Tackling terrorism
R. K. RAGHAVAN
Nothing effective can be done to tackle terrorism unless people rise
as one man to help law enforcement.
Observing silence: Commuters wait for their trains after observing
two minutes’ silence in remembrance of the victims of the
explosions, at the Churchgate station in Mumbai on July 18. The
numbers that are accommodated on each train are huge, making basic
security measures almost impossible.
|
MUMBAI BLASTS: Terrorism has become such a hackneyed subject
that one feels uncomfortable writing about it. With the many experts,
some self-proclaimed, already in the field, I am overwhelmed.
I believe anything I say in these columns would hardly sound new to
the average reader. Yet, one cannot ignore an incident that claimed over
two hundred lives for no purpose. When news of the Mumbai blasts was
trickling in, many of us responded not just with fury.
There was also a feeling of indescribable haplessness in the face of
the increasing might of evil, which displays utter disregard for what
religion has taught us.
There was, at the same time, a feeling of guilt that we had been
spared individually, while many fellow beings had been taken away for no
fault of theirs.
The horror of it all is that violence is perpetrated blatantly and
speciously in the name of religion. Outrage demands and generates
spontaneously some strong and direct language of condemnation, which
would leave no one in doubt of what the civilised world wants. We would
also like to continue to point that no scripture sanctions the taking of
the life of another person.
Here are some thoughts, for the record. Do not expect any quarter or
mercy from those who demand that only one religion should prevail. In
their view, other faiths are inconsequential, furthermore, they need to
be eliminated.
Persuasion to adjure violence, therefore, may not bring in the
desired outcome. This deplorable situation has come to stay for long.
Many of us may not live to see any change of heart in those who believe
that they can only live by the sword. The prospect of their perishing by
the same sword appears to them, distant and possibly not very likely.
Prudence, therefore, demands that we gird up our loins. We have to be
eternally vigilant. We just cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into
complacence by an occasional ceasefire that is observed more for
tactical reasons than any humane purpose.
Terrorism has exposed the fragility of nationalism. Those who are
determined to inflict violence believe that nationalism is archaic.
There is a more alluring time-tested power that flows out of
unquestioned obeisance to a religion, actually to its distorted version.
There is ample proof, that under the banner of one religion, lumpen
elements, actuated by alice, can dismiss territorial loyalties and the
pull of belonging to a specific country but use their combined might to
cause havoc among those who worship God in another form.
This is why cohesion flowing from subscribing to one particular
religion is more powerful than any coalition of nations, which are
secular and seek to fight violence that is driven by religious
fanaticism.
It seems that the 21st Century is not merely the next phase of
globalisation of economy that was forged in the previous century. It is
also a period of globalisation of terror. This means the terrorist is an
international personality who is better organised and more motivated
than all those who speak the language of peace.
We, therefore, have an awesome foe to defeat and this requires an
extraordinary meeting of minds and an unprecedented shedding of egos.
Unfortunately, the anti-terror coalition suffers from ego clashes and a
perennial mutual suspicion that whittles down its combined might.
Straying from their major preoccupation of extirpating the terrorist
from every nook and corner of the globe, some of the coalition partners
on occasions spy on one another, inviting derision and ridicule.
This is at a time when what the world wants is only determined
pursuit of those dedicated to causing disorder and misery. It is this
lack of discipline and single-mindedness among those who are opposed to
terrorism that hampers their success.
In essence, the need of the hour is more statesmen and fewer
politicians. Distressingly, the latter seem to outnumber the former!
To me it appears India will undoubtedly be a theatre where the
terrorist will stage his actions with alarming frequency. There are many
reasons why this should be the case. First, we are the envy of many
around us, and to an extent, even those geographically distant from us.
India's growth rate of 7 to 8 per cent, the pride of place it has in
the global Information Technology industry are not matters of comfort to
many. Notwithstanding the annoyingly high levels of corruption and
violence crime, it stands out as an open society rooted in a democratic
polity. Not many others can boast of this.
Perhaps the factor that is most disconcerting to those who believe
that governments will necessarily have to be theocratic and the grant of
freedom to citizens to practise a religion of their choice is dangerous,
is that India is truly secular and is the supreme example of a
multi-religious society that lives in reasonable harmony.
Terrorism will be the vehicle through which rabid fundamentalists
will ceaselessly assault our secular and economic foundations. We
should, therefore, expect no let-up in the kind of offensive that we saw
in Mumbai on March 12, 1993 and again on July 11, 2006.
All our planning - building international opinion and beefing up our
internal security mechanism - will have to proceed on this basis.
Experts opine that 'copycat terrorism' is not very much a reality.
There is an international pool of expertise from which the average
terrorist can draw liberally. to boot this, a powerful medium in the
form of the Internet is now available for the sharing of skills and
experience.
Every incident of some magnitude in a remote art of the world
provides the inspiration for action in another corner. This is why we
expect 9/11 to be repeated elsewhere when we are sucked by moments of
complacence.
This is again why it is easy to speculate that Madrid of March 11,
2004, is probably the model that was successfully implemented in the
recent attacks on Mumbai suburban trains.
This brings me to the depressing subject of protecting the rail
system from terrorist machinations. If there is one group of travellers
who is most disparate, it is those who travel by our trains.
Thy come from different economic strata and travel for a variety of
purposes, carrying a mind-boggling assortment of baggage. Compared to
them, air travellers are slightly more homogeneous.
The numbers that are accommodated in each train are huge, lending
basic security measures such as physical checks and baggage scrutiny
almost impossible, except on special, occasions when there is specific
information of a possible attack.
Random examination of baggage and frisking of select passengers and
installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at sensitive
points can be of limited psychological deterrent.
Modest investment on such infrastructure is just prudent and nothing
more. One cannot exaggerate their utility. This is why more energy and
resources are better spent on passenger sensitisation to basic
precautions, a strategy that will yield fruit in course of time.
Larger police forces in our major cities are definitely one effective
way of dealing with terrorism. This is because it is spectacular action
at these centres that gives the terrorist the greatest mileage in terms
of media publicity and the widespread fear it generates.
Visible presence of young policemen in uniform at railway stations in
big cities on a permanent basis and solely to keep an eye on happenings
there will have some impact.
Imaginative posting of physically imposing and mentally alert
constables at stations under a dedicated supervisor, can make a
difference.
The caveat is these men would not be used for any other chores. I
have seen this myself in London, and this is one way to explain that
since the July 7, 2005, attack there has been no incident in the
frightening labyrinth that the underground is. One cannot, however, be
optimistic because of the basic vulnerability of rail networks the world
over.
While accretions to the uniformed segment of the police are welcome,
I would place the greatest stress on strengthening the intelligence
machinery. This is one much abused part of policing that does not
inspire confidence in critics.
This is in spite of some notable achievements by the Intelligence
Bureau (I.B) as well as some State intelligence units. To the small-time
politician, 'intelligence' is synonymous with picking up blackmail
material against the Opposition parties, and sometimes the adversary in
his own party.
This is the state of affairs that will have to be transformed if we
have to get the better of the terrorist. This will not happen overnight.
It takes years to build a professional organisation.
Fortunately, our I.B has set high standards for those in the States
to follow. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is a mixed bag of
achievements, although a lot has been done in the past year or two to
bring it back on rails.
There is no substitute for accurate and timely intelligence. More
resources for the two organisations and carefully selected quality
leadership should bring rewards.
Morale of grass roots personnel in both of them leaves a lot to be
desired because of slow promotions and modest working and living
conditions. The hope is that substantial improvement in these two areas
can bring about sharper performance of intelligence operatives.
I would place emphasis on a less inhibited exchange of intelligence
with counterparts in the West and in South East Asia. Withholding of
terrorist intelligence from other countries on questionable national
security considerations is hardly justified in the backdrop of Mumbai
and other incidents that have devastated the nation in the past five
years.
We need to show a certain dynamism and openness that would have
caused eyebrows to rise in the pre-9/11 world but not any longer. This
is an unconventional approach. But orthodoxies in government of the
Marxist variety may prevent this from happening. This is a matter for
regret.
From all my reading of terrorist literature and discussion with those
in the trade in India and elsewhere, I am convinced that it is a
stepped-up monitoring of telecommunication networks, which will bring
the kind of information that will prevent disasters like the Mumbai
blasts.
The U.S. has been unabashed about this, and the fact that in the five
years since 9/11 there has been no incident in that country is proof
that eavesdropping possibly produces the best results.
The National Security Agency (NSA) in that country has done
remarkable work in this area, and despite the howl of protest generated
within the country, it has gone about its tasks with ruthless
efficiency. I know that my approach to the whole subject can produce
consternation among those who swear by privacy.
My stand is that whatever the I.B or the Central Bureau of
Intelligence (CBI) or any other law enforcement agency does on this
front of monitoring should be based on a law that is the product of
political consensus and which is liable to court endorsement.
Any action that is outside such law alone should be punishable. The
Internet is a potent medium that has undeniably led to gross abuse by
those who trade on flesh and national loyalties.
An intelligence agency that can not keep track of Internet traffic is
a solider without arms. The latest information that Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) is a much-abused medium to transmit prohibited
information across borders after evading intelligence agencies is
significant here.
Nothing effective can happen unless the community rises as one to
help law enforcement. I concede the Mumbaikar has an indomitable spirit,
which is the envy of those in other cities in India and elsewhere. The
response to the recent tragedy was admirable.
But, what was done before the tragedy in spite of the city's known
vulnerabilities? How will the Mumbaikar keep track of and bring to book,
those who are continually in the business of wanton violence in the name
of religion?
These are relevant questions that cannot be shunned. The need of the
hour is a proactive community effort to disarm terrorists before they
strike. Will this happen at all? Will the Mumbaikar show the way to
others in the country and the rest of the world?
Courtesy: Frontline |