Mumbai suspects' trial

The United States administration is said to have asked Pakistan to try and punish the perpetrators of Mumbai carnage on its own instead of handing over the suspects to India. The prosecution should be initiated with "sufficient efforts to ensure conviction" is the bottom line of the message, which indicates a significant shift in the American approach and is believed to have come about following President Bush's telephonic conversations with President Zardari and Prime Minister Singh over the weekend.
A realisation seems to have caught up with Washington that in the absence of an extradition treaty between Pakistan and India it would be next to impossible for Islamabad to extradite to India anyone for his suspected involvement in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Three wars and perpetual hostility bedevilling their relationship, no government in Islamabad can think of surrendering its nationals to India, whatever the justification.
The perception is gaining ground in the US that by asking Pakistan to comply with India's demand, the United States would be vicariously helping the forces and elements in Pakistan who are the natural allies of international terrorism. Of course, Pakistan did surrender a number of wanted-to-US suspects in the wake of 9/11 attacks, but that is not applicable to Pak-India relationship. Additionally, the government's prompt action against the Jamaat-ud-Dawa following the UN Security Council's decision lends strength to the argument that Pakistan is sincere in its commitment to combat terrorism in whatever form it exists.
But an average Pakistani is intrigued at Indian government's blow-hot-blow-cold anti-Pakistan statements. Conceded that the Indian media is driven by market-oriented competitiveness in hyping a kind of war hysteria there is, however, little to help comprehend the Indian government's shifting stand on day-to-day and minister-to-minister elaborations. Then it is also difficult to decode the much-touted Indian position that Pakistan has had the 'proof' of its involvement and, therefore, India would not share evidence it has on the Mumbai attacks. Let us see what Pakistan has in terms of 'evidence'.
The so-called disclosure by the Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified sources, that one Zarar Shah has confessed being part of the plot to strike Mumbai, which hardly merits to be called evidence. And, it has been contradicted by the Pakistan government also. Then there is the reported visit of an FBI team to Faridkot, despite the controversy over whether or not the lone surviving terrorist belonged here, which too has not in any way upheld the Indian stand. What else is there in the open as 'evidence' of Pakistan's involvement, one would like to know. The truth of the matter is that the government and people of Pakistan have condemned the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and nobody here is willing to accept Indian accusation that Pakistan as a government was involved in that ghastly affair.
Pakistan needs evidence which India should give if it has one that fits the legal definition of evidence. May be the two governments should fix up some special arrangement where that evidence, if it does exist, is examined and then passed on to Pakistan to prosecute the accused. Otherwise, there should be no hesitation in reactivating the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism that is already in place. It is as good an agreement as the Agreement on Prohibition of Attacks against Nuclear Installations and Facilities under which the two countries exchanged lists of nuclear installations last Thursday.
After all what else is this arrangement expected to do if not to hunt out terrorists and punish them? Terrorism is an international phenomenon, likely to dominate regional and global politics for quite some time. May be, New Delhi is only trying to escape the public anger by placing blame on Pakistan, but then how does it explain the Thursday bomb blasts in Guwahati? Being the prime tagged fighter against terrorism, Pakistan is ever ready to go an extra mile with India and other countries in giving an effective battle to the vendors of this business.
But by bringing troops to the border in the name of winter exercises, India tends to subvert Pakistan's war on terror. A situation like this would leave Pakistan with no option except reducing its forces on the western front where its campaign against militancy has entered the crucial make-or-break phase. At the same time, India would be displaying reasonableness by resisting temptations of going for a limited war or surgical strikes or hot pursuit ventures, for in that scenario the Pakistan government would not be able to stand up to public pressure in such an eventuality.
It is worth recalling that when India carried out nuclear explosions in May 1999 no one, not even the President of the United Sates, could persuade the government of Nawaz Sharif not to follow suit. There is an irrefutable logic in the US plea that let Pakistan proceed against the perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts if they happen to be Pakistanis and are in Pakistan.