The crux of our argument was simple: India hasn't formally accused Pakistan yet for a very simple reason.
Almost all low-impact terror attacks in India in the past three years were the work of Indian extremists trying to increase pressure on Pakistan.
These new blasts come at a time when the United States has an interest in opening the Indian front amid tensions with Pakistan.
Our report was markedly different and our analysis was entirely based on recent cases from the Indian judicial system and reporting by major Indian news sources. At a time when Indian and American news outlets were insinuating a Pakistani connection based on the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, our analysts wrote that eight serving and retired Indian military intelligence officers are under investigation for murdering 43 Pakistani goodwill visitors near New Delhi in 2007. After that attack, the Indian government and British and American media outlets accused Pakistan's ISI of masterminding the attack to derail peace talks.
It turned out Indian military officers encouraged Hindu terror groups to kill Pakistani visitors and blame it on ISI. The sick plot was meant to keep the premier Pakistani spy service under pressure.
Between 2007 and 2009, Indian military officers organized similar attacks across India. And they were caught.
Our argument is that the Indian government was careful this time, fearing the three consecutive, low-impact blasts in Mumbai might have a similar objective, pushing India toward a confrontation with Pakistan at a time when the US is searching for every possible opportunity to raise the heat with Islamabad.
Now, more than 24 hours after the Mumbai blasts, the world media is increasingly picking up the angle that we floated, that the blasts are probably the work of domestic Indian terrorists, almost certainly linked to Hindu terror groups, with some prodding from extremist elements within Indian military.
[See the report here.]