“There is no terrorism in China. Tell me one country today which is safer than China and I invite you for lunch!’’ This confident assertion was by a person in Shanghai, who was interviewed for the documentary China on the Rise telecast last month on PBS, America’s acclaimed TV channel. What’s that got to do with the subject of this column—namely, 29/10 in Delhi? A lot.After terrorists killed 62 innocent persons in three blasts in the nation’s capital, India is back to debating a painful issue. It pains that unsuspecting citizens, shopping for Diwali and Eid, can be blown up in acts of bestiality which, going by the name of the organisation that has claimed responsibility for them, were carried out to promote ‘‘Islamic Revolution.’’ But that’s not the only thing that pains. After all, neither cross-border terrorism nor the ‘Islamist’ tag that its perpetrators openly advertise, are new to us. It’s more painful that India, the worst victim of this kind of terrorism globally, fails to unite even in the face of repeated terrorist attacks. Look at the lack of national consensus on how the Indian state should curb terrorism and protect the lives of citizens, which is the primary responsibility of any state. If Chinese cities are free of terrorism, the credit goes to China’s leaders, from Deng Xiaoping downwards, who recognised the supreme importance of internal security for social stability, and of social stability for China’s emergence as a strong economic power—in Asia and globally. Do India’s rulers have a similar strategic perspective? Do they realise, in the marrow of their bones, the criticality of internal security for ensuring the safety and security of every Indian citizen and also for making India a strong and prosperous nation? In short, do they, to use the damning words of R.C. Lahoti, the outgoing CJI, have the ‘‘political will to combat terrorism?’’It’s escapism to say that we cannot follow the harsh ways of a totalitarian state. Of course, China is not a democracy and a free society like ours. We can be justifiably proud of this difference. However, can we justify a state of affairs in which terrorists can secure hideouts, procure ration cards and driving licences by paying bribes, and smuggle in weapons at ease? Can we be blind to the gaping flaws in our criminal justice system that has a pathetic record in convicting the culprits in cases of terrorist, Naxalite and communalism-related crime? The manner in which the freedoms offered by our open society are misused by those who, in their own ideologies, have no room for any of those freedoms is truly brazen. But what’s more galling is the alacrity with which terrorists and Naxalites receive sympathy and institutionalised support from a vocal section of our intellectuals who shrilly complain that any action by the state is repressive and violation of human rights. Whose human rights?But this alone hasn’t weakened the Indian state’s response to terrorism. Recall the manner in which the Congress, Communists and the rest of the opposition politicised—and communalised—POTA during the NDA rule. In speech after campaign speech in the 2004 parliamentary polls, Smt. Sonia Gandhi projected POTA as ‘‘anti-minorities.’’ At a rally organised by a Muslim organisation in New Delhi in May, she described the repeal of POTA as fulfillment of a major poll promise her party had made for the ‘‘welfare of minorities.’’ This kind of crass minorityism has serious implications for our polity, but more specifically for India’s internal security system. Post 29/10, we must be clear-sighted about India’s war on terror. True, it is wrong to communalise terrorism. But isn’t it equally wrong to communalise counter-terrorism measures? True, the extremists in VHP who defame Islam or hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the heinous acts of some irreligious persons must be condemned and curbed. or our fight against terrorism should not weaken our efforts for communal harmony. But isn’t it also condemnable if those in government think that taking strong legislative steps to counter terrorism might alienate minority votes? If POTA was defective and vulnerable to misuse, let’s have an improved law. But let’s not legally cripple India’s anti-terror campaign.It’s time we stopped viewing terrorism through the majority-minority prism, and collectively recognised the primacy of India’s national security. Specifically, this implies that the Prime Minister should invite the NDA— and NDA should not spurn the invitation—to evolve a national consensus on fighting terrorism and Naxalism. This consensus should be used for comprehensively strengthening India’s internal security system, especially through police and judicial reforms. For let’s make no mistake: without a strong national will to defeat terrorism and Naxalism, the future holds grave dangers for India’s internal security, social stability and all-round development.(Write to sudheenkulkarni@expressindia.com)
