A former adviser to Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari has claimed that the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attacks were triggered by Zardari’s public statement offering India a “no first use” commitment on nuclear weapons. According to him, the deadly assault on Mumbai was a direct backlash to Zardari’s peaceful overture. However, a closer look at the timeline shows that this explanation does not align with established facts and that the attacks were already in motion before Zardari made his remarks.
In his book The Zardari Presidency: Now It Must Be Told, Farhatullah Babar narrates how Zardari, during a televised interaction with Indian journalist Karan Thapar in New Delhi, assured that Pakistan would not be the first to deploy nuclear weapons against India. The symbolism of this statement was significant, given the tense nuclear history between the two countries. Both India and Pakistan demonstrated nuclear capability in May 1998, but the two nations adopted starkly different doctrines afterward. India is committed to a “no first use” policy, pledging not to initiate nuclear conflict. Pakistan, by contrast, never accepted such a doctrine, and its leadership has repeatedly emphasized its readiness to use nuclear weapons preemptively in the event of war. Pakistan also remains the only nuclear-armed country where the military maintains direct control over its nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan’s nuclear threshold guidelines were formally articulated in 2002 by Lt. General Khalid Kidwai, who defined specific “red lines” that could provoke nuclear retaliation. These conditions centered on Indian military actions, ranging from territorial incursions to strategic strikes and severe economic pressure. Babar asserts that just four days after Zardari’s interview, militants launched a coordinated attack in Mumbai, targeting luxury hotels, a Jewish outreach center, a popular café, and a major railway station. The assault, lasting nearly three days, resulted in 166 deaths. Pakistani investigations later confirmed that the attackers originated from Pakistani soil, escalating fears of war between the two nuclear neighbors.
Yet, several documented facts undermine the suggestion that Zardari’s nuclear statement provoked the assault. The operation behind 26/11 was set in motion years earlier. The ten armed terrorists who executed the attack had already departed Karachi aboard the Lashkar-e-Taiba vessel Al Husseini on November 21, one day before Zardari’s televised remarks. By the time his interview aired on November 22, the group was already nearing India’s western coastline. On November 23, they commandeered an Indian fishing boat, the Kuber, and continued toward Mumbai. They eventually arrived on November 26, using inflatable boats to land at two points along the city’s waterfront.
The origins of the attack go back to 2005, when Pakistan’s intelligence services began conceptualizing a large-scale strike through Lashkar-e-Taiba. In 2006, the operation advanced with reconnaissance missions in Mumbai led by Pakistani-American David Coleman Headley. The same year, Mumbai witnessed deadly train bombings that killed over 200 civilians, marking another strike believed to be linked to Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus. Around this time, Pakistan’s elite Special Services Group and Lashkar trainers handpicked more than thirty militants, providing them with specialized training for urban assaults. Ultimately, ten of them carried out the 26/11 attacks in 2008, equipped with assault rifles, grenades, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Their mission was clear: inflict mass casualties, seize hostages, and extend the confrontation for as long as possible.
The Mumbai attack ranks among the most devastating terror strikes against India orchestrated from Pakistani territory. Before 26/11, the March 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai, which killed 257 people, and the 2006 train bombings were two other major attacks attributed to Pakistan-backed networks. Despite the magnitude of 26/11, Babar’s narrative in his book treats the episode cautiously. He refers to the perpetrators as “warmongers,” implicitly pointing toward Pakistan’s military establishment without naming it directly. This guarded tone reflects the reality of Pakistan’s political structure, where civilian leaders operate under the shadow and influence of the powerful military and intelligence complex.
Babar also discusses the political turbulence that accompanied Zardari’s rise to power. Following the resignation of General Pervez Musharraf in early 2008, Zardari assumed the presidency in September of the same year. According to Babar, senior military leaders, especially the Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, were resistant to Zardari's leadership and favored alternative candidates. Kayani, notably, had served as the head of Pakistan’s ISI during earlier terrorist attacks, including the 2006 train bombings and the planning phase of 26/11, linking him indirectly to both events.
The book also touches on Pakistan’s controversial nuclear proliferation history. General Musharraf claimed ignorance about the illicit network run by scientist A.Q. Khan, which allegedly shared nuclear designs and materials with countries like Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Despite Musharraf’s insistence that Khan acted alone, experts and observers have long doubted the plausibility of such a complex international operation occurring without state knowledge or assistance. Babar suggests that Zardari missed critical opportunities to place intelligence services under civilian oversight, reinforcing the long-standing pattern of military dominance over Pakistan’s security apparatus.
Zardari’s first tenure ultimately unfolded during a period marked by military assertiveness, internal security crises, and strained relations with global powers. Even as he returns to the presidency years later, Pakistan remains under the influence of a powerful military establishment. With yet another ambitious general shaping national decisions, history appears to be repeating itself in Islamabad, underscoring the persistent civil–military imbalance at the heart of Pakistan’s governance.
