- News>
- India
Indian State: Under siege?
It took an attack on the nerve centre of the Indian democracy to make our leadership realise that the menace of terrorism should be crushed with all State might. The country is united in the belief that it is time to hit back. The question now is - but how? Siddhartha Sharma analyses.
By: Siddhartha Sharma
It took an attack on the nerve centre of the Indian democracy to make our leadership realise that the menace of terrorism should be crushed with all State might. The attack has proved a mixed bag for the Vajpayee government. On one hand, it will act as a pointer to impress upon the Opposition the need for a law on terrorism, on the other, there will be immense pressure for a befitting reply to the perpetrators, in India’s crusade against terrorism and to shed the label of a soft state. So, what are the options available? Some experts believe that if the September 11 attack on the United States was sufficient reason for America to launch a tirade against terrorism and bomb the living daylights out of a country, already in ruins, why should India hesitate and wait for international support in its own war against terrorism? India has been staring the monster in the face for more than two decades and has lost thousands of innocent lives during the period.
The Prime Minister announced, yet again, that the battle against terrorism will be fought decisively but manner in which India would retaliate is a topic of much speculation. Political rhetoric suggests that the Indian Army should go on a `hot pursuit`, cross the Line of Control(LoC) and fumigate terrorist training camps in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir(PoK). Apart from heightened rhetoric, the action has been zilch. Within a day of the attack, the Opposition sought the Home Minister`s resignation, called it a "monumental security lapse". There have been a lot of brickbats but no ideas have been forthcoming about ways that could be adopted to respond to terrorism on a sustained basis. As far as the question of a security lapse goes, there is little any security agency in the world can do to avert a fidayeen (suicide )attack.
A human bomb hell-bent on blowing himself up, shrinks the success rate of security forces substantially. All credit thus to the security forces who repelled a major terrorist offensive.
Initially, the US State Department had asked India to take "appropriate action". The Secretary of State Colin Powell had also stated that India would be justified in containing acts of terrorism on its democracy, but in the same breath cautioned against any hasty decision. This sermon emanated from the same country, where the President had declared war under similar circumstances amidst deafening applause. This exposes the double standards being followed by the leading opinion maker of the world. Clearly then we cannot expect anybody to fight our battles for us.
We are authorised under the UN charter to do all within our power to defend ourselves against terror attacks. But first we have to consider coolly whether we have the wherewithal to launch those counter-attacks against the Pak-run terrorist camps, and, if we do, whether we are prepared for a possible conflagration that is bound to erupt in the sub-continent following our attack on terrorist camps in their territory. It could sharply escalate Indo-Pak tensions in a nuclearised zone and even win for Pakistan some sympathy.
Each step taken by us should be well thought and carefully evaluated. The Indian foreign secretary has already delivered a demarche to the Pakistan high commissioner stating that there is enough evidence against the involvement of Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad and now it expects a crack down on the organisations. Though it`s anybody`s guess on how much Pakistan will act!
It took an attack on the nerve centre of the Indian democracy to make our leadership realise that the menace of terrorism should be crushed with all State might. The attack has proved a mixed bag for the Vajpayee government. On one hand, it will act as a pointer to impress upon the Opposition the need for a law on terrorism, on the other, there will be immense pressure for a befitting reply to the perpetrators, in India’s crusade against terrorism and to shed the label of a soft state. So, what are the options available? Some experts believe that if the September 11 attack on the United States was sufficient reason for America to launch a tirade against terrorism and bomb the living daylights out of a country, already in ruins, why should India hesitate and wait for international support in its own war against terrorism? India has been staring the monster in the face for more than two decades and has lost thousands of innocent lives during the period.
The Prime Minister announced, yet again, that the battle against terrorism will be fought decisively but manner in which India would retaliate is a topic of much speculation. Political rhetoric suggests that the Indian Army should go on a `hot pursuit`, cross the Line of Control(LoC) and fumigate terrorist training camps in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir(PoK). Apart from heightened rhetoric, the action has been zilch. Within a day of the attack, the Opposition sought the Home Minister`s resignation, called it a "monumental security lapse". There have been a lot of brickbats but no ideas have been forthcoming about ways that could be adopted to respond to terrorism on a sustained basis. As far as the question of a security lapse goes, there is little any security agency in the world can do to avert a fidayeen (suicide )attack.
A human bomb hell-bent on blowing himself up, shrinks the success rate of security forces substantially. All credit thus to the security forces who repelled a major terrorist offensive.
Initially, the US State Department had asked India to take "appropriate action". The Secretary of State Colin Powell had also stated that India would be justified in containing acts of terrorism on its democracy, but in the same breath cautioned against any hasty decision. This sermon emanated from the same country, where the President had declared war under similar circumstances amidst deafening applause. This exposes the double standards being followed by the leading opinion maker of the world. Clearly then we cannot expect anybody to fight our battles for us.
We are authorised under the UN charter to do all within our power to defend ourselves against terror attacks. But first we have to consider coolly whether we have the wherewithal to launch those counter-attacks against the Pak-run terrorist camps, and, if we do, whether we are prepared for a possible conflagration that is bound to erupt in the sub-continent following our attack on terrorist camps in their territory. It could sharply escalate Indo-Pak tensions in a nuclearised zone and even win for Pakistan some sympathy.
Each step taken by us should be well thought and carefully evaluated. The Indian foreign secretary has already delivered a demarche to the Pakistan high commissioner stating that there is enough evidence against the involvement of Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad and now it expects a crack down on the organisations. Though it`s anybody`s guess on how much Pakistan will act!