Homeland Security

How Pakistan's Proxy War Began - V
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
By B Raman
Book_a_terrorist_stateA detailed Press briefing on this subject was held by Mike McCurry, the then spokesman of the State Department, on July 15, 1993. The text of the briefing was carried by the Dawn of Karachi on July 16, 1993. The Dawn’s report quoted McCurry as saying: “In the last six months we have seen a willingness on their (Pakistan’s) part to work with us on this issue, that they have addressed some of the concerns that we have raised with them in the past and they are cooperating with us in getting additional information to us about issues that we have raised as recently as in the annual terrorism report that we released in April. So, I would describe Pakistan as being much more cooperative on the specific issue of acts of international terrorism, which is what the statute requires.”One of the American correspondents asked McCurry whether the decision to let Pakistan off the hook was because Washington did not want to alienate an important Muslim country of the region. McCurry replied as follows: ‘The Secretary (of State) followed the letter of the law in this case and that’s the most important criteria. But, obviously, any decision like this that’s very important, the full range of criteria that might be considered are under review.”

Click to buy: A Terrorist State as a Frontline Ally

McCurry evaded questions to spell out the US concerns, which Pakistan had addressed satisfactorily, as claimed by the State Department. However, a joint analysis by R Jeffrey Smith and Thomas W Lippman carried by the Washington Post of July 15, 1993, stated as follows:

US officials said, Pakistani intelligence and army operatives had funnelled money and arms and provided training to Muslim and Sikh militants who opposed Indias rule of Kashmir and Punjab”¦

“Pakistan’s alleged links to terrorism had initially aroused US concerns last year. The Clinton Administration began a special intelligence community study of the matter this spring after receiving what officials said were credible reports of Islamabad’s involvement in terrorism.

“In particular, officials said, Pakistani intelligence and army operatives had funnelled money and arms and provided training to Muslim and Sikh militants who opposed India’s rule of Kashmir and Punjab in 1991 and 1992. US officials also accused the (Pakistan) government of permitting Islamic fundamentalists, who had been involved in the Afghanistan conflict, to engage in terrorist activities in other nations from sanctuary in Pakistan.

“He (McCurry) declined to state exactly what steps Pakistan had taken, but other US officials said the Pakistan Government appears to have ended some of its ties to suspected terrorists and had fired a senior Pakistani intelligence official linked to terrorists in Kashmir.

“At the same time, US officials said, not all of the evidence pointed toward exoneration. Washington has received conflicting reports, for example, about Pakistani involvement in a series of bombings that destroyed buildings in Bombay last March and US officials have been unable to reach a conclusion about who was responsible.

The role of Pakistan in aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir is well documented, so much so that the administration almost placed the Pakistani regime on the 1993 list of State-sponsors of terrorism.

“US officials are also not convinced that army and intelligence employees are complying with what one official called a new attitude by the Pakistani leadership towards curtailing support for terrorism. ‘They are just beginning to reorganise the intelligence agency.’ the officials said.

“McCurry said the US is still awaiting a fuller account of Pakistan’s response to American concerns.

“Pakistan has denied supporting terrorists, but admitted taking steps to respond to US concerns. ‘We flushed out all those groups, who were said to have taken part in international terrorism,’ said Malik Zahoor, a spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy here (in Washington). ‘Those people were initially helping us in Afghanistan which was our cause and the cause of the US,’ he said. But when ‘they tried to pursue their targets internationally, we rounded up those who we could lay our hands on and sent them to their respective countries.’

The Washington Post continued: “Zahoor also confirmed that the US had “shown to us certain concerns” about General Javed Nasir, the Director-General of Pakistan’s Intelligence Directorate, and said that Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had subsequently decided to sack Nasir.”

Much later, on October 18, 1995, the Nation of Pakistan quoted another report of the Washington Post as stating that Pakistani officials investigating a plot by a group of army officers led by Maj Gen Zaheer-ul-Islam Abbasi to stage a coup against Benazir had “found evidence that the religiously-motivated officers (involved in the plot) had strong personal connections” with Lt Gen Nasir. Amongst the reasons for his removal in 1993 cited by the Washington Post as quoted by the Nation was “because he was providing covert military support to Muslim rebels in about a dozen countries” and after his removal he had been travelling worldwide (as a T J leader) preaching militant Islam.

The trained cadres of the HUM and the Lashkar, along with regular Pakistani troops, helped the Taliban in the capture of Herat and subsequently, in 1996, of Jalalabad and Kabul.

Benazir, who returned to power end 1993, did cooperate with Washington in acting against narcotics barons and terrorists in whom the US was interested, but went back on her assurance to the White House to stop the ISl’s support to terrorism in India and other countries. All that she did was:

  • First, asked the ISI to interact with the terrorist groups indirectly through cut-outs such as the JEI, the HUM, the Markaz, the Lashkar, etc, instead of directly as in the past.
  • Second, persuaded the HUM, the Markaz, the Lashkar and the HJzbul Mujahideen to shift their training camps to Afghan territory under the ISl’s control.
  • Third, entrusted Maj Gen (retd) Nasirullah Babar, her Interior Minister, who had headed the Afghan Division of the ISI when her father was the, Prime Minister, with the responsibility for overseeing the IS I activities so that unauthorised rogue actions like the ISI helping the L TTE did not occur again.

Extremist elements from Kashmir and other parts of India continued going to the training camps in Afghan territory and the infiltration of Pakistani and other mercenaries into Kashmir was intensified. In an intervention in the US House of Representatives on June 22, 1994, Bill McCollum, a member, drew attention to Benazir going back on her words. He said: “I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a very important matter. The role of Pakistan in aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir is well documented, so much so that the administration almost placed the Pakistani regime on the 1993 list of State-sponsors of terrorism. However, the administration did not take such action because it was assured by Pakistan that Islamabad was taking credible steps to dissociate itself from the militants in Kashmir.”

Editor’s Pick

He continued: “Recent reports, however, suggest that Pakistan never stopped its aid to the terrorists in Kashmir. A report in the Washington Post, dated May 16, 1994, titled ‘Pakistan Aiding Rebels in Kashmir: Muslims Reportedly Armed And Trained’ by John Word Anderson, datelined Muzaffarabad, gives a first hand account of such assistance by Pakistan to terrorists in Kashmir.

“The State Department has also confirmed this fact in its annual report titled ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’. I quote: “There were credible reports in 1993 of official Pakistani support to Kashmiri militants.”

‘This fact is further confirmed from a study conducted by the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare titled ‘The Kashmir Connection’, which I would like to place in the record, immediately following these remarks which details the extent of Pakistani involvement in aiding the terrorists in Kashmir.

“This House should take cognisance of this serious issue, particularly as some of those indicted in the bombing of the World Trade Center (at New York in February 1993) had also received training in Pakistan,” he concluded.

“The State Department has also confirmed this fact in its annual report titled “˜Patterns of Global Terrorism. I quote: “There were credible reports in 1993 of official Pakistani support to Kashmiri militants.”

There were certain special reasons as to why Benazir went back on her words with the acquiescence of the Clinton Administration.

First, of the two principal non-Shia Islamic political parties of Pakistan, the JEI was strongly opposed to her and questioned the right of a woman to rule an Islamic country whereas the Jamaat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) (with a strong Wahabi influence) led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman supported her. The Maulana is the godfather of the HUM, the Markaz and the Lashkar and was strongly opposed to any restrictions on their activities.

1 2 3 4
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

B Raman

Former, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai & Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. He is the author of The Kaoboys of R&AW, A Terrorist State as a Frontline Ally,  INTELLIGENCE, PAST, PRESENT & FUTUREMumbai 26/11: A Day of Infamy and Terrorism: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left