Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:29:44.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State agency in the time of the global war on terror: India and the counter-terrorism regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2010

KARTHIKA SASIKUMAR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evolving international counter-terrorism regime obliges and permits countries to make changes in their domestic and foreign policies. At the same time, policy-makers in national capitals respond creatively to the global regime. By examining India's response to the evolving international regime on terrorism, I will demonstrate the mechanism through which the regime is influencing Indian policy: by setting up an identity that the country can aspire to. Further, by highlighting the leveraging of regime norms by the Indian state to further its own projects, I will show that states are not restricted to either passively receiving and complying with international norms on the one hand, or rejecting them on the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 615 - 638
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Krasner, Stephen, ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, in Krasner, Stephen (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 1Google Scholar .

2 Tardy, Thierry, ‘The Inherent Difficulties of Interinstitutional Cooperation’, in Boulden, Jane and Weiss, Thomas G. (eds), Terrorism and the UN (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004)Google Scholar .

3 Gray, Colin, ‘World Politics as Usual after September 11: Realism Vindicated’, in Booth, Ken and Dunne, Tim (eds), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002)Google Scholar .

4 Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43, 1 (1999), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

5 Ibid.

6 Schmid, Alex Peter, Political Terrorism: A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Databases, and Literature (Amsterdam and New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1983)Google Scholar .

7 Higgins, Rosalyn, ‘The General International Law of Terrorism’, in Higgins, Rosalyn and Flory, Maurice (eds), Terrorism and International Law (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

8 The original effort, led by the US, had been to formulate a convention that would inter alia define terrorism, but this failed and culminated instead in the 1972 resolution. van Ginkel, Bibi T., ‘The UN: Towards a Comprehensive Convention on Combating Terrorism’, in van Leeuwen, Marianne (ed.), Confronting Terrorism : European Experiences, Threat Perceptions and Policies (The Hague: Kluwer International, 2003), p. 213Google Scholar .

9 Perera, Amrith Rohan, International Terrorism (Delhi: Vikas, 1997), p. 49Google Scholar ; Reisman, Michael W., ‘International Legal Responses to Terrorism’, Houston Journal of International Law (1999), p. 23Google Scholar .

10 Luck, Edward C., ‘Tackling Terrorism’, in Malone, David M. (ed.), The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century (Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 2004), p. 98Google Scholar ; Schoenberg, Harris O., Combating Terrorism: The Role of the UN (Wayne, NJ: Center for UN Reform Education, 2003), p. 22Google Scholar .

11 Murphy, John F., ‘Future of Multilateralism and Efforts to Combat International Terrorism’, Columbia Journal of International Law, 25:1 (1986), p. 99Google Scholar .

12 Schoenberg, Combating Terrorism: The Role of the UN, p. 40.

13 Misra, K. P., Nonaligned Movement: India's Chairmanship (Delhi: Lancer, 1987), p. 47Google Scholar .

14 Peterson, M. J., ‘Using the General Assembly’, in Boulden, Jane and Weiss, Thomas G. (eds),Terrorism and the UN (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004), pp. 81, 89, 175–176Google Scholar .

15 Obote-Odora, Alex, ‘Defining International Terrorism’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 6:1 (1999)Google Scholar .

16 Reisman, ‘International Legal Responses to Terrorism’, p. 25.

17 It has been suggested that SC 1373's lack of a definition of terrorism was vital to its promulgation. However, in 2004, the SC quietly came close to defining terrorism in Resolution 1566: ‘criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature […]’, available at: {http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html}.

18 Stiles, Kendall W. and Thayne, Adam, ‘Compliance with International Law: International Law on Terrorism at the UN', Cooperation and Conflict, 41:2 (2006), p. 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

19 Anon, ‘Shri Jaswant Singh's Interview with Financial Times', Statesman (10 February 2001)Google Scholar .

20 Omar Abdullah, ‘Press Conference’, Ministry of External Affairs (2 October 2001 [cited 11 November 2003]); available at: {http://www.mea.gov.in/mediainteraction/2001/10/02mi01.htm}.

21 Pillai, M. G. G., ‘Just for Nam's Sake’, Outlook (10 March 2003), pp. 40–41Google Scholar .

22 The ‘root causes’ argument has been similarly discredited. Critics claim that it gives aid and comfort to terrorists, and also point to the absence of correlations between terrorism and a ‘root cause’ such as poverty.

23 Brown, Chris, ‘Reflections on the War on Terror, 2 Years On’, International Politics, 41:1 (2004), p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

24 Price, Richard, ‘The League of Nations Redux’, in Price, Richard and Zacher, Mark (eds), The UN and Global Security (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 270Google Scholar .

25 The Annex to the 1972 Ad Hoc Committee's Report features the demands of the Nonaligned Group of 14 of which India was a member. GAOR: 28th Session, Supplement #28 (A/9028), UN, New York (1973).

26 Permanent Mission of India to the UN, ‘Statement by Mr. A. Gopinathan, Deputy Permanent Representative on the UN Sixth Committee's Ad Hoc Committee’, Permanent Mission of India to the UN (17 March 2003 [cited 22 October 2003]), available at: {www.un.int/india/ind1090.pdf}.

27 Atal Behari Vajpayee, ‘Prime Minister Vajpayee's Address to the 56th Session of the UN General Assembly’ (10 November 2001), available at: {http://meaindia.nic.in/speech/2001/11/10spc01.htm}.

28 AALCO, ‘International Terrorism’ (New Delhi: Asian African Legal Consultative Committee, 2001), pp. 9, 11.

29 Embassy of India, ‘Working Document Submitted by India on the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism’, Embassy of India (cited 12 December 2005), available at: {http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Terrorism/draft_convention.htm}.

30 A Contact Group was established that came very close to resolving the conflict over applicability of the CCIT to armed conflict but the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) torpedoed the negotiations by demanding that the reference to ‘armed forces during a conflict’ be changed to ‘parties’ to make non-state groups equally exempt from the scope of the convention. Rietjens, P., ‘The Role and Attitude of the E.U. Regarding a Comprehensive Terrorism Convention’, in Fijnaut, Cyrille, Wouters, Jan, and Naert, Frederik (eds), Legal Instruments in the Fight against Transnational Terrorism: A Transatlantic Dialogue (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004), p. 600Google Scholar . The OIC amendment asking for an exemption for attacks on occupying forces was opposed by Israel and the US. Varadarajan, Siddharth, ‘US and Israel Block India's Terror Draft’, Times of India (28 January 2002)Google Scholar .

31 Ad Hoc Committee, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee Established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996’ (New York: UN, 2007).

32 Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Strengthening Comprehensive Efforts to Combat Terrorism – Presentation by the Indian Delegation at the Bishkek International Conference’, Ministry of External Affairs (December 2001 [cited 11 October 2003]), available at: {http://www.mea.gov.in/}.

33 Higgins, ‘The General International Law of Terrorism’, p. 23.

34 Obote-Odora, ‘Defining International Terrorism’.

35 David Rochefort, ‘US Definitions of Terrorist States’, paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention, Honolulu (1–5 March 2005).

36 Penalties include political sanctions, suspension of military sales and foreign aid, bans on financial transactions, granting of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and second-order bans on other countries or commercial organisations doing business with those states.

37 In February 2003, when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the escalatory effect of his naming of North Korea as a terrorist state, he claimed that he was stating a ‘fact’ since it had been on the ‘terrorist state’ list for several years. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Wfld-Tv, US Department of Defense (6 February 2003 [cited 12 October 2005]), available at: {http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t206wfld.html}.

38 Alan B. Krueger and David Laitin, ‘“Misunderestimating” Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs (2004); Rochefort, ‘US Definitions of Terrorist States'.

39 Krishnaswami, Sridhar, ‘Jaswant Seeks Support against Terrorism’, Hindu (21 September 2000)Google Scholar .

40 Nayak, Polly, ‘Prospects for US-India Counterterrorism Cooperation: An American View’, in Ganguly, Sumit, Shoup, Brian, and Scobell, Andrew (eds), US-Indian Strategic Cooperation: Into the 21st Century (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 136Google Scholar .

41 Sawhney, V. K. Sood and Pravin, Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished (New Delhi: Sage, 2003), p. 34Google Scholar . In July 1993 Pakistan was taken off the watch list of state sponsors of terrorism. Raman, B., ‘Pakistani Sponsorship of Terrorism’, in Sondhi, M. L. (eds), Terrorism and Political Violence: A Sourcebook (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 2000), p. 61Google Scholar .

42 Author's interview with Kanti Bajpai, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (3 February 2003).

43 It has been suggested that India's Ministry of External Affairs, influenced by the American discourse, is more eager to cite ‘global Islamic terrorism’ than the Ministries of Home and Defence, which hold Pakistan directly culpable.

44 Aneja, Atul, ‘China May Share Intelligence on J&K, Northeast’, Hindu (25 January 2002)Google Scholar ; Guha, Seema, ‘Islamic Terrorism Worries India, Russia’, Times of India (18 August 1999)Google Scholar ; Amit Gupta, ‘The US-India Relationship: Strategic Partnership or Complementary Interest?’, (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, 2005); Mann, Poonam, ‘Fighting Terrorism: India and Central Asia’, Strategic Analysis, 26:11 (2001)Google Scholar .

45 Chellaney, Brahma, ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, International Security 26:3 (2001/02), p. 99Google Scholar . An ex-intelligence officer reveals that Indo-US cooperation on terrorism was kept a ‘deniable secret’ until 2000. Raman, B., ‘Indo-US Counter-Terrorism Cooperation: Past, Present and Future’, in Ganguly, Sumit, Shoup, Brian, and Scobell, Andrew (eds), US-Indian Strategic Cooperation: Into the 21st Century (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 160Google Scholar .

46 Richard Boucher, ‘US-India Counterterrorism Joint Working Group’, (Washington DC: 2002).

47 Cofer J. Black, ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’, US Department of State (30 April 2003 [cited 11 November 2005]), available at: {http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/20118.htm}.

48 Author's interview with Ashley Tellis, Washington DC (25 August 2005).

49 Mazumdar, Jaideep, ‘G.I. Joe Meets Mowgli’, Outlook (10 October 2005)Google Scholar ; US Consulate in Chennai, ‘Indian Police Officials Graduate US-Sponsored Antiterrorism Program’, US Consulate in Chennai (24 January 2006 [cited 4 August 2007]), available at: {http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/prind060124.html}.

50 Anon, ‘Israeli Experts in Kashmir to Assess Security Needs', Times of India (22 September 2000)Google Scholar ; Harman, Danna, ‘India Calls for Cooperation on Terrorism’, Jerusalem Post (3 July 2000)Google Scholar ; Ralph Nurnberger, ‘Indian-Israeli-US Nexus Seen in Fight against Terror’, News India (4 January 2002 [cited 2 October 2005]), available at: {http://www.newsindia-times.com/2002/01/04/opnion-terror.html}; Reuven Paz, Israeli-Indian Cooperation for Counter-Terrorism (30 June 2000), available at: {http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=114}.

51 India Ministry of External Affairs, ‘India-Israel Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism’, Ministry of External Affairs (28 May 2002 [cited 2 October 2005]), available at: {http://meaindia.nic.in/pressrelease/2002/05/28pr2.htm}.

52 Organisation of Islamic Countries, ‘Annex to Resolution No. 59/26-P’, Organisation of Islamic Countries (1999 [cited 2 January 2005]), available at: {http://www.oic-un.org/26icfm/c.html}.

53 Oudraat, Chantal de Jonge, ‘The Role of the Security Council’, in Boulden, Jane and Weiss, Thomas G. (eds), Terrorism and the UN (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004), p. 158Google Scholar .

54 Ibid., p. 160.

55 Steven C. Welsh, ‘Nuclear Terrorism Convention’, Center for Defense Information (2005 [cited 2 October 2005]), available at: {http://www.cdi.org/news/law/ntc.cfm}.

56 Steven C. Welsh, ‘Nuclear Terrorism & Detainee Policies: International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism’, Center for Defense Information (17 June 2005 [cited 14 April 2006]), available at: {http://www.cdi.org/news/law/ntc-detainees.cfm}.

57 Kunadi, Savitri, ‘India and the UN Machinery of Human Rights’, in Mody, Nawaz B. and Mehrish, B. N. (eds), India's Role in the UN (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1995), p. 91Google Scholar .

58 Misra, K. P., Nonalignment in International Relations (New Delhi: Har-Anand, 1993), p. 171Google Scholar .

59 Anon, ‘Indo-Pak Spat at N. A. M. Over Definitions of Terror’, Times of India (21 February 2003)Google Scholar . Ultimately the Final Declaration referred neither to state sponsorship nor to the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. Ved, Mahendra, ‘Nam Statement Condemns Terror’, Times of India (23 February 2003)Google Scholar .

60 See for instance, arguments in the report on the April 2003 meeting of the Counter-Terrorism Committee {http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7718.doc.htm} accessed 8 April 2003.

61 Stiles, Kendall W., ‘The Power of Procedure and the Procedures of the Powerful: Anti-Terror Law in the UN', Journal of Peace Research, 43:1 (2006), p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

62 Nayak, ‘Prospects for US-India Counterterrorism Cooperation: An American View’, p. 146.

63 Perera, International Terrorism, pp. 113–4. The founding members of SAARC were Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. In 2007 Afghanistan was admitted.

64 Chari, P. R., ‘War against Terrorism: Can It Be Compartmentalized?’, in Chari, P. R. and Chandran, Suba (eds), Terrorism Post-9/11: An Indian Perspective (New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 2003), p. 22Google Scholar .

65 Anon, ‘S. A. A. R. C. Nations Vow to Curb Terror Funding’, Tribune (4 April 2007)Google Scholar .

66 India has such agreements with Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Egypt, Italy, Oman, Romania, and Russia.

67 Extradition treaties are in force with: Belgium (1958), Nepal (1963), Canada (1987), Netherlands (1989), UK (1993), Switzerland (1996), Bhutan, Hong Kong (1997), USA (1999), Russia, UAE (2000), Uzbekistan (2002), Spain, Turkey (2003), Mongolia, Germany, Tunisia, Republic of Korea (2004), Bahrain, South Africa, Oman, France, Poland (2005), Bulgaria and Ukraine (2006).

68 C. Christine Fair, ‘The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with India and Pakistan’, (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2004), p. 80. India has signed such agreements with Canada, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, and Uzbekistan and has signed (but not exchanged) agreements with France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and the US.

69 Anon, ‘Advani to Sign Extradition Treaty During France Visit’, India Info (20 January 2003 [cited 2 January 2007]), available at: {http://news.indiainfo.com/2003/01/20/20advani.html}.

70 Rosand, Eric, ‘Security Council Resolution 1373, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and the Fight against Terror’, American Journal of International Law, 97:2 (2003), pp. 337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

71 Association, International Bar, International Terrorism: Legal Challenges and Responses (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2003), p. 6Google Scholar .

72 Frederick L. Kirgis, ‘Cruise Missile Strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan’, ASIL Insights (1998).

73 Roberts, Guy B., ‘Self-Help in Combating State-Sponsored Terrorism: Self-Defense and Peacetime Reprisal’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 19:2 (1987)Google Scholar .

74 de Jonge Oudraat, ‘The Role of the Security Council’, p. 165. In November 2002, the US managed to secure UNSC Resolution 1441, which finds Iraq in material breach of earlier resolutions and warns it of serious consequences if it did not cooperate with the UN. It is debatable whether this resolution automatically authorises the use of force by member-states without further authorisation. At least one country has justified its participation in Iraq by arguing that it does.

75 Erica Chenoweth and Jessica C. Teets, ‘Constraining US Policy: Adherence to International Norms Post September 11, 2001’ (Boulder, CO: Department of Political Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2004).

76 Mohapatra, Manas, ‘Learning Lessons from India: The Recent History of Antiterrorist Legislation on the Subcontinent’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95:1 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

77 Sidel, Mark, More Secure, Less Free? : Antiterrorism Policy & Civil Liberties after September 11 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

78 Anon, US ‘Praises India for Anti-Terror Laws’, ndtv.com (27 October 2001 [cited 2 March 2004]), available at: {http://t2ndtv.m7z.net/morenews/showmorestory.asp?id=18119&frmsrch=1&txtsrch=terrorism}.

79 Paul, Solil, ‘Counter-Terrorism Laws: The Supreme Court on Confessions', Faultlines, 16 (2005)Google Scholar .

80 South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, The Reincarnation of P. O. T. A., South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (12 October 2004 [cited 27 May 2007]); available at: {www.ecoi.net/file_upload/ts26_HRF-106-Unlawful_Activities_ordinance.doc}.

81 For an examination of the reasons for India's rejection of the ICC, see Ramanathan, Usha, ‘India and the Icc’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3:3 (2005)Google Scholar .

82 Baruah, Amit, ‘India, US Not to Surrender Nationals to Any Tribunal’, Hindu (27 December 2002)Google Scholar .

83 India supported the US airstrikes in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, but also pointed out that international cooperation was better than unilateral action. Nanda, Prakash, ‘India Gives “Guarded” Response to US Action’, Times of India (22 August 1998)Google Scholar .

84 Baruah, Amit, ‘No Troops for Iraq without UN Mandate’, Hindu (15 July 2003)Google Scholar .

85 Anon, ‘Abandon No-First-Use Policy: Security Board Tells Government’, rediff.com (9 January 2003)Google Scholar .

86 Jaswant Singh, ‘Transcript of Interview with C. N. N. (October 2, 2001)’, in Official Statements of the Government of India on Terrorism and Related Matters (New Delhi: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 2001). Also see his interview of February 2002, where he asserts that Kashmir is not an ethnic conflict but an instance of terrorism. Singh, Jaswant, ‘Interview with El Mundo (17 February)’, in Official Statements of the Government of India on Terrorism and Related Matters (New Delhi: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 2002)Google Scholar .

87 Anon, ‘“Every Country Has the Right to Pre-Emptive Strikes”: Jaswant Singh’, Indian Express (30 September 2002)Google Scholar ; Chellaney, ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, p. 109; Kamlesh Sharma, ‘Statement by Permanent Representative of India on Measures to Eliminate Terrorism at the Plenary of the Fifty-Sixth Session of the General Assembly’, Ministry of External Affairs (3 October 2001 [cited 12 January 2006]), available at: {http://meaindia.nic.in/disarmament/dm03oct01.htm}; P. S. Suryanarayana, ‘Fernandes Opposes “Selective Interpretation” of Terrorism’, Hindu (23 April 2003).

88 Sahni, Varun, ‘Fractured, Frightened and Frustrated: South Asia after September 11’, in Banerjee, Dipankar and Kueck, Gert W. (eds), South Asia and the War on Terrorism: Analysing the Implications of September 11 (New Delhi: India Research Press, 2003), pp. 99–100Google Scholar , n. 6. The Council of Foreign Relations website furnishes a good example of India's success. In answer to: ‘Who commits acts of terrorism in Kashmir?’, it provided: ‘Mostly Islamists from outside Kashmir, affiliated with groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Some attacks have been linked to local pro-Pakistan and pro-independence groups.’ The answer to the question: ‘Who commits acts of political violence in Kashmir?’, was ‘Indian security forces, Islamist militants, and other separatist groups’; Council on Foreign Relations, Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations (2002 [cited 6 May 2002]), available at: {http://www.terrorismanswers.com/policy/kashmir2.html#Q8.}

89 Author's interview with Meera Shankar, Counter-terrorism Coordinator, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. (14 May 2003).

90 P. S. Suryanarayana, ‘Advani Outlines India's Activism on the External Front’, Hindu (2003).

91 Sahni, Ajai, ‘Delhi Declaration: Convergence on Power’, South Asia Intelligence Review (9 December 2002)Google Scholar .

92 Vidya Nadkarni, ‘India, Russia and the War against Terrorism’, paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention, Honolulu (1–5 March 2005).

93 Aiyar, Mani Shankar, ‘Lighting Bush Fires’, Indian Express (2 October 2001)Google Scholar ; Anon, ‘Terrorism: Advani Accuses US of Double Standards’, Tribune (27 August 1998), J. N. Dixit, ‘Disappointed with America’, Indian Express (8 August 2002); Sood and Sawhney, Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished, p. 26.

94 Jervis, Robert, ‘An Interim Assessment of September 11: What Has Changed and What Has Not?’, Political Science Quarterly, 117:1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

95 Chellaney, ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, p. 97; Gupta, Shekhar, ‘Triumph of Diplomacy’, India Today (31 March 1994), p. 75Google Scholar ; Chidanand Rajghatta, ‘India Feels Let Down by US Policy on Pak’, Indian Express (25 November 2002). Also author's interviews with V. S. Mani, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (17 February 2003); Meera Shankar (14 May 2003); Ajai Sahni, Institute of Conflict Management, New Delhi (11 April 2003).

96 Pillai, ‘Just for Nam's Sake’, pp. 40–1.

97 See also the invocation of democracy and pluralism in the Joint Declaration with the EU), and in the then National Security Advisor's address to the American Jewish Committee Brajesh Mishra, ‘Address by Shri Brajesh Mishra, ‘National Security Advisor of India at the American Jewish Committee Annual Dinner’, Embassy of India in the US (8 May 2003 [cited 4 August 2007]), available at: {http://www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/2003/nsa_ajc_may_8_03.htm}.

98 Anon, ‘US Sidesteps Reference to Cross-Border Terrorism’, NDTV (10 November 2001)Google Scholar .

99 Biswas, Shampa, ‘“Nuclear Apartheid” as a Political Position: Race as a Postcolonial Resource?’, Alternatives, 26 (2001), p. 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

100 Kargil Review Committee Report, cited in Tellis, Ashley, Limited Conflicts under the Nuclear Umbrella: Indian and Pakistani Lessons from the Kargil Conflict (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2002), p. 51Google Scholar .

101 Rajamohan, C., ‘Catharsis and Catalysis: Transforming the South Asian Subcontinent’, in Booth, Ken and Dunne, Tim (eds), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002), p. 204Google Scholar .

102 Sondhi, M. L. and Kapur, Ashok (eds), U.S. And India: Changing Strategic Parameters (New Delhi: Manak Publications, 2002), p. 12Google Scholar .

103 Chellaney, ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, p. 98.

104 Chakravartty, Paula, ‘Translating Terror in India’, Television and New Media, 3:2 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Chellaney, , ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’; Tellis, Ashley J., India's Emerging Nuclear Posture (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), p. 55Google Scholar .

105 The NPT gives NWS status only to countries that tested nuclear devices before 1968.

106 Just as it proffers its responsible nuclear credentials on the terrorism issue, India uses its status in counter-terrorism to deflect attention from its undefined position in the nonproliferation regime. The Foreign Minister complained that the US was paying too much attention to nonproliferation and not enough to terrorism. Singh, ‘Interview with El Mundo (17 February)’, p. 46. Starting in 1997, the US did decide to de-emphasise the nuclear issue in favour of counter-terrorism in its relations with India. Nayak, ‘Prospects for US-India Counterterrorism Cooperation: An American View’, p. 132.

107 Anon, ‘India's System of Controls over Exports of Strategic Goods and Technology’, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (1 August 2004 [cited 30 April 2005]), available from {www.mea.gov.in}.

108 Nadkarni, ‘India, Russia and the War against Terrorism’.

109 Rajghatta, Chidanand, ‘P.M. Gives It Back to Musharraf’, Times of India (14 September 2002)Google Scholar .

110 The fear of a nuclear response by Pakistan probably also played a role in these decisions, however, we cannot prove that nuclear deterrence was operating.

111 Guha, Seema, ‘India Aims to Be a Stabilising Power in Region’, Times of India (25 July 1999)Google Scholar ; Karnad, Bharat, ‘A New Strategy for the LoC and Low-Intensity Warfare in Kashmir’, in Gill, K. P. S. and Sahni, Ajai (eds), The Global Threat of Terror: Ideological, Material and Political Linkages (New Delhi: Bulwark Books for the Institute of Conflict Management, 2002), p. 45Google Scholar .

112 Anon, ‘India Must Battle Terrorism on Its Own, Says Sinha’, Hindu (22 November 2002)Google Scholar .

113 Yashwant Sinha, Rajya Sabha (Parliamentary) Debates (9 April 2003).

114 Suroor, Hasan, ‘Include Pak in “Axis of Evil”: Sinha’, Hindu (13 December 2002)Google Scholar .

115 Anon, ‘“I Don't Think There Is a Direct Parallel”: Colin Powell on P. T. V.’, Outlook (11 April 2003)Google Scholar ; Hussein Haqqani, ‘Why India Cannot Afford a Pre-Emptive Strike on Pakistan’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (10 April 2003 [cited 1 October 2004]), available at: {http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/haqqani04102003.asp?pr=2&from=pubdate}.

116 Andreas, Peter and Nadelmann, Ethan Avram, Policing the Globe : Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar .

117 Pitts, Joe W. III, ‘Tough Act Followed’, Washington Post (14 September 2003)Google Scholar .

118 Author's interview with Meera Shankar, New Delhi (14 May 2003).

119 Anon, ‘Gujarat Riot Death Toll Revealed’, BBC News (11 May 2005Google Scholar [cited 29 November 2005]), available at: {http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4536199.stm}.

120 Malhotra, Inder, ‘Failed Diplomacy on Gujarat’, Financial Express (27 April 2002)Google Scholar .

121 Anon, ‘India Cannot Brush Aside Global Concerns: Sorabjee’, Hindu (14 May 2002)Google Scholar .

122 Malhotra, Jyoti, ‘Gujarat Knocks Bottom out of India Foreign Policy’, Daily Times (29 April 2002)Google Scholar .

123 Gupta, ‘Triumph of Diplomacy’.

124 Punj, Balbir, ‘Rise and Fall of Secular Hubris’, Pioneer (3 January 2003)Google Scholar .

125 Sahay, Tara Shankar, ‘B. J. P. To Go All out to Pass P. O. T. O. In Parliament’, Rediff (3 November 2001)Google Scholar .

126 Gupta, Devidas, ‘Vajpayee Deplores Gujarat Riots', Outlook (14 September 2002)Google Scholar ; Vyas, Neena, ‘Sangh Parivar above the Law?’, Hindu (21 October 2002)Google Scholar .

127 Chung, Chien Peng, ‘China's “War” on Terror’, Foreign Affairs, 81:4 (2002)Google Scholar ; Lapidus, Gail, Putin's War on Terrorism: Lessons from Chechnya’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 18 (2002)Google Scholar ; Macfarquhar, Neil, ‘Syria Repackages Its Repression of Muslim Militants as Antiterror Lesson’, New York Times (14 January 2002)Google Scholar .