THOUGH it is two weeks since the US Operation Geronimo took place, that momentous event still dominates the Indian print and electronic media, as well as being the main topic of discussion of the thinking Indian public.

How will it affect India-Pakistan relations, particularly in connection with the November 2008 terror attack on Mumbai?

Why did Washington not take Islamabad into confidence before launching its deadly incursion into Abbottabad (or did it?

And Islamabad simply pretended that it was taken completely unawares?).

Is it conceivable that Osama bin Laden could live for at least five years in a relatively isolated three-storey building with extremely high walls that stuck out like a sore thumb, in a military garrison town, without the knowledge of the Pakistan establishment? And even if the establishment — by which one means President Zardari and his predecessor, president Musharraf — were ignorant of Bin Laden’s presence, surely the ISI, if it was doing its job properly, was aware of it, if not complicit?

If the intelligence agency was actually aware, or worse, complicit, does it operate independent of the elected establishment,i.e. the president and the prime minister?

Soon after president Musharraf was driven out of Pakistan, the new civilian government ordered the ISI to report to the interior ministry — were these orders followed or not?

Or could there be another, more sinister, explanation: the existence of rogue ISI elements which the government cannot, or perhaps does not want to, control?

These questions have been asked in India for some time now, and I daresay they have been asked in Pakistan as well. But they have been given an edge, an added sense of urgency, after the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai and now of course with Operation Geronimo. Squirming and pushed into a corner, Islamabad is finding it difficult to mount a credible defence, at least that is how many in India see it.

The investigation in India over the Mumbai terror attack, especially the revelations of the captured terrorist, Ajmal Kasab (who was not expected to survive) has made it abundantly clear that the terrorists had come from Pakistan and had been in constant touch with their Pakistan-based ‘handlers’ over satellite and cellphones during the course of that attack. They were also trained on Pakistani soil.

Then, there is the David Headley business, further embarrassment for Islamabad. This AmericanPakistani Lashkar terrorist has already pleaded guilty in the US for his role in the Mumbai attack (he did a recce of Mumbai and other places in India which were on the Lashkar hit list).

On Wednesday, New Delhi made public 50 of India’s “most wanted”, all of them believed to be living in Pakistan, thereby applying added pressure on Islamabad. They include Dawood Ibrahim (alleged perpetrator of the Mumbai bomb blasts of 1993 which killed hundreds and apparently residing in Karachi) and Lashkar founder Hafiz Saeed. The list also has two serving Pakistan army officers, one of whom was allegedly Headley’s handler.

Be that as it may, few responsible people in India believe that the Pakistan Army, still seen as a thoroughly professional army, had any hand in the Mumbai terror attack. And only the lunatic, virulently anti-Pakistani fringe in this country favour an Indian Operation Geronimo to take out any of the “50 most wanted” (though the Indian army chief foolishly said that specially trained Indian commandos were capable of carrying out the same kind of operation the US Navy SEALs did in Abbottabad).

Yet, thinking Indians genuinely feel that a stable Pakistan is in India’s interest and that a dialogue between the two nations must continue. However, they would also like to see more positive steps by Islamabad to move against those who have conspired to attack India. The constant refrain that Pakistan, too, has suffered at the hands of terrorists is simply not good enough.

Let me end with what Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani said in his country’s assembly some days ago — a speech that was shown live on most Indian TV news channels — when he pointed out, in so many words and rightly so, that Osama bin Laden was not a Pakistani creation, but an American one. Bin Laden came in handy in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (just like Saddam Hussein was once a Washington favourite and was provided arms against Khomeini’s Iran).

But puppets, however useful at first, have a habit of cutting their strings and becoming monsters. India should know.

Indira Gandhi propped up an obscure Sikh preacher, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, against the main Sikh party in Punjab, the Akalis, to help her Congress party come to power in the state. Bhindranwale became a Frankenstein, built up terrorism and was eventually killed by the army in Amritsar’s Golden Temple. Indira Gandhi paid with her life for that short-sighted blunder.

Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, also initially helped the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, one of the most murderous terrorist outfits in the world, and he then turned against them. He also paid for his life at their hands, the victim of a woman suicide-bomber.

The enemy is often, not outside, but within. I believe India has learnt this lesson, though at fearful cost. Pakistan should, too.

The writer is former Editor of the Reader’s Digest and Indian Express.

singh.84@hotmail.com