In an article published by Washington Post on January 28, 2009, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari hinted that Pakistan regards water as a major issue in bilateral relations with India. The article, titled “Partnering with Pakistan,” was a plea to US President Obama to continue to recognize Pakistan’s role in the US’ war on terrorism and regional stability. But Zardari did not miss the opportunity to make a mention of the water. He wrote:

“The water crisis in Pakistan is directly linked to relations with India. Resolution could prevent an environmental catastrophe in South Asia, but failure to do so could fuel the fires of discontent that lead to extremism and terrorism. We applaud the president’s desire to engage our nation and India to defuse the tensions between us”.

This passage in the article clearly conveys that Pakistan holds India responsible for the “water crisis” in Pakistan. Zardari wants to involve the US and the international community in the resolution of water issues between India and Pakistan. He is also warning that if the water issue remains unresolved, it could lead to intensification of extremism and terrorism.

President Zardari’s latest outburst should be seen as a continuation of his public statements in October 2008 in which he had alleged that India was interfering with the flow of river Chenab’s water in violation of the Indus Water Treaty between the two countries. According to media reports quoting Zardari, the issue was taken up by him with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and also with the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad. Zardari alleged on that occasion that the diversion of water by India from the Chenab river was causing agricultural losses in Lahore, Kasur, Okara, Sialkot, Hafizabad, Shekhupura, Faisalabad and Jhang districts in Pakistan. The issue had also reportedly been discussed by the National Security Advisers of the two countries. A delegation of Pakistani officials led by the Pakistani Indus Water Commissioner Jamat Ali Shah visited India to inspect the Baglihar dam project. Pakistan is seeking compensation from India for the diversion of water.

What is the water “issue” between India and Pakistan? The two countries signed the Indus Water Treaty in 1960 with the help of World Bank’s mediation. Despite several wars and crises between India and Pakistan, the Treaty has been hailed as a shining example of cooperation between two states on water-sharing. India never stopped the flow of water to Pakistan even during the height of India-Pakistan wars.

India and Pakistan share six rivers of the Indus basin, grouped into two categories – the Western Rivers (the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum) and the Eastern Rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas). Under the Indus Water Treaty, India has complete right to the use of the waters of the Eastern Rivers while Pakistan has the right to use the waters of the Western Rivers. The Treaty and its annexures are detailed technical documents which contain the restrictions on the usage of the waters. For instance, Pakistan can use the waters of the Western Rivers but India can also use them for irrigation purposes. India is also allowed to build run–of–the- river dams on the Western Rivers. The Treaty also permits India to store 3.5 million acre feet of water. The fact is that India has so far not constructed any storage projects on the Western Rivers. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have demanded abrogation of the Treaty as it restricts the use of the Western River waters which flow through their state.

Whatever Pakistan might say, the Treaty is extraordinarily generous to Pakistan. Of the total water carried in the six rivers, 80 per cent flows through the Western Rivers and only 20 per cent through the Eastern Rivers. Thus, Pakistan gets over 4/5th of the Indus basin water.

Under the Treaty, the two countries have set up an Indus Water Commission which is a body of engineers from both sides who are entrusted with the task of implementing the Treaty in letter and spirit. The Indus Water Commission has been holding regular meetings since the inception of the Treaty. The officials of the two sides regularly exchange technical information with regard to the flow of water from the rivers, construction of projects etc.

Pakistan has often used the provisions of the Treaty to raise objections to the projects proposed by the Indian side and permitted under the Treaty. The Treaty has been used by Pakistan to obstruct and delay the projects allowed under the Treaty on the Western Rivers. The latest example is that of the Baglihar Dam constructed by India on the river Chenab and commissioned in 2008. Pakistan objected to the design of the dam holding that it was contrary to the provisions of the Treaty. Pakistan took the case to the “Neutral Expert” appointed by the World Bank in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty to go into the objections. The neutral expert gave a ruling upholding the soundness of the Indian design and suggested some minor changes. The dam was, commissioned eventually but after an avoidable delay of four years as a result of Pakistan’s objections.

Another project that has been held up due to Pakistani intransigence is the Tulbul Barrage which involves the construction of a barrage at the Wular Lake to improve local navigation. The project will also help Pakistan as it would ensure the flow of water to Pakistan in the lean season. But Pakistan continues to block the project ignoring the benefits that will accrue to both sides. There are many such examples of Pakistan’s obstructionist attitude.

The Pakistani propaganda on the water issue is aimed at projecting India as a country which is exploiting the river waters of the Indus basin to the detriment of Pakistan. Several Pakistan based terrorist groups have also linked water with jihad in Kashmir. The former “Prime Minister” of the so called “Azad Jammu & Kashmir” Sardar Sikander Hayat used to say clearly, “the freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan’s water security and have prevented India from constructing a dam on the Wular Barrage”.1

Pakistan’s propaganda must be responded to. The fact is that the Indus Water Treaty is generous to a fault to Pakistan. It is unlikely that if the Indus Water Treaty were to be negotiated, Pakistan would get a better deal than what it got in 1960. With water becoming a critical issue in India’s relations with Pakistan and also with China, India has to evolve a well considered strategy aimed at securing its national interest and at the same time minimizing the potential for conflict with neighbours.

By raising the water issue at this juncture Pakistan is trying to deflect international attention from Pakistan-based terrorism and instead rekindling the international community’s interest in Kashmir.

India should recognize that Pakistan is upping the ante and trying to make water an “issue” between the two countries. India should call Pakistan’s bluff and suggest renegotiation of the treaty in line with current political, economic, environmental and geo-political realities. That will test Pakistan’s sincerity about “resolving’ the water issue between the two countries. In the meanwhile, India should go ahead with the construction of the Tulbul barrage in the knowledge that it is a win - win project which will pass muster of a neutral expert if Pakistan decides to take it to the World Bank. Likewise, India should build the Kishenganga dam, to which it is entitled. India should also identify storage projects which are in accordance with the Treaty provisions. India should urgently plug the leakage of water flowing to Pakistan through the Eastern Rivers on whose waters it has complete right under the Treaty. While India should favour cooperation over conflict in its relations with Pakistan, it should not let itself be pressured by Pakistan unjustifiably over water related issues.

It has been widely noted that the US has not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11. This is because it undertook major reform of its homeland security structures following the 9/11 attacks. India could learn from the wide ranging CT reform in the US after 9/11 and adopt measures suitable in the Indian context.

Legal measures

The first step taken by the US president and the Congress after 9/11 was to pass a wide ranging tough anti-terrorism law, the USA PATRIOT (Providing All the Tools Required for Intercepting and Obstructing Terrorism) Act 2001, which vastly increased the powers of the law enforcement agencies in the areas of surveillance, detention, regulation of financial transactions, detention and deportation of immigrants, collection of intelligence etc. It also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism. The act has a number of provisions to prevent money laundering and to disrupt the financing of terrorism. The Act particularly focuses on foreign entities, individuals and jurisdictions. The law has been criticized in the US for curtailing civil liberties but the Congress went ahead and approved it. The Patriot Act provides the basis of counter terrorism activities of the law enforcement agencies.

The PATRIOT Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to listen to telephonic conversations, search e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records. It eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the authority of the Treasury Secretary to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

Department of Homeland security

The US effort has been directed towards integrating the activities of the multiple scattered agencies having any connection with internal security. Thus, in 2002, the US created a separate Department of Homeland Security by an Act which created an overarching federal entity responsible for the country’s internal security. The department was created by merging 22 different agencies having 166, 234 personnel and a budget of $40.7 billion. The department of homeland security is responsible for protecting the nation not just from terror attacks but also from natural and manmade emergencies. It is responsible for protecting the country from nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological attacks.

The department oversees and coordinates the activities of nearly 87,000 state and local level agencies or “jurisdictions” having security responsibilities.

The Homeland security department is necessarily large, given its ambitious mission. It has an annual budget of about $50.5 billion (year 2009). It brings under its umbrella the US Coast Guard, the US Transportation Security Administration, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the domestic nuclear detection office, the US Customs and Border Protection Service, the Federal Law Enforcement training centre, the US Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a host of other services. A large number of offices, directorates, advisory committess and councils have been created in the department for carrying out the coordination, planning work and to oversee implementation of plans.

Despite criticism that the Homeland Security Department is too large and unwieldy, it has achieved a lot since its creation. For instance, a Transport Security Administration has been created and equipped to do 100 per cent screening of airline passengers and check baggage. Maritime transportation system and cargo supply chain security has been enhanced through a number of initiatives like Containing Security Initiative. A domestic Nuclear Detection Centre has been created. Homeland Security Department’s various components have huge budgets. For instance, in 2007, $6 billion were spent on Transport and Security administration, $6.3 billion on Customs and Border Protection, $7 billion on US Coast Guard and $5.9 billion on Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The Department of Homeland Security has undertaken a number of critical projects to improve the safety and security of the nation. The specific ongoing projects of the Homeland Security Department include increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents, erecting a state-of-the-art fence on the border, improving the background check process for immigrants, improving the technologies for passenger and baggage screening, enhancing security assessments in respect of personnel working at the airports and ports, reinforcing maritime safety and security, enhancing the capabilities of US Computer Emergency Readiness Teams.

Intelligence

Following 9/11 attacks, the US undertook major reform of the intelligence community. It created a Directorate of National Intelligence which brings together all the 17 intelligence agencies under one umbrella – under the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI). The objective of the DNI is to create a seamless web of information out of the data-bases of various agencies and provide it to users, including those in the private sector, on the basis of need and utility and breaking the barriers between agencies. The DNI’s vision is a bold one but achievable. The main idea behind the DNI’s vision is to ensure that information is shared rapidly across the intelligence community and also with relevant agencies outside the intelligence community so that the active agencies have an edge over the terrorists. The DNI’s aim is to create a seamless integration of people, processes and technologies to achieve the sharing of information.

Counter Terrorism

The US has created a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) which analyses the terrorist threats and shares this information with all the concerned agencies. The NCTC is the most important source of analysis as well as strategic operation plan for counter-terrorism. It coordinates its CT efforts with the CIA, FBI, Departments of State Defence and Homeland Security as well as specialist departments such as those of Energy, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Health, Nuclear Regulatory Commission etc. NCTC officials chair inter-agency meetings to discuss emerging threats to US interests at home and abroad. Some of the specific things done by the NCTC are:

• It fuses all-source intelligence and makes it available to all agencies for their operations.
• It fuses federal, state, and local information and makes it available to all concerned.
• It has created threat assessment centres which make a picture of current threats to homeland security.
• It promotes the concept of joint-ness in the intelligence community.
• It has created infrastructure protection centres.
• It assigns responsibilities to different agencies for counter-terrorism (CT) operations.
• It carries out joint CT operations.
• It has the primary agency responsible for analysis and integration of information.
• It combines all instruments available for CT: diplomatic, military, financial, intelligence, homeland security, law enforcement etc.
• It produces warnings, alerts and advisories as well as analytic assessments on terrorism.
• It maintains a national data-base on terrorists.
• It manages a joint operations centre which provides situational awareness of terrorism-related issues developing worldwide.
• It provides information on terrorism to international partners.
• It develops, integrates implements strategic operational plans needed for the country’s counterterrorism activities.

India has been a victim of terrorism for a long time. India also has considerable experience in counterterrorism. A large number of agencies at the central and state level are engaged in counterterrorism activities of different kinds. Indian agencies routinely foil potential terrorism-related incidents. This is reflected in media reports about interception of RDX, busting of terrorist modules and encounters between the police and the terrorists. Unfortunately, as the Mumbai terrorist attacks have shown, Indian counterterrorism efforts are not sufficient to deter the highly motivated and innovative terrorists. The weakness in the Indian effort appears to be the relative lack of coordination amongst Indian intelligence, law enforcement and legal agencies. While the government has taken some steps to strengthen law enforcement by creating a National Investigation Agency (NIA), the coordination amongst multiple agencies is a serious problem which remains to be addressed. In the government departments the culture of information sharing does not exist.

The government needs to promote the culture of information sharing not only amongst the various agencies but also between the Central and the State agencies. The necessary infrastructure, using the latest information and communication technologies linking the different agencies at various levels needs to be created urgently. Information sharing, threat assessment and a risk-based approach to deal with these threats should become a norm rather than an exception. The government should be in a position to continuously indicate the level of threat that the country faces at any given point of time so that action can be taken by the concerned agencies without having to wait for any specific order from any agency.

The lack of political consensus on how to deal with terrorism hampers counter terrorism efforts. The government can learn from the experience of the US and other countries which have created effective counterterrorism agencies through unification and integration of CT efforts.

Expectations are high in Japan, both in the general public and amongst the elite, after Democrat Barack Obama’s ascendancy to the American Presidency. Japan was clearly uncomfortable with Republican Bush administration’s pursuit of a unilateralist foreign policy as against Obama’s more pronounced multilateral approach. According to Professor Kenji Takita of Chuo University, multilateralism is closely associated with smart power and therefore Obama’s shift towards multilateralism is likely to undo some of the damage that the Bush administration’s unilateralism has done to American standing. Obama’s rise to the presidency is likely to assuage the hurt feelings of some US allies who are likely to reorient their foreign and security policies.

And yet, contentious bilateral issues are likely to dominate Japan-US relations. This is not to say the security alliance that has remained the lynchpin of the bilateral relationship since the end of World War II will be undermined. On the contrary, the Japan-US strategic partnership will be reinforced under the Obama administration by weaving a web of larger and deeper institutional mechanisms lending greater robustness to the existing relationship.

Japan would like to seek a resolution to the abduction issue as well as denuclearization of North Korea. Japan is concerned that Obama will come under intense pressure to introduce protectionist trade policies to “defend” the US economy in the face of the current economic downturn.

It is unclear if Obama will downplay the US security relationship with Japan to mollify China, with which Obama might seek greater convergence of interests, mainly because of deepening economic ties and the need to engage China to keep it from projecting its great power ambitions. While the US-Japan security alliance is destined to remain in place, a robust Sino-US relationship under Obama will reinforce efforts towards creating a power equilibrium in the Asia-Pacific region. China is the largest holder of US national bonds, totaling $585 billion (as of September 2008), which means that it is China and not Japan that underwrites the US in financial terms.

Expectations are high because China has become an engine of growth, with its economy having grown at an average of 9.6 per cent a year for the last 30 years. The country now holds the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, which stands at $1.9 trillion. Japan is in second place, with slightly more than half that amount. The US and China are deeply interdependent in economic terms, though they may be wary about each other militarily. China holds roughly $1 trillion of $2 trillion in US foreign reserves. Japan will clearly feel uneasy if Obama reorients US foreign policy towards a China centric East Asia.

This is the concern that continues to lurk in the minds of the mandarins in Kasumigaseki. For the time being, Japan is upbeat in hearing that Joseph Nye is being sent by Obama as US ambassador to Japan. Nye has a huge reputation in Japan and is credited for his efforts to ‘redefine’ the US-Japan alliance after World War II and his contribution to adding teeth to the alliance relationship remains unparalleled. Also, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s observation on 13 January 2009 on the US-Japan alliance relationship will assuage any possible fear in the minds of the Japanese that Obama might drift US foreign policy priorities more towards China at the expense of Japan. Hillary Clinton said: “Our alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of American policy in Asia, essential to maintaining peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region, and based on shared values and mutual interests”. Thus, it transpires that the current Japanese mood about the Obama administration is overtly optimistic.

Two issues might assume preponderance in the US-Japan relationship during the Obama presidency: First, the issue of sharing defence burden by Japan and Japan’s greater engagement with Obama’s multilateralism; and second, Japan’s contribution to resuscitate the global economy and how Japan can help salvage the US economy. As regards the first, Obama faces huge challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, tensions in India-Pakistan relations, and North Korea. Obama would need to mobilize its allies, such as Japan and South Korea, to resolve conflicts under the banner of multilateralism. Hillary Clinton would prefer to negotiate directly with North Korea and set her priorities to de-nuclearize North Korea, while Japan would want Clinton to take up the abduction issue. The Obama administration would be happy with Japan demonstrating greater self-reliance and autonomy in security affairs. Obama would expect greater contribution from Japan to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. This would involve greater burden-sharing and power-sharing. Second, economic difficulties emanating from the global economic meltdown might propel Obama to resort to greater protectionist policies, which might lead to other nations retaliating. The Bush administration, and more precisely the Federal Reserve Board, lowered the official interest rate to zero per cent, thereby weakening the US currency. The Big Three auto makers were also granted a huge amount of federal money just to resuscitate the US economy. If the Obama administration resorts to more extensive protectionist policies, including tariffs, Japan might drift closer to the Chinese market.

Thus, even while Obama will remain engaged in sorting out the mess in the domestic economy, East Asia is likely to receive lesser attention as compared to Obama’s current preoccupation with Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. As noted, Obama will seek active cooperation with China, while maintaining existing bilateral alliances with Japan and South Korea. Therefore, in pursuance of his policy of multilateralism, the Obama administration is likely to seek a new regional security architecture that combines a bilateral alliance system with a multilateral security cooperation regime. Prof. Chung-in Moon of Yonsei University, Seoul, observes: “We can expect the US will shift its emphasis from the logic of balance of power to that of the power of balance.”

Though Obama may get bogged down for some time in reviving the domestic economy, the nuclear issue in North Korea is unlikely to be left idle. It needs to be remembered that Obama has defined the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and defeating global terrorism as the twin pillars of his national security agenda. Hillary has already reiterated the same after assuming office. One possible way to engage North Korea is by promising diplomatic normalization of relations with North Korea for a cessation of its nuclear proliferation activities. Should Obama consider a basic treaty on normalization with North Korea in return for an acceptable verification protocol involving sampling, forensic activities, and access to suspected nuclear sites as well as the transfer of a sizable amount of nuclear materials, Obama would leave a mark of statesmanship for the world to take notice of. But then Bush too tried the option of ‘dismantle first, then we will normalize ties with you’ but failed. Obama might just be lucky?

In dealing with North Korea, Seoul might be flexible in cooperating with Obama if the latter opts for expediting the rapprochement with Pyongyang provided North Korea agrees to major concessions in verifiably dismantling its nuclear programs and weapons. The proposed trilateral US-China-Japan commission matches well with Obama’s preference towards multilateralism in dealing with the North Korean issue. If these three countries cooperate, it will be vital to peace and stability in Northeast Asia. It could mitigate a tense rivalry between China and Japan, as well as a potential conflict between China and the US that will emanate from power transition.

Thus, Obama’s Asia policy will mark perceptible change in its contour and focus. Obama is lucky to have many eminent experts whose advice would play critical role in shaping Obama’s Asia policy. Jeffrey Bader, who worked at the State Department and National Security Council, headed Obama’s Asia team during the campaign. Other experts who are advisors to Obama are Gerald Curtis, Kurt Campbell (a nominee for the Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and Pacific Affairs and strong advocate of the trilateral summit approach between the US, China and Japan), and Rust Deming, whose collective wisdom will come handy for Obama.

But things may not be as rosy as it appears. Institutionalization of a trilateral summit could cause serious security concerns in South Korea because of its potential exclusion. Most Koreans still remember how Korea was arbitrarily divided by the calculations of the major powers after World War II. North Korea and Russia will surely oppose the trilateral formula. South Korea would be more comfortable with a six-party summit among China, Japan, Russia, the US and both the Koreas. The complexities of the issues in the East and North East Asian region do not guarantee Obama the reciprocal cooperation from its allies and countries in the region. The nuclear issue in North Korea and the threat it poses is unlikely to go away so soon. Obama cannot take cooperation from US allies for granted. For example, more than 10 years have passed since an agreement to relocate the US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa was reached, but the move is no where near happening. On North Korea, Japan’s tough stance and strict focus on the abductee problem, is a stark difference with other nations in the Six-Party de-nuclearisation talks. Obama would expect Japan to publicly cooperate rather than only stress the abductee issue.

Countries in the region have to do away with obsession with short-term gains, tactical and impromptu maneuvering, excessive value orientation, and the politicization of security and foreign policy issues. It is in the interest of both Japan and South Korea to strengthen the alliance relationship with the US by adopting flexible policy options. Such an approach would help maintain peace and stability in the North East Asian region.

British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, arrived in India on his two-day visit on 13 January, barely a month and a half after the carnage in Mumbai. His visit was controversial for what he said during the visit and it was made worse by his article that appeared in The Guardian on the last day of his visit. It even provoked the normally restrained Ministry of External Affairs to comment that it could do without Miliband’s “unsolicited advice” and that his views were only “evolving”.

As if designed to provide a peek into his knowledge on terrorism, the article outlined Miliband’s prescription for its resolution. But the British Foreign Secretary did not win praise for his knowledge on the subject, for, he was not right. On the contrary, India was obviously angry as were many in the West.

Miliband argued that the raison d'être for the existence of terror or of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) is the unresolved Kashmir issue. His narrative is that the “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.”

But his observation that the resolution of the Kashmir issue would serve the twin objectives of jihadis abandoning their armed struggle and release an eager Pakistan to fully combat terror in its western border is too simplistic. At best, it is a vacuous comment that ignores the genesis of terrorism in the sub-continent and the history of the Kashmir issue. More alarming is the former.

It may not ever be known if the assertions in the article can be attributed to some calculated briefing by the British foreign office or whether they were his interpretation of the sub-continental realities. It may also portend a collective effort by the Obama Administration and Washington’s closest trans-Atlantic ally to bring to bear their combined weight on New Delhi to find a solution to the Kashmir issue in the pious hope of securing Pakistan’s undivided attention in the West’s ‘war on terror’.

Miliband may know best why he penned the article in The Guardian. But his thesis that the Kashmir issue is the root cause of terror in India, and finding a solution to it would transform Pakistan into a state with a resolute will to wipe out terror elements in its western border, needs to be tested against the realities in the sub-continent.

Let us examine if LeT has its origins in Kashmir to test if the resolution of the problem would deprive the jihadis of the raison d'être for their existence. The LeT has its origins in the Markaz Dawa Wa’al Irshad, or the “Centre for Invitation and Instructions”, established to organise the mujahids in Pakistan in 1986 by Hafiz Muhammad Sa’eed and Zafar Iqbal who were professors in that country. This was done under the spiritual guidance of a Palestine academic called Abdullah Azzam, who had taught Osama bin Laden Islamic Studies at the King Abdul-Aziz University in his native Saudi Arabia. It is also no secret that the mujahids were enlisted, financed, trained and armed by the US-led alliance for the ‘jihad’ against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Lashker-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Toiba, or its other aliases meaning “the Army of the Pure” or “the Army of the Righteous” is the military wing of the Markaz Dawa Wa’al Irshad. It traces its origins to 1993 when Sa’eed, the co-founder of the parent Markaz, established the outfit to conduct jihad or holy war. And where is this so-called holy war to be waged? Is it limited to Kashmir or is it only one of the areas of the militant outfit’s targets?

LeT has itself declared that the jihadis are trained to engage in a “righteous” war in diverse areas and have many nations in its cross hairs. They have boasted that they have trained and sent jihadis to play a significant role in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, the Philippines and Jammu & Kashmir. The Congressional Research Service which serves as a knowledge bank of the US legislators has also echoed that LeT has close links with both al Qaeda and the Taliban giving it a “global jihadi perspective”. Abu Zubaydah, one of the key al Qaeda operatives to be captured from Pakistan, was also reported to have been arrested from an LeT safe house. Evidently, LeT’s objective is the destruction of India among other nations and the creation of an Islamic Caliphate.

The LeT-organised transnational mujahideen conference in Pakistan in 1999 provides yet another evidence of its larger goal. The banner on the LeT’s website highlighting the conference had daggers penetrating the national flags of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, India and Israel. This is incontrovertible evidence that the outfit is engaged in a global jihad and that Kashmir falls in one of the nations targeted by the LeT. What better evidence of the transnational goals of the LeT do we need than the words of Pakistan’s current Ambassador to the United States, Hussain Haqqani, that the group sees “United States, Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam”?

Again, the goal of LeT goes beyond Kashmir and is aimed at bringing the whole of India under Islamic rule. The statement of LeT founder, Mohammed Sa’eed, leaves little doubt on this issue. Addressing the international mujahideen meeting in 1999, he said: “About 15 years ago, people might have found it ridiculous if someone had told them about disintegration of the USSR. Today, I announce the break-up of India, insha-Allah. We will not rest until the whole India is dissolved into Pakistan … May Allah bestow martyrdom on us and enter us into the higher ranks of Paradise by His mercy”.

Given the declared objective of LeT, would the resolution of the Kashmir issue “deny extremists” one of their main “calls to arms”? Obviously, the resolution of the Kashmir issue would not metamorphose the jihadis into saints when LeT itself has not confined its objectives to any geographical area and the establishment of a world Islamic Caliphate is its larger goal. There is grave danger in ignoring this reality. The resolution of the Kashmir issue to the satisfaction of Pakistan would give militant groups like the LeT greater confidence that they could achieve through their terror campaign what diplomacy or conventional military capability has failed to achieve. Their victory in Kashmir would embolden them to undertake larger campaigns just as they did after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So not only is it not in the interest of India, but also of the Western world, to ensure that the Kashmir issue is not seen as a link in finding an answer to the scourge of terror.