The second point made here strikes at the heart of a definitional problem that, beginning years ago, beset the United Nations. In 1973, the United States introduced a resolution condemning terrorist activity. It never carried through the appropriate committee because it was burdened with so many equivocations as to make it useless. Most prominently critical of it, back then, were African leaders who insisted that any apparently terrorist acts committed against the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa were not really terrorist acts, but initiatives in national liberation.
That construction of the right of protesters gives them a kind of juridical authority. In conventional understanding, someone who fires at a foreign official can claim the protections of war only if he is deputized to do as he did by his government. He is, otherwise, a pirate, prowling about until he is caught and hanged. Musharraf is asking out loud for some kind of provision to be made for incontinent liberators who do not want to wait for diplomacy to settle their problems, taking their own initiatives -- as terrorists, we call them. On this matter, the correct response from President Bush is:The people you are talking about are terrorists, period.
The first question is more difficult. Is India supposed to assume that there was tacit backing by the government of Pakistan of the five militants who attacked the Indian Parliament on Dec. 13? Musharraf is denying any condonation of the act; India is saying, Prove your dissociation from it by rounding up the people who supported it and putting them in jail. Musharraf wavers. Question: Because he is secretly in sympathy with the Kashmiri militants? Or because he reasons that to go after them at the very same time that, on his western flank, he is pursuing the Taliban, would take him over the line, risking the very survival of his government, yielding then to an uprising or even a coup?