Marium Kamal - What is the agenda behind ‘the Indian Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar’s shocking and radical statement in which he associated India with state sponsored terrorism and asserted that “terrorists have to be neutralized only through terrorists, and India will take up proactive steps to prevent 26/11 type attack”? Since 1990 India is trying to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state at the global level, and has claimed many times that Pakistan is the global nursery of terrorism or Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. The shift in the Indian policies and their self-opposingstatements indicate her apprehensive mode due to the successful and result oriented operation Zarb-i-Azb, to curtail extremism and terrorism, and most promising open doors of China- Pakistan economic corridor, which has the potential to change the destiney of the region.

India Pakistan observed a paradigm shift in the nature of bilateral issues, from inherited traditional challenges to non-traditional mounting elements of terrorism that paved the way for many non-state actors to intervene and enhance the discrepancies between both states. State sponsored terrorism is considered as the most commonly opted non-traditional, counter strategy tool in the post-nuclearization era between anarchic entities. Indiaalleged Pakistan for promoting state terrorism and supporting extremism. The issue is further underlined within the international hierarchy in the wake of2001 the Indian Parliament attack in which India claimed that the assault have been structured by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Later, many other terror incidents were associated to Pakistan as the Mumbai blasts in 2006, the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, and the Mumbai attacks in 2008, which eventually paralyzed the India-Pakistan relations and the future prospects of Kashmir resolution. Ignoring the fact that many extremists’ attacks have been carried out by the Indian religiousfascists in India against the Indian Muslims and Pakistanis as the Samjhauta Express blast 2007, Mecca Masjid 2007, AjmirSharief 2007, and the Malegaon bomb blast in 2008. The number of terrorist attacks in India by the Hindu extremists neutralizes the statistic of fanaticism. India can’t detach itself from the inbuilt religious extremism by simply following secularfederative lines. There have been many reported claims about the Indian involvement in Baluchistan’s insurgency and the recent charge against RAW in destabilizing the internal fabric of Pakistan and supporting terrorism. But the Indian factual impulse is bouncing after the Indian minister whospoke at an event in New Delhi and expressed his proactive strategy using the Hindi phrase ‘kante se kantanikalna’ (removing a thorn with a thorn).The Indian Minster ManoharParrikar avowedto include pressure tactics undertheir proactive strategy and use terrorism against terrorism, disregarding their own stance and image of soft power.

India being ademocratic state has to elucidate her conflictingposture, as sheon one side allegesPakistan for state sponsored terrorism and on the other side Mr. Parrikarstresses on state sponsoredterrorism to counter terrorism. India never clarified her stance, as the statement in post 26/11 scenario, when themember of a special investigating team (SIT) of India’s central bureau of investigationaccused the Congress government in orchestrating the terror attack on the Indian Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which later claimed that the statement was to strengthen the counter-terror legislation. Nonetheless,the 2001 Parliament attack followed by the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), and the 2008 Mumbai attacks led to amendments in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The self-contradictory derivative of the Indian policy reveals their internal cracks that make an edge for Pakistan to justify her standpoint.

India’sconstant irritating stance affirms her robust mindset in ignoring the fact thatPakistan is the sole sufferer andis themostaffected state due to terrorism. India never prompted any progressive attitude on Kashmir resolution, which is the bone of contention between both states, and the most awaited way to attain regional peace, Kashmir issue has to be justified for mutual security. The Indian conflicting views show their dis-appeasement on Pakistan’s efforts to maintain itself on the democratic lines, to fight for security and stability, and lastly to sustain economic development. India is also discounting that by encircling or isolating Pakistan, India would be able to attain her regional objectives. Pakistan possesses an undeniable strategic position in the region, which India has to accept. Pakistan is keen and looking forward for good relations on the basis of sovereign equality. Despite of all the sponsored menace, we should understand that the ongoing verbal clatters wouldn’t help us gaining resolution for Kashmir but will definitely hinder the implementation of China-Pakistan Economic corridor, this might be the hidden agenda behind India Parrikar’ssudden statement.

The writer is a Research Assistant at the Centre For South Asian Studies, University of the Punjab, Lahore.