Follow Us:
Thursday, May 26, 2022

War of a thousand cuts

Three is a general tendency to verbal excess in crises and, in the aftermath of the recent hijacking, one leading columnist declares that ...

Written by K P S Gill |
January 7, 2000

Three is a general tendency to verbal excess in crises and, in the aftermath of the recent hijacking, one leading columnist declares that “India has been handed its most serious defeat of the entire Kashmir war.” Are we to understand that the release of three terrorists has inflicted greater damage than the loss, in 1948, of more than 80,000 sq-uare kilometres of Indian territory? Or the release of Rubiya Saeed? Or the Charar-e-Sharif disaster?

In this context, let us look at some of the major reverses in counter-terrorist efforts outside Kashmir, like Operation Blue Star in Punjab. Or the subsequent assassination of Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh riots that followed. In Assam, the squandering of all the advantages created by, and the political betrayal of, Operation Rhino. Indeed a far greater failure, in the eyes of those who are even remotely acqua-inted with the situation on the ground, was the state’s failure to come to the aid of policemen in Punjab when they were targeted in a massive andcoordinated campaign of malicious litigation by the front organisations of separatist forces after the manifest defeat of terrorism in the state.

But in the infinitesimal attention span of most analysts, the history of terrorism extends no further than the last outrage they can remember. The reality is that India has not only survived, but recovered in strength from, each of these crises. As a nation, we have the resilience to rise out of each of these calamities. However, it is now time to extricate ourselves from the mesh of partisan exculpation and face the question: what needs to be done now?

This is a question that has been asked again and again, in the wake of various crises. But as soon as the problem is `resolved’, for better or for worse, the entire exercise of reorganisation and reconstruction is forgotten. I have sought again and again to make successive governments take note of the inevitable changes that must shape our responses, if we are to purchase any permanent victories against the `warof a thousand cuts’ unleashed against us. The official response has, on the one hand, been disappointing; on the other, these suggestions have often met with a barrage of motivated criticism that has sought to underplay the dangers of low-intensity wars in India, and to exaggerate the risks of a firm response.

Best of Express Premium

UPSC Key – May 26, 2022: Why and What to know about Hawala Transaction to...Premium
BJP big guns to lend Himachal CM Jai Ram Thakur a hand as corruption, fac...Premium
Explained: The message behind Margaret Atwood’s ‘unburnable&#...Premium
Welcome to the elusive world of crypto mining: Rohtak rig, 3 engineers, R...Premium

A consequence of Pakistan’s misadventure in Kargil and the hijack is a broad consensus that the soft options of the past cannot suffice if Indian democracy is not to capitulate in the face of the terrorist onslaught. The consensus, and the government’s commitment to forge a proactive response to terrorism, must now be tr- anslated into actual me-chanisms of defence.

Almost two and a half years ago, in my letter to then Prime Minister, I had called for a radical reorganisation of our counter-terrorism forces, since neither the police nor the army, by virtue of their basic orientation and training, are properly equipped to handle low-intensity warfare. Sweeping reforms must now be initiated toconfront this danger. Equally, the parameters within which each agency must respond to such challenges should be debated and clearly defined, as must be the relationship between these agencies. Enormous flexibility, a willingness to explore alternatives outside the hidebound and hierarchical patterns of the past, is needed both to speed up responses and to make them more effective.

It is also imperative that the powers, the range of extraordinary actions permitted in these situations, and the applicable legal criteria and context of evaluation of these actions –whether these are the same as those applicable in peacetime or are to be akin to articles of war, or to some intervening statutes – are determined and suitably legislated.

Also deserving of attention is the total collapse of the institutions of governance other than the uniformed service in situations of terror. In a democracy, the conduct of every arm of government must be subject to review. Yet, the conduct of the judiciary and the civiladministration has completely escaped examination. In 1997, I wrote to the Prime Minister: “What is to be said of judges who failed to consider overwhelming evidence of the most heinous crimes? Who fail to administer justice according to the laws of the land for over a decade in terrorist related cases….? How can we be told that men who refused to do their sworn duty for over ten years are in no way intellectually and morally compromised?”

In Jammu and Kashmir, too, the courts are yet to pass a sentence against a single act of terrorism. It is time, now, to acknowledge that one of the greatest violations of human rights is a justice system that refuses or fails to punish perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes, abandoning the common citizenry to the savagery of the forces of disorder. The judiciary has been unequivocally guilty of a great deal of populist posturing and of what can only be described as criminal irresponsibility on this issue. It is time to put an end to this self-defeating charade,and to create a system where the guilty are punished, are punished within reasonable time, and are seen to be justly punished in proportion to the enormity of their crimes.

Our management of the media and the projection of terrorism also leave much to be desired. A critical aspect is the misreading of public opinion, and a tendency to see events through communally coloured glasses. The idiom of discourse on terrorism should not be clouded by the animus of Partition for, if it is, we are inadvertently but inescapably trapped in the two-nation theory that created that disaster. Terrorism is employment of merciless violence for a variety of ends. There are no Islamic, Hindu, Christian or atheistic terrorists. There are, simply, terrorists.There is also an unfortunate tendency to panic reactions in government such as the ill-advised decision to put commandos on commercial flights. What we need are not emergency measures including special forces, special courts and special laws. These only create an illusionof security. What we need is clear-headed and good governance, and the restoration of institutions of civil society.

A final word on diplomacy and our somewhat frenetic campaign to have Pakistan declared a terrorist state. Cold evidence will have a greater impact on the international community which, however, will continue to be guided by considerations of partisan and national gain, rather than any objectively moral principles. In any event, even if we can convince the world of Pakistan’s perfidy, we will have to win the war against terrorism on our soil entirely by ourselves.

The writer is former director general of police, Punjab

For all the latest News Archive News, download Indian Express App.

  • Newsguard
  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
  • Newsguard