Following months of shelling by Indian army at Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent his Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar to Islamabad recently. It was not an exclusive visit but a part of a series of visits to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries.

India had abruptly cancelled peace talks last year. The scheduled parley was cancelled by an infuriated Indian government last August when Pakistan consulted Indian-administered Kashmiri leaders before talks.

Both nuclear-armed neighbours were close to reaching a solution to the Kashmir dispute, courtesy backchannel diplomacy initiated by Gen Pervez Musharraf during his tenure. It could not materialise as overly cautious India slowed down the process, and the idea fizzled out. And Jaishankar’s tour didn’t prove more than a courtesy call instead of an effort to resolve issues pending for the last several decades.

And this does not include only the flashpoint in South Asia – the Kashmir issue. There are other burning issues that need to be discussed and are overdue, especially since Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Modi could not hold a bilateral meeting at SAARC summit last November.

India has long been harping on about terrorism by Pakistan. And this is despite that in a diplomatic cable by US Ambassador Timothy Roemer, the Congress Party leader, Rahul Gandhi, had told that “the bigger threat (to India) may be the growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community.”

If New Delhi is sincere about peace and eliminating terrorism, it must see things through unbiased lens. Curbing terrorism should be done on a reciprocal basis. This is important if one takes into consideration the events of the past decade.

Terrorism must be on top of the agenda. It is time India stopped playing a victim at the same time sponsoring terrorist proxies from Afghanistan to create havoc in Pakistan, which has lost 60,000 lives in terrorism.

There is a history of terror acts in India which later proved to be either an inside job or a complete hoax. After scathing attacks on Pakistan by the Indian government accusing it of Parliament attack in 2001 and then Mumbai attack in 2008, an Indian whistle-blower blamed New Delhi for orchestrating the attacks. R.V.S. Mani, the former home ministry official, submitted to a court that according to investigator Satish Verma, the two attacks were pre-planned by the Indian government to make stricter anti-terrorism laws. Now that may not have ‘proved’ it as a false flag attack, statement by the Indian officials in the court has made the scenario questionable.

There have also been voices, including a minority affairs minister’s statement in the Indian Parliament, who has indicated duplicity of the Indian government in Mumbai attack case.

India’s accusation against Pakistan of an attack on Samjhauta Express (a train service between Pakistan and India) in 2007 also proved a hoax. Of 68 passengers killed in the bomb blast, most of them were Pakistanis, yet India blamed Islamabad for the massacre.

Eventually, Swami Aseemanand, a leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – a Hindu extremist outfit, confessed he was involved in the train bombing, and attacks on mosques in Malegaon in Maharashtra state and Andhra Pradesh state capital, Hyderabad, and a shrine in Ajmer in Rajasthan. Ironically, RSS has close ties to the Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

While India has refused to share details of the probe into Samjhauta Express attack with Pakistan, the Indian police accused an Indian army officer, Lt-Col P.S. Purohit of being involved in train and mosques bombings. Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence has often been accused by India of patronising anti-India extremists such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Now do we see a nexus between Hindu ‘saffron terrorism’ and the Indian military against Muslims/Pakistan, considering Lt-Col Purohit’s involvement in the bombings?

If former Indian spymaster Ajit Doval’s ‘defensive-offence’ strategy, and Indian military’s ‘Cold Start’ doctrine are not enough proofs of Indian covert and overt designs for pro-India lobby, it should at least pay heed to former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel’s remarks.

Hagel in his 2011 speech at an American university did not mince words in saying: “India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border. And you can carry that into many dimensions.” More than a hundred sub-consular offices established by India in Afghanistan are suspected of being Indian intelligence outposts used for covert operations against Pakistan.

Echoing Hagel’s words, Pakistan Army and the government officials have now categorically named New Delhi for fomenting separatist terrorism in the restive Balochistan province and even terrorism in the northern parts of the country. The Peshawar massacre of 132 schoolchildren on Dec 16 last year by Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan is believed to be the handiwork of the Indian intelligence.

And recently the ‘Pakistani terror boat’ drama ended on yet another embarrassing note for India. The Indian government had earlier stated that the crew destroyed the boat when it was ordered to stop on New Year’s eve in Indian waters. The Deputy Inspector-General of the Indian Coast Guard, B.K. Loshali, recently contradicted the statement, saying he ordered the coast guard to blow up the boat, saying “we don’t want to serve them biryani (a sumptuous dish made of rice and meat).” Red-faced, Indian government relieved Loshali of his command who now faces an inquiry.

And recently Indian special public prosecutor, Ujjwal Nikam, who represented the state in Mumbai terror case, admitted that he wrongly accused the Pakistani convict Ajmal Kasab of asking for mutton biryani only to “divert people’s attention” from Kasab’s emotional state during the trial. Nikam’s false statement created hatred towards Kasab and a media hype and “why feed them biryani” became the catchphrase.

Pakistan has already banned LeT and recently Jamaatud Dawa, a sister organisation of LeT, saying there are no good or bad Taliban. Most recently, the new Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed has given credit to Pakistan and the militants for peaceful elections in the state. According to Mufti, the elections could never have been held had the militants (considered Pakistani proxies by the Indians) created problems.

As there is already a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s security strategy, it is now India’s turn to overhaul its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan and to realise that terrorism as an instrument of state policy cannot bring peace.

If Modi is serious about having peace with Pakistan, that could also bring tranquillity to the region, then there is ample diplomatic opportunity. Pakistan and India had an agreement over Siachen in 1989, but Modi and his predecessors are dragging their feet being influenced by the Indian army which does not want the deal implemented. Likewise, the Sir Creek issue can also be resolved as new survey maps of the area have been prepared and exchanged, but this agreement is pending as well. The resolution of these two issues could be a big game changer and pave the way for the solution of major disputes – Kashmir and controversial dam construction by India, which may leave Pakistani lands barren.

Pakistan should, however, not deal with India keeping in mind its new ‘special relationship’ with the US, which has been lately showering praise on and favouring India by signing partnership deals. If there are no permanent friends and foes in international relations – and the US and India have proved that – then Pakistan should follow suit. Islamabad can cement its ties with Russia and bolster its older friendships with China and Iran. US-Indo partnership should not hamper conflict resolution involving Pakistan and India.

The ball is now in Modi’s court. The political ground is fertile to resolve long-drawn issues. It is time New Delhi took the initiative with out-of-the-box approach instead of sending a messenger to Pakistan for laying further diplomatic landmines, if that is what Modi had in his mind.

But things will never change unless the West also checks its double standards and insatiable obsession and love for India. India has been the favourite of the West for quite a long time, especially the US, mainly because it is being used as a counterweight to China. While the West leaves no opportunity of Pakistan bashing for terrorism, anything said against Indian hegemonic designs, machinations and interventions in the South Asian region raises concerns in the West.

India is seen as a ‘peaceful’ state by the West despite its bellicose jingoism and Hindutva. Accusations against India of having hegemonic designs cannot be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’ any more. Carrots for India and sticks for Pakistan from the West would be an impediment to peace in the region. The West needs to review its foreign policies if it is really sincere in bringing stability to South Asia.

Shazad Ali is a researcher and analyst who specialises in geo-political affairs, exlusively for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.  

The so-called ‘20th hijacker’, in his recent testimony in a lawsuit alleging Saudi involvement in the attacks, has accused members of the Saudi royal family of funding Al Qaeda to carry out the catastrophic New York and Washington attacks.

Among the most influential Saudi royal family members accused by Moussaoui of funding the terror attacks are Prince Turki al-Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who served as Saudi ambassador to the US, and Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor. The three princes have deep ties with the US and Prince Bandar is even known as ‘Bandar Bush’ for being close to Bush family and the ‘toast of Washington’.

The former Al Qaeda operative, serving life sentence in a US prison, claims he even discussed a plan with a diplomat in the Saudi embassy in Washington to shoot down Air Force One with Bill and Hillary Clinton on board. Saudi Arabia has rubbished these claims, saying “Moussaoui is a deranged criminal with no credibility.”

This is not the first time the Saudi royal family has been under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Not only the families of the 9/11 victims, but the US lawmakers have also accused Saudi royal family of having tacit alliance with Al Qaeda and being involved in attacks.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wants the 28 pages of Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks declassified only to ‘demystify’ the notion of a Saudi conspiracy.

But Democrat Stephen Lynch, who has read the classified pages in 2002, former Democrat Senator Bob Graham, a leader of the congressional inquiry and chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, and John Lehman, a 9/11 commission member, want the suppressed pages disclosed on moral grounds and in public interest. Graham sees “a direct line between some of the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.”

Prince Bandar is believed to be one of the beneficiaries of £40 billion Al-Yamamah deal with largest British military conglomerate, BAE Systems. The deal was made by the Margaret Thatcher’s government with Saudi Arabia in 1985.

According to Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), Prince Bandar is believed to have received millions of dollars into his Riggs Bank account in Washington in corrupt commissions from ostensibly oil-for-arms barter deal.

However, EIR alleges, hundreds of billions of dollars were squirreled away in offshore bank accounts. These slush funds, according to EIR, have been bankrolling terrorism since then. Some of the money was funnelled to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers – Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi – from Prince Bandar’s account.

BBC investigations also revealed that £120 million was sent by BAE Systems to two accounts of Saudi embassy in Washington. But Prince Bandar, who has denied being involved in corruption, was withdrawing the money for his personal use which was actually meant for the Saudi government.

Ironically, British Prime Minister Tony Blair asked the British Attorney General, Sir Peter Goldsmith, to close the Serious Fraud Office probe into the scandal in 2006. Blair had intervened saying it would lead to “the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs.”

The British prime minister ordered the closure of the investigation soon after Swiss authorities agreed to provide confidential information about one of the key Swiss-based slush funds, through which the money was believed to have been channeled to fund terror operations.

The newly-crowned Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has also been accused of supporting Al Qaeda and other extremist organisations in the lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims. He is also known for being close to kingdom’s Wahhabi clerical establishment.

Saudi Arabia has also been funding seminaries in Pakistan. The Saudi government has put the onus on the Pakistani foreign ministry, saying it funded seminaries, mosques and charities after ministry’s approval. Saudi Arabia is in a tight spot as, interestingly, Pakistani foreign office has refuted the claims, clarifying that it has no role in approval of financial assistance to seminaries and private individuals.

The question is: why Saudi Arabia funded these seminaries. This question is pertinent for Pakistan had health, education and several other cash-strapped sectors that needed financial assistance badly. Instead, Saudi government chose to fund seminaries.

Even if the Saudi government did not provide funding to Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission report has not ruled out the possibility that some charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to Al Qaeda. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton in a leaked cable has vehemently said that donors in Saudi Arabia have been the major source of funding for terrorist groups worldwide.

But there is a strange paradox – while Saudi Arabia is being accused of supporting terrorists clandestinely, the kingdom is one of the major US allies in its ‘war on terror’.

In this context, Moussaoui’s statement seems to be the key to understanding this conundrum. Saudi Arabia may consider Moussaoui as a “deranged criminal”, but 46-yeard-old French citizen, who was diagnosed with delusional paranoid schizophrenia, was declared medically fit to stand trial in 2006. The former Al Qaeda operative has described Saudi government as a two-headed snake, saying House of Saud cannot survive without appeasing the extremist Wahhabi religious establishment.

Saudi royals fear an Al Qaeda backlash against it for being a US ally. For this, they need protection, but as they fear dissidents among the ranks of the Saudi army, the royal family doesn’t trust its army. Instead, it is guarded by the US military and its intelligence.

It is the US military-industrial complex that is involved here. Saudis acquire US weapons to buy the allegiance and security, although these weapons either gather rust in warehouses or are used by US mercenaries. US dependence on Saudi oil has also played a major role in the alliance. Then there is Iranian‘Shia threat’ to Saudi Arabia. This Saudi concern dovetails with the US interest.

Even if Saudis are not directly involved in funding terrorists, at least money is being transferred from private Saudi organisations to extremists. Isn’t it complicity or incompetence of the Saudi intelligence that it has failed to locate and stop the source of funding to these terrorist groups? However, it is not difficult to fathom why the US doesn’t swing its truncheon to tame Saudi Arabia as it does elsewhere – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now in Syria. And this soft stance for Riyadh is despite the fact that 15 out of 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudis.

The US must realise that although breaking up this unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia might hurt America’s pocketbook, it would still survive. If one takes into consideration lofty American ideals and Saudi Arabia’s despotic regime, this marriage of convenience is surely a moral blemish. Like it must end US-Israel nexus, Washington must break up the alliance with Riyadh as well.

The US military interventions and support for totalitarian regimes, especially in the Muslim countries, will only result in more anti-America sentiment. It will not only make Americans a target of terrorism but will fuel international terrorism.

George W. Bush refused to make public those 28 pages and now President Barack Obama has reneged on his promise of revealing the secret content of the report to safeguard ‘national interests’. The US government has recently officially conceded CIA’s involvement in torturing suspected terrorists. Now it is time those redacted 28 pageswere declassified, especially when the Saudis have also called for declassifying them. On the other hand, Britain must re-open the probe into Al-Yamamah scam.

Moussaoui’s allegations and voices from different quarters indicating Saudi involvement in funding terror may be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’ for challenging the political consensus is a conspiracy theory in the Western world. But only declassifying the 28 pages and a fair and thorough investigation into Al-Yamamah deal will not only put to rest these ‘conspiracy theories’, if they really are, but will also help to kill the fire-breathing chimera of international terrorism.

Shazad Ali is a researcher and analyst who specialises in geo-political affairs, exlusively for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.