• Alto contraste

Asia Pacífico | Observatorio Parlamentario

India-Pakistan and the problem of terrorism

18 diciembre 2008

Terrorism in India is due to two old problems, which are not as old as India itself. One is the latent separatism in some states that were once autonomous and independent kingdoms. The other cause is the age-old friction between Muslim and Hindu factions.

Imagen de la nota

Terrorism in India is due to two old problems, which are not as old as India itself. One is the latent separatism in some states that were once autonomous and independent kingdoms. The other cause is the age-old friction between Muslim and Hindu factions.

Indian unity, an illusive dream 

During the British imperial period, India enjoyed territorial integrity and some political stability, notwithstanding the developments of the independence movement led by the Freedom Fighters which shook the country. Up until this time, never had so many dissimilar territories been under unified sovereignty and jurisdiction, as happened under the British Raj (the British Government). Previously, India enjoyed moments of great unification only during brief periods. And neither was the territory as completely unified as it was during the nineteenth-century.

During the Maurya dynasty (321-185 BC), and specifically under Emperor Ashoka (271-231 BC), unification extended from the Iranian border to Bangladesh. However, it was never included the Tamil Nadu nor Sri Lanka further south. The rule of Ashoka based its power to unify on military conquests and the universalization of Buddhism, which, in turn, permitted the integration of political administration and Buddhist ethics.

There were attempts by other dynasties to make a single political entity of India. The Gupta and other dynasties managed to increase their strength and add more domains using the religious prestige combined with military force. But none managed to unify the entire subcontinent. A veritable parade of dynasties followed: the Chalukya, Hoysala, Chola, Pandya and Kalachuri. The Sultanate of Delhi (1030-1500 AD) swept across the north, but was never able to dominate the Hindu kingdoms of the south. It is precisely at that time that the schism between Muslims and Hindus began. A religious border extended for centuries along the Narmada River, dividing northern Muslim India and the other India in the South.

Islam, by principle, tended towards the formation of a unified bloc. Not so with the Hindu. By its very nature, Hinduism is multi-doctrinal. It was difficult to maintain a corporate spirit. However, an early unification effort, involving the Vijayanagar Kingdom, tenaciously opposed the Sultanate of Delhi’s hegemony. The Maratha Empire (now Maharashtra, whose capital is Mumbai) managed to form a Hindu coalition to meet the Mongol challenge.

But none of the aforementioned united India as the British Empire did later. Therefore, it was always tempting to accept the official view that the British authority, which predicted that "the country would be blown away" as soon as the colonial administration (Raj) left. But what was not said was that these disagreements were often the result of these selfsame colonial rulers.

As per the map on the previous page, British India was colossal. Its current countries include Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and Burma; all under a single government. Therefore, a question arose among British leadership and the groups involved: To whom, and how, should imperial power be transferred… and in what proportion? That is, how would the population be proportionately represented given its endless variety and factions is so complex a society? India was crossed horizontally by religious conflict and, vertically, by hierarchy, castes and customs so archaic and entrenched that the best that could be hoped for was to not disrupt them. The problem was studied and solutions sought during the so-called Transfer of Power. But what was never settled was the Partition issue, which gave birth to the two separate nations of Pakistan and India. Artificially created so traumatic birthed as well, the Partition left many outstanding issues, such as Kashmir, for example.

The British Empire and its artificial unity

The first colonial administration in British India involved the East India Company, a progressive system of royal concessions and charters that gradually began involving the territorial governance and participation in wars and conflicts. By 1774, the English Parliament felt it necessary to better regulate relations with British India. It instituted the office of the Governor General, which enabled the company to work within the commercial domain, while the Crown reserved civilian and military power to itself. This dual government lasted until the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The mutiny of colonial sepoys led to the Crown exerting absolute control and sovereignty over the Union of Territories, by the merging the office of Governor General into the sovereign title of Viceroy and Governor-General of India.

The commercial nature of the India Company, led it to maintain an attitude of religious neutrality. In 1858, the viceroyalty took somewhat the same tack, but the acquisition of territories not yet under British jurisdiction (40%) forced it to negotiate with Hindu princes who ceded their sovereignty in exchange for economic, cultural and religious guarantees. Thus percentages, area and differences were established, which favored Hindus more than other minorities. British authorities claimed to be using technical criteria based on census registries, which showed reliable data on religious affiliation, differences which, in their view, should not be grounds for intervention but rather left to their natural course.

We should also clarify that, from the beginning, the relationship of the British was better with the Hindu communities. It seemed more fluid and cooperative. When the company started to recruit staff, it usually hired the subjects of Hindu kingdoms. When trade made it necessary to create a well-oiled machine for preparing English speaking employees, who would be trained in the modern techniques of accounting and other trades, the Hindu communities were again favored. By 1860, at least two million Indian nationals worked for the British; 95% of whom were Hindus.

The children of these colonial officials were, in turn, trained in British-oriented schools. This second generation went on to constitute the new Indian middle class which was educated, modern, European-oriented, with the sole proviso that they maintained their religious traditions intact.

Throughout this entire complex transformation, the Muslim population was left far behind. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century did a few Muslims, who had participated in the process of change, managed to build some schools and the Aligarh Academy. Over the years it became the University of Aligarh. But the gap between the two was already enormous.

Indian society had dramatically changed in the span of a century. At the highest echelon live the nobility, which did not figure in politics, preferring parties and polo. After this group came the new urban middle class. While it was still small (80% of the country's population lived below it), we must point out its relevance, because it was the middle class that was the catalyst for all the changes. From the middle class emerged the ideologues and those who would carry forth the development which would lead to the formation of the republic. The Indian middle class continued transformations begun by the English.

But the problem is more complicated than it would seem. The British disrupted production methods, economic relations and, in particular traditional village life. The more powerful farmers moved into commerce and prospered greatly. The vast majority, however, remained in the countryside and suffered through unprecedented economic deterioration. Of all the rural communities, those that fell behind the furthest were Muslim, in the region of Bengal and Punjab. These happen to be exactly the most radicalized areas to date. Nehru explained in one of his letters: "The alteration of the old system created this plethora of rural problems, which is a major cause of the schism and irreconcilable hatred between Hindus and Muslims."

Divide and conquer

Nurtured by education and trade, the middle class grew. Mainly consisting of Hindus, it became the source of the independence movement's founders. The British authorities permitted these release valves in order to ease the social pressure. It also applied control measures, such as the decision of Lord Curzon (1908) to divide Bengal by language: Hindi and Urdu (equivalent to saying Muslims and Hindus). This was the precursor of Bangladesh. The British divided, in order to avoid the concentration of power; the essence of British mercantile and political thought. Muslims were aware early on of their weakness. They thought it could become a strength, though, and began to make petitions to the UK regarding their demands. An intellectual circle at the Academy of Aligarh requested reforms to protect Moslems. Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) guaranteed Muslim quotas in all the colonial institutions. Under the aegis of these reforms, the Muslim League was born. At the same time, the "divide and conquer" style did its job, and was starting to sow mistrust between Hindus and Muslims.

The accusations and recriminations between the factions became daily occurrences. Disagreements and allegations promulgated by the British, helped rationalize such tight control measures; relaxing a bit here, tightening a bit there. Although the net effect was an inexorable nationalism, separatist nightmares also loomed. The English had sown the seeds that led to the fight for freedom and that led Indians to look with distrust and fear on the Crown. For the entire decade prior to 1946, the Muslim League was the most persistent in calculating the costs and benefits of achieving a separate country where Moslems would be free of discrimination; they thought with unwarranted alarm, that they would be a minority in a predominantly Hindu India. These ideas culminated in more determined activism that gave rise to the proclamation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in August 1947.

Pakistan was conceived of beforehand

Muhammad Iqbal (1875-1938) was Pakistan’s great ideologue. Born in the heart of the new intellectual aristocracy, he was painstakingly polite and admired political developments occurring in Turkey. But, unlike Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Caliphate and wanted to create a secular republic, Dr. Iqbal dreamed of an Islamic republic committed to true pan-Islamism, as expressed in the speeches of Muslim ideologues after 1930. Iqbal's role in political action was minor, but his doctrine captivated many. In particular, his words influenced lifelong friend, Ali Jinnah, who would oversee the birth of Pakistan.

Across the road was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), who was closer to Nehru. Azad, sane and moderate, preached "unity in diversity" which, he said, was always the main topic in India. Azad explained that greatness had always accompanied those who cultivated and promoted tolerance. "Indian genius, over the centuries, has been to show the thousand facets and approaches to the Truth. But as soon as someone believes that his is the only path and denies the others, creativity and light became pain and darkness."

But the option of dividing the country according to race, language and religion tended to dominate. Then the question arose: How were the new maps to be drawn up? How was the government to relocate people? Who would compensate those forced to move out of an area? How would compensation be paid? These were the questions that those, in feverish revolutionary enthusiasm, were still unable to answer. The deferral of such sensitive topics futures left the door open to fundamentalist movements, and drew the best Muslims away from more the centre.

The facts that precipitated the irreconcilable differences between Pakistan and India are intermingled with the actions and personalities of various leaders. Two of them are crucial: Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru. Both led their movements and negotiated with the British, but they were intransigent with one another.

Jinnah was especially so. Jinnah became discouraged with the Congress due to its obsession with independence and a lack of any transcendent, substantive ideology. He was also concerned with the secularism of the Congress and believed that this stance only served to disguise the thousand variants of Hinduism, from the most Orthodox to the most dangerous militants. His own personal problems, reading, contacts with intellectuals, and the influence of Iqbal led him to relentlessly back his "Theory of two nations”: India and Pakistan, separated, each on a separate path. Jinnah believed that Islam would disappear were it not isolated and able to create its own redoubt.

Nehru, however, tried to keep the bigger boat, wherein everyone would fit, afloat. At his side, Nehru had people as radical as the Tilak Hindus, who preached about the historic opportunity to rebuild a larger, unified Hindu nation.

Mahatma Gandhi was often a complicated and unmanageable counterweight. While he was a pro-India nationalist with ideas quite similar to those of Maulana Azad, so it was that he was singled out by more than one fanatic of showing "favouritism to the Muslims."

Thus, the long process that led to the birth of two countries, not only left a trail of deaths that is itself an unacceptable price, but also a large number of unresolved issues. Some of these are the causes of terrorism today. And when such a terrible thing happens, rather than pointing an accusing finger, people should remember the root causes and mistakes.

The roads of India and Pakistan

India was born with the aim of giving better life to its huge population. There is a basic conviction and a social motivation that permeates its society and combats the differences within. It calms these differences and gives them comfort without torrents of religiosity.

Pakistan was born and immediately assumed a position of defense. It was born in tension with an aggressive predisposition. This characteristic made its first steps difficult and caused it to postpone crucial issues such as an interest and focus on economic development. As such, India would take advantage of this opportunity to leap ahead, leaving an unbridgeable distance between the two.

India is the result of strong and dedicated management by two men: Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. The former was the great policy formulator who positioned the country in the international context, thereby assuring the world that India, replete with one fifth of the world's population, took care responsibly live in peace and in search of prosperity.

Patel was in charge of internally manipulating processes that led to a foundation of peace. He was the one who transformed the more than 500 principalities in the 28 states that make up the Union. He counterbalanced internal groups and won the support of tumultuous, yet hopeful masses. The poor, after all, had waited a very long time. He secured the cooperation of the masses to launch the first nationwide programs.

Both Patel and Nehru created confidence in a future that, although it might tarry, would eventually arrive. And it was true. Together they defined India as a nation that, via its quest for secularism, scientific knowledge and technical efficiency, ensured respect for individual beliefs and traditions.

Pakistan had diverse leadership problems. The Muslim League, worn out by its theoretical effort to justify itself to the country, was unable to give the nation its first push. Ali Jinnah, acclaimed as Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader), died a year after Pakistan’s inception because he had worked so hard. The newborn Pakistan had no leadership cadre. The situation was so bleak that some British officers were forced to participate in the country’s organization efforts. Pakistan was born with what would mark its fate for half a century: chaos and disorder, which ranged from instability to autarchy. By 1954, the League was a political corpse or the exact opposite of the Indian National Congress. Then, at last, a leader arose who earned the respect and appreciation of the Pakistani people.

Ayub Khan, a figure who personifies Pakistan in the 1960s, had an enormous list of achievements. Ayub Khan reignited Pakistan’s national confidence, but also caused friction. His stern, authoritarian leadership style was combined with a widely criticized secularization plan. Additionally, his economic management favored only a few. Social pressure increased, leading him to resign in 1969 and hand over leadership to the head of the Pakistani Armed Forces. It was the beginning of interventionism and militarism, something which overshadows Pakistan to this day.
After three years of preparations, elections were finally held. The charismatic Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took office and managed to put things in place. With the best of intentions, he ordered an intelligence service to be organized in order to combat conspiracy. The ISI eventually became an almost expressly self-directed organization which had the ability to infiltrate everything; a veritable state within a state. This was just the beginning of the long series of events that led to the recent Mumbai bombings.

Bhutto was unable to do much, having taken on all the power centers in Pakistan. He had a tense relationship with the military, while leading the country into economic uncertainty. But our analysis does not necessarily include a stroll down the entire memory lane of Islamabad politics. Rather it is an analysis of the difficult relationship between neighboring nations and the effect this has had on the ability of terrorist groups to exist and operate from Pakistan. These groups attack selected targets in India every so often.

In our desire to penetrate so tricky a problem, we need to make one pass by the sequence of foreign policy events in Pakistan. This review will include three stages. The first is Pakistan’s quest for acceptance within the larger Muslim context. It failed woefully in this effort. Its friction with India only evoked the most cordial of neutrality from the Arab community, who, in fact, openly even showed more sympathy for India given the enormous number of Muslims in India, and its evident leadership within the Third World.

Then closer ties developed between Washington and Islamabad, which was necessary considering the funny friendship between India and the USSR. United States made its bid to deepen ties with the deepest pleasure, given the context of its global interests. The Pakistan-US relationship intensified over time and as the American relationship with Iran soured. This all occurred as Moscow increasingly involved itself in the region. The third phase relates to the situation that has existed since Afghanistan has been on the international scene. Afghanistan has groups of fighters who are trained and armed in Pakistan by a combination of ISI and, during the 1980s, U.S. aid.

It should be noted that Afghanistan is a thorny neighbour of Pakistan, not unlike India, but on a smaller scale. There has been friction and wars with Afghanistan. There have also been some friendly moments. The most delicate phase was during the 1980s, when Kabul was lost in civil war. A determined force arrived from Pakistan and came to rescue Afghanistan from the USSR. These Muslim patriots were the mujahideen, the Islamic resistance backed by the CIA, ISI and money from Saudi Arabia. Young fighters arrived to the mujahideen barracks in Pakistan filled with the ardour and faith. They came from many Islamic countries, including India. One of those who came to Lahore was Bin Laden, who joined the resistance forces, which also spawned the Taliban. But, groups from Kashmir also came. They saw is a chance to get training and equipment during these troubled times. These resources would later be employed in the armed insurrection in their own homeland.

The 1990s shifted international focus on to the Persian Gulf region. Meanwhile, the dissolution of the USSR and the end of polarity caused the world to forget the hot zone. It was only interesting to the regional players. They were left without a specific mission, but very keen to get involved in specific jihads. One of these is the faction that Bin-Laden led against the United States. Another, focused on the India-Pakistan theatre, was in the Kashmir region.

From the conflict in Kashmir to Mumbai

Kashmir is the place which precipitates and concentrates a centuries-old tension. The population of about 14 million, though the overwhelmingly Muslim, only seeks to live in peace. India's sovereignty is now accepted without hesitation. The story begins in the scrambled post-independence years, when Kashmir was burning on all four sides by clashes between Hindus and Muslims. Then the Maharaja of Kashmir, who still had territorial sovereignty, requested the intervention of New Delhi, which agreed in return for complete authority in the area. New Delhi has since argued that Kashmir’s Hindu minority (35%) needs protection and safeguards; otherwise, it would be persecuted and swept from the region. Pakistan controls the northwest, which India terms "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." And in this complicated situation, China intervened and occupied the north-east (Aksai Chin).

Beijing has always denied any involvement in the zone and has tried to avoid involvement in even the slightest degree. But Islamabad sought their support, especially on the atomic issue. But we will have to leave that for another occasion. However, let’s consider that several separatist groups operate in the area. None are affiliated with a political party, nor do they have an official leadership or structure of any kind. They are, however, linked to one another. This just makes the ISI even more terrifying.

However, blaming the Pakistani nation as a whole for its condescension or failure to suppress extremist groups and terrorists who find easy refuge in its territory is excessive. The country has suffered a long process of political obscurantism, moments of triumph and institutional transparency and democracy, which were soon tarnished by intervention from militarist and religious factions who had a deep influence upon the political and economic sectors.

As such, controlling terrorist groups that operate with impunity in Pakistan is a very complicated task. This is not meant as an exoneration of the government of Pakistan, rather to explain their difficulties.

On the next page there is a list of major terrorist groups who have chosen Pakistan as an ideal place to plan, prepare its operations and train its military cadres. It is known that eleven distinct groups of this kind are only interested in committing violence in Pakistan, since their aims and objectives are purely national. Thirty-two groups use Pakistan as a springboard for international operations aimed at targets in India, the Middle East or the West. Moreover, there are four extremist groups which are difficult to classify. They are unpredictable and lack an intelligible ideology.

All the groups are Muslim, so it is easy to hide themselves in the huge population of Pakistan (nearly 170 million inhabitants by 2009). All of the groups find some empathy among the Islamic masses, which lack formal education but receive a bit of very dogmatic instruction. Apart from their total obedience to Islam, these masses have only basic critical skills. Extremist groups in one way or another play the Robin Hood card and arouse some sympathy among the population, despite the massacres carried out among the Pakistani population.

The 47 groups listed below have been identified and are easily categorized. We even have information on their respective members and leaders. However, is not feasible to hunt them down. Some have political ties to official sectors in the country. Others have ties to different spheres of society. Most have front organizations are located in every city in Pakistan.

Deployment and national action organizations

A summary description of three, very high risk groups is included below. In a future article, we will analyse the remainder.

1.- Lashkar-e-Omar
2.- Sipahe-Sahaba Pakistan
3.- Tehreek-Jaferia Pakistan
4.- Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi
5.- Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
6.- Sipah-e-Muhammad Pakistan
7.- Jamaat-ul-Fuqra
8.- Nadeem Commando
9.- Popular Front for Armed Resistance
10.- Muslim United Army
11.- Harkat-ul-Mujahideen Al-alami

International action organizations

1.-Hizb-ul-Mujahideen
2.-Harkat-ul-Ansar (AKA, Harkat-ul Mujahideen)
3.-Lashkar-e-Toiba
4.-Jaish-e-Mohammad Mujahideen E-Tanzeem
5.-Harkat-ul Mujahideen (formerly, Harkat-ul-Ansar)
6.-Al Badr
7.-Jamait-ul-Mujahideen
8.-Lashkar-e-Jabbar
9.-Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami
10.-Muttahida Jehad Council
11.-Al Barq
12.-Tehrik-ul-Mujahideen
13.-Al Jehad
14.-Jammu & Kashir National Liberation Army
15.-People’s League
16.-Muslim Janbaz Force
17.-Kashmir Jehad Force
18.-Al Jehad Force (includes both Muslim Janbaz Force & Kashmir Jihad Force)
19.-Al Umar Mujahideen
20.-Mahaz-e-Azadi
21-Islami Jamaat-e-Tulba
22.-Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front
23.-Ikhwan-ul-Mujahideen
24.-Islamic Students League
25.-Tehrik-e-Hurriat-e-Kashmir
26.-Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqar Jafaria
27.-Al Mustafa Liberation Fighters
28.-Tehrik-e-Jehad-e-Islamin
29.-Muslim Mujahideen
30.-Al Mujahid Force
31.-Tehrik-e-Jehad
32.-Islami Inquilabi Mahaz

Extremists groups

1.- Al-Rashid Trust
2.- Al-Akhtar Trust
3.- Rabita Trust
4.-Ummah Tamir-e-Nau



Lashkar-e-Toiba

Among the most active and dangerous groups is the Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Jama'at-ud-Da'awa. This group was probably the perpetrator of the attacks on Mumbai hotels in late November 2008. Lashkar-e-Toiba has a certain doctrinal connection to Wahhabism. Formed in the 1990s in Afghanistan, its headquarters are in Muridke, near Lahore. Its leader is Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. The group has conducted operations in Jammu and Kashmir since 1993, and since that time India has included it in its Terrorist Exclusion List. It was also a declared dangerous terrorist group (FTO-Foreign Terrorist Organization) by the United States and Great Britain. The group has been condemned by the United Nations since 2005.

President Pervez Musharraf declared the Lashkar-e-Toiba illegal in 2002, but its members walk about without any major limitations throughout Pakistan. Its goal is to collapse India’s control in Kashmir. Its agenda includes a proclamation in which the group announces its fight to restore Islamic government throughout all India, starting with those states which have a Muslim majority. Obviously Kashmir is its first target. But in the same vein, Mumbai is another candidate because it has high numbers of Muslims, many of whom are very poor and displaced. Obviously this is a terrible justification, but it partly explains things. For the Lashkar-e-Toiba, democracy is a form of malignant production influenced by Western thought. A basic objective of all Islamic jihads is to remove every trace of Western influence from Asia.

Its top leader, Hafiz Saeed, publicly participated in the 2003 meeting of Ulemas (clergy) in Lahore, Pakistan. He held that Pakistan should assume its role of restoring dignity to Islam throughout all Asia. He also stated the group will not rest until the flag of Islam is planted in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi.

Leadership and structure

The headquarters of the Lashkar-e-Toiba lies on 80 acres and is in Muridke, 30 km from Lahore. Purchased with donations made by benefactors in Saudi Arabia, the headquarters looks like a Koranic studies institute. It also extends its ties over two hundred other institutions: educational institutions, clinics, hospices across all Pakistan. He has publications on the Web: (http://www.jamatuddawa.org), and several journals: Al-Dawa (in Urdu) Gazwa, The Voice of Islam, Al-Rabat (in Arabic), Mujal-e-Tulba (in Urdu). Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is the Emir who is followed by the sheiks (commanders): Yahiye Mujahid, Maulana Abdul Wahid, Abdullah Muntazer. The centerpiece of ground operations is in Muzaffarabad, the Pakistani zone in Kashmir. Its structure consists of military headquarters that operate completely independently to prevent leaks. The operation in Mumbai was the action of one of these autonomous commands.

Recruiting occurs mainly among young people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Some also come from Sudan, Bahrain, Libya, Central Asia and Turkey. The training is done by the Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI. It should be noted that there is a much more monstrous conspiracy in all this, because the ISI is linked with the most sinister network of heroin trafficking, which involves billions of dollars. By the same token, and combining interests, the Lashkar-e-Toiba operates in every big city in India, as many of its ports are its points of embarkation: New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Varanasi, Kolkata, Gujarat, and so on. Though, on the other hand, the historical areas of symbolic interest are Jammu and Kashmir.

The Lashkar-e-Toiba has also been one of the most active groups to erect a strategic network between subversive and a variety of separatist movements across India, apart from those already operating in Jammu and Kashmir. This is how it supports and encourages groups in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. There is no history of contact between the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Naga groups and the mountainous northeast area.

The Intelligence Service of India believes that the Lashkar-e-Toiba has about two hundred offices in Pakistan, including others in Baghdad and several Islamic countries. And, in what may be more serious, it has unleashed its so-called Fedayeen phase (suicide attacks and no return) for which it has formed special commands called Jaan-e-Fidai and Ibn-e-Tayamiah (those who are committed the great cause).

Terror network

Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), are fraternally linked to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, creating an international terror network. But with all this information and aware of the danger involved, India is still motivated by openness, tolerance and freedom. In fact, the ex-president of India stated, " The Lashkar-e-Toiba has emerged as a very major and most dangerous force. It has connectivity with west Asia and Europe. Actually there was an LeT cell broken up in Virginia and some people were picked up. It’s as big as and omnipotent as al-Qaeda in every sense of the term. The worst thing is the LeT is the evident manifestation of power and presence of the al-Qaeda type of terrorist network. LeT has an extensive network that run across Pakistan and India, with branches in Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom and all Europe, Bangladesh and South East Asia. And let me tell you something: It is not the fault of Pakistan but of some sectors, some groups there. Finally, it is our own fault because we have been too far from each other. This is a long history of mutual non cooperation”.

It is very possible that LeT currently has dozens of sleeper cells in the US, Europe and Australia. They will remain sleepers for some time, until the overall system begins to relax a bit. Then they will re-attack. Jihad, in fanatic mindset, is not under any time constraints. "The twilight of the West’s evil will arrive, sooner or later." These remarks were made by Saeed in the network’s newspapers.

Tehreek-e-Jaferia or TJP

The Tehreek-e-Jaferia of Pakistan (TJP) is the Movement of the Fiqah-e-Jaferia’s followers, or the Faithful to the Law of Allah. Begun in 1992, out of the Movement Tehreek Nifaz Fiqah-e-Jafria (TNFJ), TJP is an Islamic School of Jurisprudence (Fiqah-e-Jafreia), which follows the teachings of Imam Jafar Sadiq. It was founded to maintain Shiite thought in Pakistan and to promote the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. The movement has a well-known bad reputation for using violence against Pakistan's Sunni majority. To be more discreet, in 1994 changed the name to Tehreek-e-Jaferia. An ideological schism split the movement into two groups. One is headed by Hamid Musawi, a follower of Ayatollah Sheriate-Madari. The other is led by Arif Husseini. The TJP under Allama Arif Husseini experienced a structural evolution from that of a religious orientation to a more political one. This development was interrupted by the murder of Allama Husseini in 1988 in Peshawar. The movement blamed President Zia-ul-Haq, launching vigorous protests and developing a military angle.

The TJP seeks a society based on pure Shiite Islam. At the same time, it has stated its raison d'etre is jihad against Western imperialism. The TJP has two members in Parliament, so there is an institutional policy branch. There are also sectors that have strong emotional relationships with Iranian clerics.

The Tehreek-e-Jaferia Pakistan, led by Allama Syed Sajid Ali Naqvi, is extremely well organized. It is generally the cause of terror for the bulk of the Sunni population of Pakistan. The Shiite-Sunni violence started in 1980. It was boosted by the return of thousands of mujahideen returning from Afghanistan in glory and honour. Initially, this made them very recognizable among the general population. But, gradually TJP began to carry out acts of extreme violence, murder (including Iranian diplomats) and the subsequent revenge/counter-revenge. Thus, interfactional violence and the murder of leadership became commonplace. TJP has been opposed by the Sunni Sipah-e-Muhammad militia since 1990. It was founded by Maulana Mureed Abbas Yazdani. Today, there exists a near-civil war between the two, which has taken place in any religious place or crowded plaza in Pakistan.

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), is a Sunni Deobandi terrorist group. It was founded in 1996 as a separate branch of the radical Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which was inspired by the ideologue Maulana Jhangvi. Riaz Basra and Akram Lahori led the group at its inception. The group was outlawed by President Pervez Musharraf in 2001. The goal of the LeJ is to transform Pakistan into a Sunni Muslim state.

Its Saale-i-Aala (commanding officer) is Muhammad Ajmal, AKA Akram Lahori. Before this post, he was the leader of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP). But in 1996, along with Malik Ishaque and Riaz Basra, he founded the LeJ, which immediately began terrorist activities in Punjab, Sindh and other parts of Pakistan. They maintain close ties to the Taliban and the most sinister groups within Afghanistan. They control heroin trafficking and handle huge amounts of business.

The LeJ clashes with the TJP; thus, its attacks on the Embassy of Iran and the murder of Iranian diplomats. The deaths at the hands of the LeJ, currently surpasses 300 per year.

The LeJ clashes with police pass unnoticed by those already accustomed to same. And while the police have succeeded in capturing many leaders, like the hydra, the group grows ten heads for each lopped off. The LeJ seems to be multiplying and growing at an unstoppable rate.

The incredible thing is that the group, despite all its atrocities, enjoys popular support and the respect of many ideologues, given the fact that it is made up of resistance heroes that drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Consequently, their level military and tactical capabilities are tremendous. The LeJ is organized into attack cells of 5-8 terrorists who are known only to themselves and who have no contact with the leadership.

It is thought that the military force of the LeJ is nearly 3000 Muslim guerrillas, who have high-level training and are completely capable of suicide attacks.

The LeJ operations center is Muridke (Sheikhupura) and Kabirwal. They also have training camps in Sarobi Dam, Kabul, Afghanistan. That faction specializes in the war against the United States. The training ranges from 4 to 8 weeks in which they are taught to use explosives, automatic weapons, and all kinds of techniques of infiltration and terrorist activities. The LeJ is allied with any terrorist groups seeking the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir, such as the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM).

The LeJ is responsible for numerous attacks on and massacres of Shiites. It has also has killed 70 doctors and 34 judges, a number of Ulema, dozens of teachers and students. The LeJ is the worst enemy of everything Shiite or Iranian. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is regarded as the worst cancer that affects Pakistani society. In 1999, the LeJ widely publicized its offer to pay 135 million rupees to whomever killed Nawaz Sharief, the prime minister.

The LeJ has created a very long list of deaths. It is the definitely the group that has caused more deaths in the whole region of South Asia. The number of crimes committed surpassing 100,000.


Comentarios

NOTA: como parte de su misión de promover el debate informado, respetuoso, tolerante e inclusivo, que permita vincular la labor de nuestro Congreso Nacional con la ciudadanía, la BCN se reserva el derecho de omitir comentarios y opiniones que pudieren afectar el respeto a la dignidad de las personas o instituciones, en pos de una sana convivencia democrática.

Videos AP

Selección de videos sobre Asia Pacífico