Salala Attack Revisited: By Sajjad Shaukat (JR84SS3)

Salala Attack Revisited: By Sajjad Shaukat (JR84SS3)

On 26th of November 2011, the US-led NATO forces attacked two Pakistani check-posts on Pak-Afghan border and martyred 24 Pakistani military personnel indiscriminately.

In this regard, two American Apache helicopters and two F-15 Eagle fighter jets targeted the two Pakistani posts, Boulder and Volcano, situated at Salala in the Baizai tehsil of Mohmand Agency. The airstrike was carried out in two phases.

Notably, the aerial attack was coordinated and deliberate, its second phase carried out by American forces after the Pakistan Army informed the ISAF command that their forces were attacking Pakistani troops–and despite this information, it continued.

In this context, a NATO inquiry said that both sides had made mistakes. Pakistan categorically rejected the inquiry report. It had earlier refused to be part of a joint inquiry. Top Pakistan Army officials denied the attack was unintentional.

Reacting to the Salala attack, Pakistan blocked the NATO ground lines of communication to Afghanistan and demanded an apology before the supply line would be unblocked.

Pakistan’s parliament unanimously approved recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) in connection with the re-engagement with the United States. Besides other matters, the recommendations included an immediate cessation of drone attacks and infiltration into Pakistani territory, entailing some conditions regarding supply to NATO forces in Afghanistan across the country. Besides, Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for November 26, 2011 unprovoked Salala check-posts assault.

Meanwhile, a number of American diplomats including NATO chief had visited Islamabad and met the then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, asking them for re-opening the NATO routes. Setting aside the American pressure, they reiterated that parliament in light of the PCNS recommendations and the Defence Committee of Cabinet would decide on the issue of NATO supply, after negotiating new relationship with the US, based upon equality and non-violation of Pakistani territory.

When Pakistan government remained stern on its stand by keeping the NATO supply lines suspended for the six months in wake of US pressure tactics, on May 10, 2012, the United States House Armed Services Committee approved a bill that would prohibit the preferential procurement of goods or services from Pakistan until the “NATO supply lines are reopened.”

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested on May 11, 2012 that Pakistan could miss out on important talks on the future of Afghanistan, if it failed to reopen supply routes in time to secure a place at a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21, 2012. Indirectly, he disclosed that Pakistan would not be invited to participate in the summit.

On the other side, Prime Minister Gilani confirmed that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, would debate as to how to repair relations with America in time to attend the NATO summit in Chicago or to boycott it. While, the British Defence Minister Phillip Hamond stated that negotiations on restoration of the NATO supply is progressing in the right direction, but Pakistan would not accept any pre-condition.

In these terms, Pak-US war of nerves accelerated due to American coercive diplomacy towards Islamabad coupled with its double game. In this regard, after the 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan joined the US war against terrorism as frontline state and Islamabad was granted the status of non-NATO ally by Washington because of its earlier successes achieved by Pakistan’s Army and country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against the Al-Qaeda militants.

Within a few years, when the US-led NATO forces felt that they were failing in coping with the stiff resistance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they started false allegations against Pak Army and ISI of supporting the Afghan Taliban. US high officials and their media not only blamed Pakistan for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, but also continuously emphasized to ‘do more’ against the insurgents in tribal areas by ignoring the internal backlash in the country such as bomb blasts and suicide attacks which killed thousands of innocent people and personnel of the security.

Cold war had already started between Pakistan and the United States when hundreds of CIA agents entered Pakistan under the guise of diplomats to destabilize the country. On January 11, 2011, Raymond Davis who was CIA agent killed two Pakistanis in Lahore.

Since May 2, 2011, Pak-US relations further deteriorated when without informing Islamabad, US commandos killed Osama Bin Laden in a covert military operation. Afterwards, tension intensified, as America continued its duress on Pakistan in wake of drone attacks on FATA, while brushing aside parliament’s resolution in this respect.

Differences also increased between Islamabad and Washington, because Pakistan’s superior agency, ISI interrupted covert activities of the American so-called diplomats. Notably, ISI thwarted the anti-Pakistan activities of the agents of Blackwater and CIA which had started recruiting Pakistani nationals who were vulnerable. In this connection, with the pre-information of ISI, Pakistan’s police and other security agencies arrested a number of secret agents. On many occasions, ISI helped in stopping the clandestine activities of the CIA spies who were displaying themselves as diplomats. On the information of this top spy agency, Pakistan’s establishment expelled several American spies operating in the country. On the other side, US withheld $800 million in military aid to punish its army and ISI.

It was due to the professional competence of ISI in foiling the anti-Pakistan plot that US and India including their media accelerated deliberate propaganda against ISI.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the November 26 incident in Mohmand Agency, Pakistan’s bold steps such as vacation of the Shamsi Airbase, boycott the second Bonn Conference and rejection of the US investigation report regarding the deliberate attack on Salala Army check-posts accelerated tension between Islamabad and Washington.

Some American top officials accused Pakistan-based Haqqani militants behind the well-coordinated attacks in Afghanistan, which occurred on April 15, 2012. US aim was to pressurize Islamabad for restoration of the NATO transit routes.

It is  that confused in their goals, sometimes US high officials praised Pak sacrifices regarding war on terror, sometimes, admitted that stability cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan after the withdrawal of foreign troops, sometimes, threatened Islamabad to abandon the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project and sometimes, realized that US wants to improve its relationship with Pakistan, but at the same time, they blame Islamabad for safe-havens of militants in the country. While in connivance with India and Israel, America has been continuing its anti-Pakistan activities by supporting militancy in Pakistan and separatism in Balochistan.

Nonetheless, after the Salala incident, Pak-US war of nerves continued, it took the relationship of both the countries to the point of no return. On July 3, 2012, Defence Committee of the Cabinet permitted NATO supplies across the country to Afghanistan after the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 by American air strike on Slalala check posts by saying “sorry”.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Refocus on Mumbai Attacks (JR84SS2) By Sajjad Shaukat

                                                

Refocus on Mumbai Attacks (JR84SS2) By Sajjad Shaukat

On November 26, 2008, several persons were killed in the simultaneous terror attacks in Mumbai. Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media had started blaming Pakistan.

Mumbai attack was just another false flag operation of Indian establishment to gain sympathies of world community and defame Pakistan in the comity of nations. The whole drama was staged to put blame Pakistan and its intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

It is notable that renowned thinkers, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau opine that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud and falsehood to fulfil their countries’ selfish aims. But such a sinister politics was replaced by new trends such as fair-dealings, reconciliation and economic development. Regrettably, India is still following past politics in modern era.

Under the cover of the Mumbai catastrophe, India began a deliberate propaganda campaign against Pakistan and tried to isolate the latter in the comity of nations by showing that Islamabad was sponsoring terrorism in India. In this regard, Indian former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and its other high officials, while repeating old rhetoric of baseless allegations, stated that Pakistan has “epicentre of terrorism” and Islamabad should “end infrastructure of terrorism.” L.K. Advani, leader of the BJP, while accusing Pakistan as the hotbed of terror in the region, said that Pakistan’s secret agency ISI should be declared a terror outfit.

In this respect, Indian top officials and TV channels had remarked that Indian Mujahideen and the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT) based in Pakistan and ISI were behind the Mumbai terror attacks. With the assistance of Indian secret agency RAW, Indian investigators fabricated a false story that 10 terrorists who executed Mumbai carnage came in a boat from Karachi and were in contact with the members of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba through phone calls. But a number of questions arise in relation to the so-called links, deliberately entangling Pakistan. First, how it is possible that the militants phoned 100 times inside Pakistan, but they did not call their families? Second, the lonely gunman Ajmal Kasab who was arrested, knew his address and why he did not indicate the names and home addresses of other 9 fugitives with whom he lived for a long time? Third, after the hard journey of more than 50 hours, travelling on the slow moving water, evading 20 coastal guards of Indian Navy, how they reached Mumbai? Fourth, where did they change their muddy shoes and wet dresses? Fifth, how it became possible that they immediately hired a taxi and reached their targets, without taking some rest? Sixth, why the terrorists killed only four people at the Nariman house, sparing the other six guys present there?

Availing the pretext of the Mumbai catastrophe, New Delhi had suspended the process of ‘composite dialogue’ in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilisation of troops. Islamabad had also taken defensive steps to meet any Indian prospective aggression or surgical strikes. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Pakistan also possesses atomic weapons.

However, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks, Indian rulers had started blackmailing Islamabad that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of Mumbai mayhem. New Delhi urged Islamabad to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Rejecting Pakistan’s stand that its government or any official agency was not involved in the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi wanted to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since our rulers admitted that Ajmal Kasab was Pakistani national. In fact, Islamabad’s admission which had emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US. And, Ajmal Kasab was tortured by the Indian intelligence agencies so as to endorse Indian false story against Islamabad, while giving statement in an Indian court. Suppose, even if he was Pakistani, it did not matter because he was a non-state actor, as non-state actors like smugglers and the militants are found in many countries.

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

It has clearly proved that Indian secret agencies; particularly RAW arranged coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai and orchestrated that drama only to defame Pakistan in the world, but also to fulfil a number of other sinister aims.

As a matter of fact, a lack of seriousness on India’s part to settle all disputes, especially Kashmir issue has compelled New Delhi to follow a self-contradictory and confused strategy towards Islamabad.

Hence, New Delhi earnestly found various pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the blame to Islamabad. For example, besides Mumbai attacks, in 2002, under the pretension of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India postponed the dialogue process.

In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab.

Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned militant outfits and intelligence agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that the attackers are from Indian-held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while Indian Punjab police chief claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified. Contradicting speculations, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the gunmen came from Pakistan.

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

Besides, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi, Indian intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting that a Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the boat on fire and it exploded. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, because, some Indian high officials admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

Similarly, India orchestrated the drama of militants’ attack at Indian Air Force Base in Pathankot on January 2, 2016. Indian media and top civil and military officials started claiming that the attackers had arrived from Pakistani Punjab’s Bahawalpur district, and had links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and ISI. But, despite Islamabad’s cooperation with New Delhi like formation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consisting of professionals to investigate the Pathankot attack, crackdown against the militant group Jaish-i-Mohammad—lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) in relation to the incident, India failed in providing any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the Pathankot episode.

Indian authorities did not cooperate with Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team which visited India to probe into Pathankot attack. The JIT members visited Pathankot Airbase on March 29 where Indian National Investigation Agency officials briefed and showed them the route from where the attackers stormed the airbase. In fact, besides fulfilling other sinister designs against Pakistan, New Delhi staged that drama to postpone secretary-level talks with Pakistan, which were scheduled to be held in Islamabad on January 15, 2016.

Sources said that the lights along the 24-km perimeter wall of the Pathankot airbase found to be faulty on the eve of the attack. The Pakistani investigators were allowed to enter the military airbase from the narrow adjacent routes instead of main entrance and their duration of the visit was just 55 minutes, enough to take a mere walk through the airbase. The JIT could not collect evidence in this limited time. And the visiting team was only informed about the negligence of Boarder Security Force (BSF) and Indian forces. It was disclosed that at the time of the assault, the BSF was sleeping, even though they had been alerted of a possible attack 48 hours earlier.

India’s orchestrated drama of the Pathankot incident could also be judged from the fact that earlier, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had stated in confusion that New Delhi would not allow access to the JIT into the base, though it was allowed on very limited scale to fulfill the formality. It can undermine the seriousness of bilateral commitments to find the truth.

Continuing false flag operations, on September, 2016, India also staged the drama of the terror attack in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) at a military base in Uri, close to the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan.

Like the previous terrorism-related events, without any investigation, Indian media, civil and military high officials started blaming LeT and ISI, saying that the militants who target the Uri base came from Pakistan’s side of Azad Kashmir. In this regard, a senior Home Ministry official and a spokesman of the Indian army allegedly said, “It is clearly a case of cross-border terror attack…the militants infiltrated across the Line of Control from Pakistan before attacking the base in Uri.”

The situation developed in the aftermath of the Uri base terror assault like creation of Indian war hysteria against Pakistan, mobilisation of troops near the LoC, exposure of the myth of Indian surgical strikes inside Azad Kashmir, differences between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Country’s Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Sing about the ‘fake video’ of this episode, criticism Modi government inside India, continuous violations at the LoC, targeting villages of Azad Kashmir etc., and diversion of attention from the new phase of uprising in the Indian held Kashmir where Indian security forces have martyred more than 600 innocent Kashmiris since July 8, 2016, who have been protesting against the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfew have clearly proved that with the help of Indian intelligence agencies, especially RAW, India has itself arranged the Uri base assault not only to defame Pakistan abroad, but also to achieve a number of sinister designs.

Nevertheless, all these terror attacks were planned by Indian security agencies to distort image of Pakistan and its primary intelligence agency, ISI, linking it with the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba. In these terms, coordinated terror assaults of November 26, 2008 in Mumbai were part of the same Indian scheme.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com