Soft State India?

Another bomb blast case; yet more homilies on how the Government is putting all measures to ensure the safety of citizens - when you look at our Hon'ble Union Minister for Home saying all this on TV - you know that this country is truly a soft state!

Contrast this to President Bush after 9/11. The fact is that the US has bludgeoned its way into Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact also is that after 9/11 no one has dared to take on the US. The countries which have been targets of terror attacks like the UK and Spain have been far more ambivalent about their national security.

India of course is in a different league altogether in terms of ambivalence about its own security. I think our heads are wired all wrong - else how can we demonstrate so much masochism? There is an enemy to take out - it is called "enemy of the state". The enemy is Islamic Terror and Naxalite Terror - both needs to be taken out.

Yesterday while flipping channels, I landed up on CNN-IBN. Sagarika Ghose (I hope I have got the name right) was on a discussion with Colin Gonsalves and another person whom I missed out. What really irked me what what Mr Gonsalves was saying - that terror laws do not arrest the incidence of terror - hence there should not be any such law! He went on to give the example of the doctor who was helping Naxalites in Chattisgarh and was subsequently arrested. I did write in one of my previous posts that indeed the doctor should have been arrested for helping the enemy. This is war Mr Gonsalves and the rules of engagement are remarkably different from that of televised discussion.

We need a terror law that should strike fear in any enemy of the state - enabled by its implementation. Implementation will have its first hurdle in the executive since all politicians care about are votebanks. B Raman had a nice article in today's Times of India in Mumbai.


"Politicians more worried about votes than lives28 Aug 2007, 0040 hrs IST,B Raman

Large sections of the nation shed tears on July 11, 2007 in memory of the 190 innocent Indians who were killed a year ago in a series of explosions in suburban trains of Mumbai by jihadi terrorists. Just as millions of Americans shed tears on September 11 every year, just as Indonesians and Australians shed tears on the anniversary of the Bali bombing of October 2002; just as Spanish people shed tears on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing of March 2004; just as the British shed tears on the anniversary of the London bombings of July 2005. But there was a significant difference between the observance of the anniversaries of these great human tragedies in other countries and in India. In India, our so-called secular political class and elite kept away from the observance of the anniversary of the Mumbai tragedy of July 11, 2006. There was not a single expression of solidarity by the PM with the relatives of the victims. Why not? Because he was worried that any public expression of sorrow for those blown up by the jihadi terrorists might be misinterpreted by Muslims? The governor of a major state reportedly turned down a suggestion to observe a two-minute silence in memory of those killed in Mumbai a few days after the attacks. Why? Lest Muslims misinterpret it as stigmatising their community. Jihadi terrorists can go on indulging in one act of mass casualty terrorism after another. But, according to our so-called secular political class and elite, we should not talk about it or even cry about it. How many acts of jihadi terrorism we have had in India since the present government came to power in Delhi in 2004? Delhi, Varanasi, Mumbai, Malegaon, Bangalore, Samjhauta Express, Hyderabad. In the past, our police might have been criticised in some instances for its inability to prevent acts of terrorism, but it had generally received high praise for successful investigations. Why is there a perception now that investigations are not as good as in the 1990s? In the 1990s, they received full backing of the political leadership, which took active interest. The political leadership of today gives sermons and no leadership. It avoids active monitoring and supervision of investigations lest Muslims misunderstand. Let us shed tears for ourselves today for having the misfortune of having a government for which the feelings of some are more important than lives of innocent civilians.

The writer is a security analyst"