Daily Times

The $10 million US bounty for information leading to the arrest of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JD) chief Hafiz Saeed has injected a new destabilising element in the tense Pakistan-US ties in the wake of the Salala attack. The Foreign Office spokesman has rejected the demand, calling upon the US to provide “concrete evidence” that can stand the rigours of judicial scrutiny. India, however, has welcomed the announcement, though there is a legal lacuna that the bounty law is applicable only in the US. Hafiz Saeed has been accused of masterminding the November 2008 Mumbai bloodbath in which 166 people, including six American citizens, were killed. His subsequent arrest and trial however, yielded an acquittal from the Lahore High Court for lack of evidence. It is evident that our courts’ hands are tied if no credible evidence or witnesses are available. The former may be difficult to obtain given that our sleuths are not renowned for competence and also because people of Hafiz Saeed’s ilk have powerful protectors and friends in the intelligence community, which sees them as ‘strategic assets’. The latter are usually too frightened, or frightened off by open threats from organisations wedded to extremist jihad. The ordinary law of the land, to which the courts must adhere, has no answers for terrorists or terrorism. Facing terrorism of all sorts as Pakistan is, our political parties and legislatures have yet to wake up to the need for emergency laws that can tackle the extraordinary situation the country finds itself in. That is why Hafiz Saeed, after his acquittal, has been emboldened enough to set up the Defence of Pakistan Council, of which he is the moving spirit and financier. Significantly, according to the US State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner, the bounty announcement is so far based only on intelligence reports of Saeed’s culpability, which the US government will now bolster with “concrete evidence”. The Indians allege that the attack was masterminded by the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT). Hafiz Saeed’s visible public presence these days is perhaps one of the factors in this new development of the announcement of a bounty at this time.

The Foreign Office spokesman, in a rebuttal, has argued that Hafiz Saeed can be tried and convicted only on the basis of watertight evidence. It seems that the announcement of the ‘bounty’, and that too on Indian soil, was meant to send a signal to Pakistan to act against the terrorist organisation and also further strengthen the post-9/11 India-US collaboration. Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides’ current charm offensive in Islamabad is intended to put the US-Pakistan relationship on an even keel. One thing is for sure: Washington can no longer take Musharraf-like compliance from Pakistan for granted. The bounty announcement could well be intended to scare Hafiz Saeed to back down on JD’s tough stand on the reopening of the NATO supply route to Afghanistan, which was closed in the wake of the Salala attack. The move enjoyed the full backing of parliament. It seems that the 40-member religious party alliance, the Defence of Pakistan Council, is determined to capitalise on the bounty issue to up the ante against the government. The wisest course for the government is not to let the initiative slip into the hands of jihadis, of whatever hue. Announcing bounties and other such steps could backfire, as the jihadis may try to play the ‘victim’ card. The international community needs to extend a helping hand to the forces in Pakistan opposed to jihadi extremism and their mentors and backers, the military and intelligence establishment. *