Opinion Not just in our backyard

The early conclusion that the attack in Bombay was the work of disaffected domestic protesters was arguably consoling because,if true,the threat to the international community would indeed be minimal. Moreover,the contention that New Delhi’s terrorism problem is largely domestic marginalises the extent of foreign — primarily Pakistani — involvement in India’s “million mutinies” and accentuates the centrality of the unsettled dispute over Kashmir.

These inferences are false. All evidence points to LeT as the perpetrators of the killings in Bombay conducted under the nom de guerre “Deccan Mujahideen” and reflecting its classic modus operandi: suicidal attacks,but not suicide,involving small squads of highly-armed individuals,intent on inflicting the largest numbers of casualties at symbolic sites. Such violence is emphatically not directed at remedying the grievances of India’s Muslims or resolving the dispute over Kashmir. Although LeT has long operated in the disputed state of Kashmir,it’s not a Kashmiri organisation. Rather,it consists primarily of Pakistani Punjabis financed,trained,armed and abetted by the Pakistani intelligence service,the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

LeT’s objectives from the beginning have had less to do with Kashmir and more to do with India and beyond. To begin with,India’s achievement in becoming a peaceful,prosperous,multi-ethnic and secular democracy remains an affront to LeT’s vision of a universal Islamist Caliphate begotten through tableegh,or preaching,and jihad. Further,India’s collaboration with the United States and the West in general against terrorism has marked it as a part of what LeT calls the detestable “American-Zionist-Hindu” axis that must be confronted by force. Finally,New Delhi’s emergence as a rising global power represents an impediment to LeT’s objective of,in the words of its leader,Hafiz Saeed,recovering “lost Muslim lands” that once spanned much of Asia and Europe.

Given this ideology,the LeT attack is an attempt to cripple India’s economic growth,destroy national confidence in its political system,attack its open society and provoke destabilising communal rivalries,all while sending a message that India will remain an adversary because its successes make it a hindrance to LeT’s larger cause. In this context,the struggle over Kashmir is merely instrumental. To quote Saeed,Kashmir is merely a “gateway to capture India” en route to LeT’s other targets.

Such statements are not simply grandstanding. Outside of Al Qaeda,LeT today represents the most important South Asian terrorist group of “global reach.” Washington’s concern with Al Qaeda,however justified,should not obscure the reality of other terrorist groups in South Asia.

The barbarity in Bombay thus represents the ugly face of Islamist terrorism that threatens India,the US,and the larger international system,but fundamentally also Pakistan. Saeed has unequivocally declared that the Lashkar intends to “plant the flag of Islam in Washington,Tel Aviv and New Delhi.” However absurd it might sound,his words could launch thousands of zealots to commit horrible crimes worldwide. Consequently,the US cannot avoid the burden of confronting Islamabad to rid itself of this group and other menacing outfits that utilise its territory. Arresting one or two of the alleged “masterminds,” as Pakistan has now done in the face of US pressure,simply will not do: rather,the entire organisation must be targeted and put out of business permanently.

A good way to begin this process would be for the outgoing Bush administration to publicly declare what it already knows: that LeT planned and executed the deadly attacks in Bombay. In any event,it’s in Pakistan’s own interest — to confront LeT’s destructive ideology and subterranean links with the ISI. No matter what Pakistan does,the US has to be clear-sighted about the global nature of the LeT threat and together with India and other allies take resolute measures to defeat this newest challenge.

Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal Online (www.yaleglobal.yale.edu),a publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Copyright (C)2009,Yale Center for the Study of Globalization