The Delhi outrage

Is it a fallout of an elusive national consensus?

WRITING from as far away as Harvard, I can slightly distance myself from the emotions and passions that December 13 has understandably stirred in India. But there is no way I can hide my ecstatic admiration for the security personnel who responded so swiftly on reflexes and gave a fitting answer to the enemy. A few of them have had to make the supreme sacrifice, only to go down in history as heroes. The silver lining is the vocal all-round commendation - hearteningly, cutting across political biases - of these brave Indians who have undisputedly set the tone for our future agenda. The clear message to the terrorist is that we do not also hesitate to stake our lives if only to match their audacity.

On an average about a thousand Indian police persons lose their lives in action every year. How do we take care of their families? A lot has no doubt been done by sensitive governments. More needs to be done if we are to motivate our young men and women who adorn our forces to give of their best. The manner in which Mayor Rudolph Giuliani acted to boost the morale of the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the New York Fire Service, which bore the brunt of September 11, needs to be emulated.

As I write this comes the encouraging news that the barbaric crime has nearly been solved. The Delhi Police have risen to the occasion once again and need to be lauded. The involvement of a Delhi academic is said to be strongly suspected. This shatters our faith in the capacity of higher education to soften the rough edges of ideology and religious bigotry. At the same time, it highlights the complexity of modern terrorism. Unquestioned acceptance of the integrity of those who fill traditional roles in society, such as teachers and religious preachers, appears credulous to the core. This is dismaying. But then, is there any alternative to this miasma of suspicion and lack of trust in humanity?

Opposition knives are already out to go for the hapless government. The usual talk of intelligence failure and security lapses is already doing the rounds. It is widely known that the magnitude of the task of intelligence agencies is enormous. With all their resources and reach, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could foresee September 11. The same way, the well-oiled machinery of Israel has not been able to predict any of the recent suicidal attacks on its innocent civilians. The terrorist has the element of surprise to back all his forays. This is not for a moment to suggest that the Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) are faultless. But there are major limitations in dealing with terrorist organisations that hardly permit infiltration, the only avenue for gathering advance intelligence.

EACH such incident as the one in Parliament, however, serves notice that the margin for complacency is just non-existent. Counter-terrorism demands daring and often questionable mechanics bordering on the apparently unethical. If Members of Parliament do not want to understand this or deny their support to executive actions which smack of extra-constitutionalism merely on partisan considerations, you cannot expect the chiefs of either RAW or the I.B. to risk his scalp. According to one press report, within hours of the attack on Parliament, one MP said that his party's stand on the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) remained unchanged. If this is correct, such brazen partisanship cannot but harm the polity.

As for the charge of security lapse, the ease with which terrorists got through the main gate of Parliament is disconcerting. The white-Ambassador syndrome is hard to get over. It is for consideration whether, in the name of economy, we should surrender ourselves to such dangerous uniformity. Can we not opt for a lot more diversity in order to strengthen security? It should be possible to weld bullet-proofing into other makes of cars as well. This will end the virtual green channel invitation to white Ambassador cars entering the premises of sensitive public buildings. Cars will have to be stopped and questions asked. It is my belief that many major lapses have occurred in our country because officers on duty have shied away from asking questions to stragglers and busybodies who resent being identified.

Coming more to the specifics, how do we restrict access to sensitive buildings such as Parliament House? I am sure some changes have already been made. Two most sensible things may have to be done. Ferrying of visitors (including Ministers and MPs) into the complex from the outer gate will have to be done in sanitised vehicles driven by sanitised chauffeurs. Exemption to this golden rule could only be made in respect of the President, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the presiding officers of the two Houses. These dignitaries alone will come in their own cars/motorcade. Diluting this pattern in any manner could invite a disaster in the future. I quite realise that this procedure is cumbersome and will trigger some resentment. I cannot think of any other method by which we can reduce the prospect of December 13 repeating itself.

Secondly, frisking of everyone (including MPs) entering the complex, at two points, once while getting into the sanitised vehicle and again at the inner gate where metal detectors are placed, seems logical and inevitable. This may sound ridiculous and will involve considerable delays in entry. (At present, in the U.S., no passenger who comes later than two hours ahead to catch even a domestic flight can hope to complete security formalities before he or she can go on board. Your registered baggage is also liable to be opened for a check, especially if someone else has bought your ticket. Nothing can be more exasperating than this. But I have not seen any frayed tempers. The U.S. public have shown extreme forbearance and discipline in the matter.) This is the price that we will have to pay for living in these times of mindless violence.

Can anybody explain to our VIPs that when they are subjected to frisking at airports or other public places, it is not because they are suspects? Such checking is merely to ensure that no contraband is introduced into their person or any personal baggage carried by them without their knowledge. This is as simple as that. My guess is that nobody has explained this golden rule to our VIPs. Or else, how would you explain the unreasonable conduct of some of our lawmakers at pressure points when law enforcement personnel are openly overridden when the personnel seek the observance of basic requirements of security.

I now see an enlarged role for the Union Home Ministry to bring about a greater State police focus to beat the terrorist. While most States have commandos equipped to deal with terrorists, the state of their training and weaponry remains doubtful. A quick survey is called for. (No committees please!) This can perhaps be done best by the National Security Guard (NSG). Wherever there are deficiencies, swift assistance can be given to the States by way of capsule courses and upgrading of arms. Funds can be found by means of a temporary suspension of the mindless expansion of the non-combatant wings of the police. Chief Ministers can achieve a distinct change in the quality of anti-terrorist policing if only they can push political differences with the Centre to the backstage. They must remember that it is a war that we are fighting and we are not engaged in mere law and order exercises.

December 13 leaves no doubt in our minds that more daring attacks are a distinct possibility. How do we protect ourselves against this? I can only allude to what I see here in the U.S. after September 11. There is a certain paranoia about security that has gripped even the common man. Members of the public are amazingly alert to report to the police even the slightest happening that they believe has some implications for national security. This has to become an obsession with us in India. Anything short of it will not be enough. There is a need to circulate the "dos" and "don'ts" in understandable language to all sections of society. Both the print and visual media will have to play a significant role here. The public should be encouraged to report to the police any movement of strangers with the assurance that the identity of the callers will be kept absolutely confidential. Prank calls are likely. But this is a minor inconvenience that the police will have to put up with. This is happening here in the U.S., but punitive action against pranksters has yielded dividends.

The U.S. offer of FBI assistance is heart-warming. I had a small role to play in the establishment of an FBI Legat Office in New Delhi. The then FBI Director, Louis Freeh, was extremely forthcoming, and the Union government's pragmatism paved the way for this most significant step. The relationship between the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the FBI has since then flowered. The IC-814 hijacking case investigation by the CBI benefited from this partnership. It is my belief that the U.S. offer is timely and meaningful in the context of recent happenings. The bonhomie that exists between the two countries at this juncture augurs well for the attempt to pool intelligence and other resources to take criminal investigations to their fruitful conclusions.

I AM gladdened by positive press reports about the visit of a high-power Israeli delegation to India. This could not have been better timed. My visit to Israel last year along with a delegation headed by the Home Minister was an eye-opener for me. The ambience of extreme alertness and a thorough knowledge of the usual flaws and pitfalls of security measures among those charged with protection were extremely striking. I also found a certain transparency and willingness to share experiences, which was refreshing. I am convinced that we should take advantage of this. Perhaps no other nation has suffered as much as we have at the hands of the terrorist. An openness to derive knowledge from a country that has won universal praise for its decisive thrusts against terrorism unleashed by religious fundamentalists seems unexceptionable.

I would go the extent of suggesting a special briefing for our MPs on what we can achieve by collaborating with the FBI and the Israeli agencies. This alone can help dissolve traditional prejudices. We must remember that we have the right to collaborate without prejudicing our sovereignty. And such collaboration becomes necessary because we are contending here with an abnormal and unpredictable enemy.

We have some of the brightest lawmakers in the world. Their knowledge of happenings all over the world is almost unrivalled. Their patriotism is unimpeachable. Why is it that they cannot harness their energies to bring about a national focus to the war against terrorism? Some quarters allege that a measure of reluctance to come down specifically against terrorism flowing from Islamic fundamentalism is because of an apprehension that it would somehow benefit the present government. I would consider such a charge to be specious. But such wild insinuations will continue to mark our polemics if there is no quick all-party consensus on how to vanquish the enemy.