Hiranmay Karlekar
It is important to reflect a little before hailing the alert by Pakistani National Security Advisor, Lt Gen (retd) Nasser Khan Janjua, about fidayeen infiltration into Gujarat, as signalling a positive change in Pakistan’s attitude toward cross-border terrorism against India. This writer has no direct information about the contents of the alert, conveyed to the Indian NSA, A. K Doval. According to reports, it neither contained specific details of thejihadists involved, nor of their specific targets, nor any information that could lead the police to the intending perpetrators. It, however, stated that there were credible grounds for taking the matter seriously and that the aim was to stage 26/11 type attacks on temples and religious processions, particularly in Gujarat, during Mahashivartri celebrations on last Monday and Tuesday.
Whatever it is, security in Gujarat, particularly in the coastal areas, was ramped up after the State Government received a note from Doval about suspected infiltration by 10 terrorists from the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed into India. The Union Government rightly took no chances and put Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and other places under high alert, besides sending four National Security Guard teams to Gujarat.
Now, the questions. There has been enough talk of boosting coastal security, particularly along the western shoreline, following the serial blasts on 12th March, 1993, and the terrorist attack, beginning on 26th November, 2008, in Mumbai. Despite that, five abandoned Pakistani boats were found in the past three months in Kutch, the last one, by a patrolling team of Border Security Force’s water wing off Koteshwar coast on 4th March. How did they manage to sneak in? Again, referring to the boat found on 4th March, a BSF official reported said, “Prima facie, it seems to be a fishing boat and there was no suspicious material found from it.” In the absence of the BSF arresting, interrogating and investing the men who came by the boat, how could the BSF official be certain that it was just a fishing boat? Was it because no weapon was found on it?
Had the boat carried arms and explosives, how can one be sure that those who had brought these had not taken them away? Also, should the discovery of five abandoned Pakistani boats in the same area of the Gujarat coast in the last three months, not have warranted concern even before Doval’s note rightly caused a flurry? Their occupants could well have fanned out across the country to carry out both terrorist attacks and constitute sleeper cells.
These questions require answers. As for Lt Gen (Retd) Janjua’s alert, it came a day after the boat was found on March 4 which, and particularly the discovery of the earlier boats, raised the possibility of the perpetrators of a major terrorist strike being traced to Pakistan. Hence why not a message which would absolve Islamabad’s civil and military establishments of culpability and also enable it to protest its sincerity in fighting terrorism?
The alert, if it had to be genuinely helpful, ought to have stated the precise targets of the terrorists and the routes they would take and not left India looking for 10 needles in the country’s massive haystacks! As the experience of 26/11 shows, the Pakistani authorities would surely have known the LeT and JeM terrorists’ identities and targets.
Further, Pakistan would have wound up the premises, organisations and publications of the LeT and the JeM and arrested their heads, Hafeez Saeed and Masood Azhar respectively, if it was serious about curbing cross-border terrorism against India. The organisations flourish and the leaders roam free. Nor is there any indication other than the alert, that Pakistan genuinely wants to control terror strikes against India from its soil. In fact, the recent detection of a 30-metre tunnel in the RS Pura sector of the International Border at Jammu and Kashmir, meant for terrorists to sneak into India, indicates just the opposite.
