The terrorists have come home to bomb

  

 

First, my condolences to the loved ones of the people killed in the bombing of the Marriott in Islamabad. 
  

It is not surprising that this bombing, with all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda, took place in Pakistan. What is shocking that it took so close to the seat of its power; the hotel is near the Parliament, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister's residence.
  

Pakistan has to reevaluate its domestic and foreign policies in a hurry.
  
I quoted in a 12 August blog: In an Editorial today (Curb this vindictive hype!), the respected Pakistani newspaper (The Daily Times) states that "The state doesn't have the ability to impose its writ on more than half the territory, and areas under normal administration also are fast slipping into the zone of "ungoverned spaces"."
  
The same newspaper has another editorial today, "Al Qaeda and Pakistan". This is a good explanation of the relationship, and should be read. It underlines why Osama bin Ladin is still popular in Pakistan while, according to a study by the Pew Center, his popularity has fallen significantly in the Muslim world in the past six years.
  
This domestic upheaval in Pakistan is directly related to its foreign policy. The state partitioned from British India in 1947. While India (the remaining part) pursued a policy of status quo and that of non-alignment, Pakistan embraced one of a revisionist state and aligned with anyone and anybody that could help settle its scores with India, whether it be China or the United States.
  
In short, it foreign policy has always been India-centric, and all decisions and events in the Pakistani landscape can be explained when viewed through this prism.
  
The reason it came close to China is because that was the only big country in the neighborhood that had a beef with India. Similarly, it allied with the United States because India wouldn't (India was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, formed to stay away from the two super-powers) and hoped that the US aid would help pursue its agenda against India.
  
The reason it helped the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan was the same. The government the Russians were installing in Kabul was pro-India and Pakistan didn't like it. After the Russian defeat in 1989, it installed the Taliban and supported it, because it then didn't have to worry about its western border and could concentrate on India, the eastern neighbor.
  
In 1989, the region was awash with soldiers-of-fortune, who had helped the US win the war in Afghanistan. Precipitously unemployed, Pakistan found a new role for them as terrorists who could slip into the Indian controlled Kashmir and cause disruption. After three full-scale military adventures, two over Kashmir, that it lost, Pakistan felt that this slow-bleed of the Indian Armed Forces would be to its benefit.
  
To be precise, Pakistan did not start the Kashmir problem for India. There was already a movement afoot that demanded a more autonomous status for the province, but it was generally non-violent and secular. Pakistan, with the help of these terrorists, injected a religious fervor and introduced large scale violence.

 
For over a decade, until 2001, Pakistan was happy at hurting India with little or no cost to it. Just like these mujahideen were fighting the "Godless communists" (words of President Reagen) in Afghanistan, they were also serving Islam (in their opinion) by fighting "pagan Hindus" in India (although India is a secular state, with religions besides Hinduism, though Hindus form the majority). And since Kashmir was a province with a Muslim majority, it belonged with Pakistan, not India (the reason for the Partition of Pakistan from India was religious; over 99% of Pakistanis are Muslims).
  
Things changed after 9/11, when Pakistan decided to side with the US and the West to root out terrorists from Afghanistan that had masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center. It also had to withdraw its support, officially, from the Taliban, which was harboring Osama bin Ladin.
  
Two things happened then. First, the terrorists were angry at the government of Pakistan for supporting a Western cause that they saw as un-Islamic. Second, large and influencial parts of the state machinery continued to support the taliban and al-Qaeda. In fact, as this editorial shows, so did the Pakistni vox populi.
  
For one, it was contrary to the official policy that Pakistan had pursued of using terrorists to strike India. Second, these terrorists are irreverant to authority and can take autonous action. Pakistan could control some of their actions, but not all.
  
So this latest bombing at the Marriott is really a result of the policies the Pakistani government has pursued for over six decades, especially for the last two. While these terrorists still are causing havoc in India, and lately not just in Kashmir but in its heartland, they are also turning their anger to the hand that has fed them for so long.
  
I would not be surprised that this bombing has some internal support as well. It could be facilitated by interests that are against the current Pakistani government, but we could never come to know. Or, it could just be an independent action against the 'un-Islamic' leanings of the Pakistani government. It could also be a combination of both, which seems more likely.

This has serious consequences, no matter what the underlying cause is. It should not be dismissed just as a "reap what you sow" matter.
  
First, an unstable Pakistan has grave consequences for the entire region. We don't want another Middle-East. Even China, Pakistan's "all weather friend" (as Pakistanis call it), has noticed. 


Second, Pakistan has nuclear arms. The easiest way for the terrorists to get to them is in Pakistan. 
  
So we should all help Pakistan from sliding into a failed state. And pray.