Counter-terrorism trivialised

In view of this, one could not fault the decision of the ruling party to make counter-terrorism CT the main plank of its campaign in the just-concluded elections in the state. Any plan for strengthening the state8217;s CT capability would have to address the reasons mentioned above which have made the state terrorism-prone. But instead of doing so, the ruling party, in its manifesto, reduced CT to a farce by focussing on issues such as providing CT training to youths, compulsory NCC training, setting up sainik schools along the borders etc. Such issues have greater relevance to counter-insurgency where the insurgents operate from amongst the people and to states already affected by terrorism such as Jammu 038; Kashmir J038;K than to Gujarat. What the election plank as projected and the rhetoric based on it might have achieved is not a better CT capability, but a public paranoia of terrorism directed at members of the minority community, further aggravating the communal polarisation in the state.

This writer has been one of the most relentless in drawing attention to the threats to India8217;s national security from the hydra-headed monster of Pakistan-based pan-Islamic terrorism, inspired by Osama bin Laden and his International Islamic Front IIF, and to the need for exercising our right of active defence against it by carrying our CT operations, if necessary, to Pakistani territory, through appropriate overt/covert means. At the same time, he has been equally consistent in cautioning that we should not nurse or encourage suspicions about the Muslim community just because some of their co-religionists have taken to terrorism. If one leaves aside J038;K, there are no reports of even a single Indian Muslim from other parts of India undergoing jehad training in any of the madrasas of Pakistan which have hundreds of Muslims from all over south east and central Asia undergoing training. In the 1980s, not a single Indian Muslim joined the mercenary force created by USA8217;s Central Intelligence Agency CIA to fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. When bin Laden created his IIF in 1998, many Islamic extremist organisations of the world joined it. Not a single Indian Muslim organisation 8212; not even from J038;K 8212; has done so. Hundreds of Muslims from all over the world rushed to Afghanistan to help the Taliban and Al Qaeda when the US started its air strikes on October 7, 2001. Not a single Indian Muslim 8212; not even from J038;K 8212; has done so. Many countries in the world were rocked by anti-US and pro-bin Laden demonstrations by local Muslims, but not India. You visit any bazaar in south east Asia or even in Hong Kong, you will find shops selling bin Laden T-shirts, caps etc. Rarely in India.

The overwhelming majority of our Muslims have remained patriotic and kept away from pan-Islamic terrorists. When they feel aggrieved by the perceived failure of the government to protect them, they cry on the shoulders of the media, non-governmental organisations, National Human Rights Commission, opposition parties or at the most, foreign human rights organisations, not on the shoulders of bin Laden and his irrational tribe.

India has been facing the problem of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for over 40 years 8212; first in the Northeast, then in Punjab and J038;K and then in other parts of India. Till today, the nation does not have a credible CT doctrine based on national consensus. There is no lucid understanding of the problem. There has been no clear identification of the overt and covert options available, no attempt to create the capability to exercise those options and no determination to use those options. All we have is rhetoric. CT is used by political parties as a stick to beat not terrorists, but each other within Parliament and outside. Of the four Special Task Forces appointed by the government after Kargil in 2000, three 8212; those on the intelligence apparatus, internal security and border management 8212; made important recommendations in September 2000 having a bearing on CT. Our political parties have had no time till now to have a meaningful discussion on them and on the follow-up action taken by the government. 9/11 has been followed by intense debate in the US Congress on CT and the measures to strengthen homeland security. How many debates, marked by knowledge and expertise, have we had on this subject in our Parliament? Instead of evolving a credible CT doctrine followed by resolute action to enforce it, we have reduced CT to the level of Hyde Park oratory. If we continue at this rate, Osama bin Laden may have the last laugh.

The writer retired as additional secretary, cabinet secretariat