The Single Lesson of Mumbai

Until this happens, India says it has to keep its options open, not least because of strong public pressure for a military response to the violence. Fortunately, thus far the Indian government has kept its head, perhaps realizing that an attack on Pakistan will only strengthen the most nationalistic and anti-peace elements in Pakistan and weaken the Zardari government’s resolve to fight terror. (Zardari’s wife, Benazir Bhutto, was killed by terrorists on December 27, 2007.)

If either side fails to act wisely, the losers will again be ordinary people and the result may be a further diminution of human rights. In India, Muslims are at risk of arbitrary arrest and torture or are targeted by hate groups. In Pakistan, increased tensions with India are likely to lead to the recruitment of more terrorists, including children, who will be encouraged to believe that arbitrary killing serves their cause.

Unfortunately, the government in Pakistan has inherited the discredited legacy of previous military regimes in Islamabad. For instance, after 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf claimed to be acting against groups like Lashkar, but the exercise turned out to be purely cosmetic. This time, India and the international community want to ensure that temporary detentions are not used merely as a means of deflecting international pressure. Nor do they want Pakistan to use a perceived threat on its eastern border as a reason to stop assisting NATO military operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the western Afghan border.

India would like some of those detained by Pakistan to be extradited for trial in India. But the two countries have no extradition treaty. More important, perhaps, no Pakistan government would survive the tide of public anger if it were to hand over its citizens to India. Already there is criticism of the rendition of Pakistan citizens made after the 9/11 attacks on America. International human rights law already prohibits handing over anyone in danger of being tortured – which, given India’s woeful record, would be the likely case.

India knows full well that the battle against terrorist groups with deep seated grievances can be long and hard. It has struggled for decades with separatists in its northeastern states. And it has failed to end the conflict with Maoist rebels operating in more than a dozen states. It also needs to deal with the many home grown groups engaged in organized violence, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who receive support from major Indian political parties and are tolerated by law enforcement agencies.

Both countries need to remember that the only way to end terrorism is to work together and follow methods which respect human rights. As Zardari wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support network is huge. Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world.”

Nothing would surprise those who sponsored the Mumbai attacks more than if the governments in Delhi and Islamabad worked together to defeat terrorism.

Meenakshi Ganguly is Senior Researcher for South Asia with Human Rights Watch.