#dnaEdit: Tackling terrorists

Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the November 2008 Mumbai terror, has become a test case for Pakistan’s sincerity in dealing with its home-grown terrorists. Though Islamabad seems firm in dealing with the extremist elements who pose a threat at home, it does not seem to show the same zeal with those who threaten India. Lakhvi had obtained a bail from an anti-terror court in December 2014 in lieu of a Rs (Pakistan) 10 lakh security. The Pakistan government which is under international pressure — Lakhvi is on the United Nations’ list of terrorists — has been detaining him under the 1960 Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law. It has even filed an additional case against Lakhvi for kidnapping an Afghan national. And it has extended the detention under MPO thrice. It is for this reason that the high court has found the ad hoc detention moves legally untenable. The court has even directed the government not to file fresh cases against Lakhvi without informing it since it believes that the government is just looking for an excuse to detain Lakhvi.

The trial in the Mumbai terror case, which had begun in 2009, continues six years later. And with nearly 100 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, there is little chance of the trial coming to an end anytime soon. Lakhvi, along with six others, remains an accused in the case. It is surprising for a terror accused to get bail even as the trial is underway. The prosecution has urged that Lakhvi out of prison will influence and intimidate witnesses. 

What is at issue is the seriousness and determination of the establishment in Pakistan to deal with the anti-India Islamic extremists. Islamabad’s credibility is quite low on this count, and even the United States, its closest Western ally, is quite impatient on the issue. It is quite convenient for the Pakistan government to argue that it cannot interfere with the judicial process. Those at the helm of power in Islamabad, and it would include the judiciary as well, will have to display a sense of urgency in dealing with terror. It is absolutely necessary for the courts to conduct a fair trial and to be punctiliously impartial, and that is indeed the most credible way of challenging and countering the ideology of the extremists. The judiciary has to be seen to be responsive to the dangers of terrorism, and that response seems to be missing in the pronouncements of Pakistan courts. 

The Indian protest against the release of Lakhvi is an expression of the sense of frustration that Pakistan is not mounting enough pressure on the terror networks on its territory. The challenge India faces is to continue to deal with a recalcitrant Pakistan, which abets infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir, and which is only too willing to let anti-India jihadi elements flourish on its territory. New Delhi will have to continue to talk tough with Pakistan, but it should continue to talk. 

The short-sighted Pakistan strategy seems to be that it will put down ruthlessly jihadis who challenge Islamabad and this was seen in the army operations against the Pakistan Taliban in the Waziristan belt. But it is cavalier in dealing with the anti-India elements. Pakistan governments do not have the luxury of pursuing the two-faced approach to jihadi extremists. India can handle the terror pinpricks coming from the Pakistan side, but Pakistan faces the greater danger of falling prey to the fanatics at home.