The Pirwadhai attack

Confusion surrounds the bomb blast at Rawalpindis busy Pirwadhai junction on Monday evening that killed at least 14 people and injured 25 others, 13 of them seriously, marring countrywide jubilation over the restoration of November 2, 2007, judiciary. The concerned Regional Police Officer has been saying it was a suicide bombing.
The Superintendent of Police investigating the incident, however, told the media he believed the explosion was caused by a bomb planted in car. A third officer opined that a suicide bomber accidentally detonated his lethal vest since there is no apparent motive behind such an attack on the general public. So far no one really knows who the perpetrators of this horrific terrorist attack might be; and equally important, what could be their motive?
The usual suspect, of course, are the Pakistan Taliban, but then there has always been a method to their madness. Even though countless innocent people have died in various suicide bombings perpetrated by the Taliban and their ideological allies all over the country, they have tended to select their targets carefully: the police; those associated in any way with the security forces, and political leaders.
In the present incident, no such target was involved. The victims were all ordinary people. Besides, the attack has come at a time the government policy of making peace with extremists in both Swat and the tribal areas seems to be working.
Speaking to a private television channel soon after the bombing, Interior Minister Rehman Malik offered the opinion that the perpetrators likely target were the participants of the Long March, though he stopped short of explaining who would have a motive to attack the Long March. He went on to claim credit for having warned the public in the National Assembly three days earlier about the possibility of suicide attack in the same area.
His assertion raises some important questions such as that if the marchers were the target, why did the attacker went ahead to kill himself more than 12 hours after the march had been called off? Secondly, if the Interior Minister had precise information about the threat of a suicide attack at the precise location where it happened, what was done to prevent it? There is no satisfactory answer to these questions, which points to a third possibility: that somebody did it to prove the minister right.
Instead of claiming credit for giving a warning, Malik should explain why it could not be prevented. He has said again in his TV appearance that he has information that there could be a series of blasts and that the security officials and the people should remain alert. If the government has information about impending attacks, it is reasonable to assume that it also knows the identity of those involved. That information must be made public. It is not enough for it to issue warnings, it must undertake necessary measures to remove the threat.