Repeated Terror Attacks & What Can Be Done

The latest terror attack in Mumbai has reignited the debate on what needs to be done to deal with repeated terror attacks? Most preliminary information available in the public domain points towards Pak sponsored terrorism be it by the state or non state actors whatever the case may be. To sum them up:

a)  The attack was carried out in Mumbai signifies that the country was the target and it’s not the local/state specific issues that are involved here.

b)  Security arrangements in Mumbai increased a lot after 26/11, so carrying this out was more difficult than the previous one, means that it’s done by thorough professionals, another point to be noted is that all the mistakes that were committed during 26/11 like tell tale signs of communication with the handlers have been rectified this time.

c)  The scale of attack is smaller than 26/11, that is because they wanted this attack to succeed so it was confined to what was possible by a small group, and perhaps they wanted the impact to be big enough to serve their purpose but not so big that India is forced to suspend the dialogue like it did after 26/11.

Coming to the objective behind the attack, there could be many, primary among them the forthcoming visit of US Sec. of state Hillary Clinton’s visit and dictating the agenda of that meet. The agenda of that meet doesn’t appear to be economic, that may be an additional issue that gets discussed but US interest in the region right now is it’s withdrawal from Af Pak region and bring a closure to it’s war against terrorism, many analysts consider this withdrawal as overdue. Another objective could be to divert attention from the mess Pakistan finds itself in right now and perhaps also to remind the jehadis their raison d'etre.

What can be done?

That our police is woefully ill prepared to handle such situation has amply been demonstrated in numerous terror attacks. After 26/11 some, even all of the shortcomings may have been identified, but apparently huge gaps still exists and with the kind of bureaucracy and political compulsions there are, that is asking for too much.
It would make a huge difference if they focus on the actions taken post attack. The culprits of ’93 terror attacks have gone scot free, investigations into dozens of other such incidents have reached nowhere, some we have no clue about at all and even the convicts have remained unpunished. All these facts have lowered the “deterrence bar” for the terrorists and an invitation to try out their designs. Needless to say the deterrence needs to be restored, the perpetrators have to feel the heat, investigations have to be pursued relentlessly till it’s logical conclusion. Diplomatic pressure has to be sustained. If we don’t place a high value on our own lives they will certainly not.


(Picture courtesy BDINN.com)

Salwa Judum Verdict: Options Available to States

India has its share of insurgencies in a fairly large area in different regions and for different reasons. The north eastern states, Punjab and J&K had their share of insurgencies and lately Maoist insurgency has spread to a fairly large area encompassing at least 4 states and is threatening to spread to other states as well. The people who were directly affected by these insurgencies are the ones who have paid the heaviest price often with their lives for no fault of theirs. I am not even mentioning the potential ones that are not on the national radar yet, the ones I am referring to are the ones that were more than a match for the police as well as the regular para-military forces available with the states and threatened to undermine all democratic institutions in those states until Armed forces were called in.

There are many in favour of the use of Armed forces in insurgencies that have gone beyond the control of para-military forces and also there are many who opine that Armed forces must not be used against insurgencies under any circumstances for whatever reasons, the merits and demerits of the arguments related to use of Army in insurgencies is beyond the scope of the topic, in any case it is for the Central govt to decide if and when they want to call the Army.

The state govts meanwhile have limited options of requesting the Centre for adequate para-military forces to counter insurgencies and at times when all the options available to states fail to protect lives, often they resort to unconventional ad-hoc measures to minimise the loss of lives in most cases by empowering the people by arming some of them, mostly volunteers, so that the people are not helpless and at least some lives can be saved. Such measures have been taken by almost all states that were affected by insurgencies like NE states, Punjab, J&K as well as those affected by Maoist insurgencies. Salwa Judum was one such measure adopted by Chhattisgarh as all other options available to it like Central para-military forces were failing.

Never was the constitutionality of such measures adopted by the states affected by insurgencies ever questioned until now and the Supreme Court in it’s wisdom have pronounced constituting and arming these SPOs as unconstitutional. Now the message that is conveyed is that the govt with all the legal experts at it’s disposal can also be unsure about the legality of the actions it takes and there can be a huge gap between the executive and the judiciary on what they perceive as permitted in the constitution.

Arming of SPOs, VDCs etc. were never considered to be a solution to insurgency, they were meant to enhance the security of the people living in insurgency affected areas and supplemented the state forces and Army. The SC has clearly said that it is the govts sole responsibility to protect it’s citizens and that the responsibility cannot be delegated to the people in any circumstance, which entails that the govt only have the option of deploying Armed forces and para-military forces during insurgencies. Despite the presence of Army and PMFs in J&K it was felt necessary to supplement them with SPOs and VDCs, now that option is not available to the govt or the people affected.

(Picture Courtesy Outlook)

Soft Power Dissection

So much is being spoken about how India is making it's presence felt and also staking a claim at the global high table on the basis of it's "Soft Power". Is it all music to the ears signifying nothing or is their some substance in India's claim? When India stakes claim at the global high table of Soft Powers, it asks to be included in an exclusive club with countries like US, Western Europe, Japan, China and perhaps a few others that boast of world renowned culture, arts, science, literature, and other such matters related to human pursuits matured over ages attaining the status of being at the cutting edge of their respective fields.

Given that it's a tall order to match for any country staking claim to the membership of this exclusive club, what exactly is our claim to fame? Our culture is one of the oldest, Sanskrit is one of the oldest language that still attracts scholars in droves, all our major languages that have derived from Sanskrit are no less a treasure trove by themselves, some of the oldest literatures on virtually any subject can be found in India. It's evident that India was one of the most advanced civilization during the time when our culture was taking shape of the form we recognize and take pride as our own. In addition to our traditional soft power we also hear about Bollywood, Multi-Culturism and IT Software development carried out in India in the long list of the things that supposedly make us a soft power. We may not agree with all of them but that is not the point.

India was all that and more when India was subjected to foreign rule first by Mughals followed by the British and even years after India became a republic it was counted among the poorest in the world and hardly anyone called it a soft power. We started to hear the soft power noise only when India’s economy entered a high growth trajectory and it’s GDP became comparable to the GDPs of the developed countries.

So, can we conclude that wealth makes the world see your other positive attributes? That IMO would be an extreme view. India does have a wealth of attributes that are considered necessary to be called a soft power, but unless it is backed by a sound economy and a perceptible hard power it is unlikely to be acknowledged.


(Picture courtesy Tribune)