A policy declaration that we stand firm against terrorism and have done all that is needed to guard our assets will only enhance Indias image as a mature nation.
EVERY time a tragedy such as the recent blasts in Hyderabad takes place, columnists like me perform a painful ritual of analysis of what went wrong. This is often assailed as a perfunctory armchair exercise that does not take anybody anywhere and definitely does not save lives. Such scepticism is understandable against the backdrop of the frequency of terrorist violence against innocent people.
People look up to the government for protection and feel betrayed when their dear ones are snatched away. It makes no difference to them which militant group was responsible. Who can fault the widely held perception that it is the terrorist who always wins while the civil administration just watches helplessly?
Forty-two innocent persons were killed on August 25 when terrorists struck in the heart of Hyderabad at two venues, one where a laser show was being held and the other a popular eatery. On May 18, the city witnessed a similar act of mindlessness. The target was an essentially Muslim gathering at the Mecca Masjid. The five casualties were a miraculously low number, considering the huge gathering present at the midday prayer.
In both the May and the August attacks, the aggressors were almost certainly from Islamist terrorist groups but it is difficult to explain why dissimilar targets were chosen. Muslims killing Muslims has now become the order of the day. In Iraq this is understandable, with its pronounced Sunni-Shia schism. In Hyderabad, the motive appears more specious.
The Mecca Masjid explosion was possibly part of an orchestrated endeavour to intimidate Indian Muslims into shedding their disdain for Wahhabism and a preference for tolerance of the Hindu way of life. This may appear simplistic, but the interpretation will be hard to reject in the absence of any other plausible theory. In all probability, those who were behind the August explosions just wanted to spread terror and panic.
A few arrests have been made in connection with the latest incident. All reports more than suggest a Bangladesh link. I am not surprised because the few contacts I have in that country tell me of a rapidly deteriorating situation and the governments helplessness in stemming the tide. It may be unfair to speak of any connivance, although that countrys track record vis--vis India is poor. There is definitely palpable incompetence flowing from a dependence on milit ant elements for political survival.
The principal suspect in the recent Hyderabad incidents is the Harkat-ul-Jihad-el-Islami (HuJI), especially one of its activists, the deadly Shahed alias Bilal, a native of Hyderabad, who is believed to be in Bangladesh. One of the arrested persons, Imran, subjected to narcoanalysis in Bangalore, is said to have confessed that the explosives used in the two incidents had been hidden at his house. Further, three of those responsible for the action were foreigners (read Bangladeshis) still in Hyderabad. The HuJIs links with Al Qaeda have been written about frequently for several years. As early as October 2002, Time magazines correspondent in Delhi was categorical that fleeing Taliban and Al Qaeda activ ists from Afghanistan, unable to withstand the United States bombardment in Tora Bora and elsewhere in the mountains, had landed at the Chittagong Port where they were received by a government representative
Although the Bangladesh government denied this, all subsequent indications were supportive of the magazines account. Actually, the Jamat-e-Islami, a militant group, was part of the Begum Khaleda Zia government in 2001. Concerns expressed by Indian intelligence on the happenings within Bangladesh are further proof that all is not well with that countrys sincerity in neutralising extremism.
The HuJIs links with Al Qaeda assume importance in the context of the latters growing recklessness globally and evidence of an absence of a clear central control in the organisation. There has been no news of Bin Laden for quite a while although U.S. intelligence agencies do not rule out the possibility that he is still alive. But his second-in-command, Al Zawahiri, the most-wanted in the U.S. list of terrorists, is reported to be still very active. His role in the Lal Masjid (Islamabad) siege of July 2007, as revealed by the letter seized at the site and his subsequent video exhortation of action against the Pakistan government, is an index of the poisonous edge the organisation retains.
The U.S. stands at the top of the hit list that Al Qaeda flaunts with the arrogance that only it can command. My own feeling is that India does not lag behind very much in this dreaded list of targets. Our bonhomie with the U.S., especially after the civil nuclear agreement, places us dangerously high among Al Qaedas adversaries.
While this is no ground for backtracking on the deal, there is a definite case for observing all the precautions that the U.S. has taken to protect itself and its citizens, both at home and abroad. We need not use the war rhetoric of President George W. Bush but we can express more decisively our resolve to fight the violence that Al Qaeda and its allies use against us.
Here, I would like to draw liberally from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was released in July by the Director of National Intelligence in Washington. This is only to place the recent terrorist attacks in India in their international perspective. As we approach the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the NIEs import can hardly be overemphasised.
The report is categorical that the threat to Homeland Security in the U.S. remains high at least for the next three years and that everything needs to be done to contain it. It goes on to say: We assess the group (the al Qaida) has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qaida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qaida will intensify its efforts to put operatives herecontinue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups... seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), al-Qaidas Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles. (It) will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.
It is my conviction that whatever the NIE describes as impending dangers is eminently transferable to the Indian scene. It would be facile to believe that the threat to our internal security is any less grave. I would, therefore, expect a frill-free pronouncement to the nation on these lines by no less a dignitary than the Prime Minister himself. Nothing else will make a qualitative difference to the nation.
Critics will argue that such action will push up the levels of fear, as if these are low at present. Let us not deceive ourselves that the threat is confined to just one or more cities and there is no need to widen or escalate it through a declaration that we are a threatened nation.
Yes, there is a real prospect that this would send a wrong signal to those in the developed nations who would like to invest more capital in India. I can say with some authority, after all my travels in the past few years, that India stands high among the few large nations in the world that have displayed economic vibrancy and pragmatism. There is widespread admiration for its political stability and adherence to democratic norms.
A policy declaration now from the highest levels in the Executive that we stand firm against terrorism and have done all that is needed to guard our assets will only enhance our image as a stable and mature nation.
We have had far too many incidents New Delhi, Varanasi, Mumbai, Samjhauta Express, and now Hyderabad in the past few years to ignore making a frank admission that whatever strategy we have now has been far from successful. At the same time the Opposition should realise that there is no case for politicising the failures. But there definitely is a case for rising above partisanship in order to build a national consensus and a new plan of action.
According to the respected New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a great admirer of India, this was the tragedy in Iraq, where ruthless de-Baathification of all structures robbed the nation of a chance to build peace. Again, in Friedmans view, it is the de-democratisation that Bush and Dick Cheney have been obsessive about that has cost the U.S. dearly in terms of building a pool of talent from which to choose for tackling all the ills of Iraq.
The analogy extended to India does not need to be spelt out. We require new ideas from a wide spectrum of talent that we undoubtedly possess but is possibly being ignored because it is at politically the wrong places. To absorb such talent into policymaking bodies is not being merely magnanimous. It is actually being pragmatic in the interest of the nation.
