Our terror, their terror

The simple answer is: when the terrorists have been eliminated. Since that is easier said than done, the next best approach is to dilute democracy and set up a hard, national security state where citizens shall be safe. This could well be the direction we are headed towards. Witness the creation of Inland security, the Patriot Act, the multiplication of intelligence agencies, the targeting of journalists, and the slow, gradual dismantling of the liberal, democratic structures. It would of course, be gross exaggeration to suggest that the search for security from terrorism is causing major western capitals to resemble the 8220;safe heaven8221; T.N. Kaul was in search of. But compromises on democracy can sometimes be the thin end of the wedge.

When acts of terror take place the Bush-Blair duet go on TV expressing their resolve to 8220;preserve our way of life, the civilised way of life8221;. Those who perpetrate 8220;barbarities8221; will be overcome. Such speeches may go down very well with audiences in the US and UK. But we live in the age of global media. Imagine how they register with the population of Gaza, Kabul, Falluja, Samara, Nineveh, Najaf, the descendants of the Mesopotamians who, I dare say, also have some claim to civilisation. They, whose museum was looted in the first week of the armies of freedom marching in, also had 8220;a way of life8221;.

Terrorism at home is 8220;an act of barbarity8221;, as Blair says. All sensible people would agree with him. But how should we describe the wanton killing of over 1,00,000 innocent men, women and children? Collateral damage?

Until this hypocrisy is met head on I do not see what useful direction the war on terror can take. Yes, curb immigration, monitor Muslim colonies like the Warsaw Ghetto, curtail civil liberties, become like T.N. Kaul8217;s 8220;safe heaven8221;. The costs may be worth considering if rooting out of terrorism were guaranteed. It is not. Continuous injustice, humiliation of a people, amplified on global networks, will generate anger in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and, most worrying of all, Leeds and Luton, where Bush-Blair-like triumphalism will rub salt in wounds.

Having said that, the British system and the people have coped with this crisis in exemplary fashion. The contrast with our own behaviour after the Ayodhya incident a few days earlier is humbling. At Ayodhya five alleged terrorists were shot dead without doing any harm to the structure. To this day the identity of the culprits is not known. And yet all TV channels have conducted discussions on all known militant groups. Every political party, except the Left, groped for advantage.

In London, where the tragedy was on a catastrophic scale, the entire system, including the media, joined hands to cope calmly with the crisis. The police, fire brigade, special agencies, medical teams went about their business without spreading any panic. Controlling people8217;s anxieties by disseminating measured information, left no room for mischievous speculation. It was a national crisis and political parties refrained from scoring points. The next day, London was miraculously limping back to normal.

And, within a week, the terrorists had been identified. The refrain from all responsible sections was: no particular group of people should be singled out for popular anger. Communities do not organise crimes: individuals do. It appears BBC has been asked to use the word 8220;terrorists8221; sparingly. A less provocative word would do. On TV, there was no frenetic search for ratings as there was here after Ayodhya. One or two of our channels turned up in London too, again fired by that zest for ratings. A PTC or Piece To Camera is a TV requirement, where a reporter opens or concludes a story against a backdrop that establishes the fact that 8220;its8221; reporter had indeed travelled to the place where the incident had occurred. The obvious places for the PTC after the London blasts were Kings Cross or Aldate tube stations. But an Indian reporter, eager to heighten the drama, stood in front of a vast, empty space which was supposed to be a mosque, wearing a head scarf! I thought it was mandatory for women to wear scarves in Tehran, not London.

Write to saeednaqviexpressindia.com