affect our

two countries. So I think we're very satisfied with the significant progress that has been

made and I don't want to speak for the Indians but they are as well.