| Published on 04-12-2008 In General |
| Viewed 494 times |
| How should we respond to the challenge of terrorism? |
|
|
Written by
Nilotpal Basu |
Rarely has an event impacted India as profoundly as the 60 hours of siege of Mumbai by the 10 heavily armed terrorists. This cataclysmic siege had been brought to our households through the continuous coverage of our television channels. The events had brought the ferocity of modern day terrorism as never before. From the point when the shoot out began – nothing was secretive or clandestine about the act of the terrorists. It was meant to strike and so it did. The media did capture the quintessence of the act– a declaration of open war against a nation-state and its people. The media, obviously, underlined the nature of confrontation – war. The three places which were under siege were referred to as `war zone', or, 'battleground', and in its obvious parallel with the cataclysmic developments of 9/11 - `ground zero'. Not that fedayeen attacks have not taken place in India in the past; but those were in remote Jammu & Kashmir. Never ever in the heartland of the country – and not surely in a manner as would ensure live television coverage for excruciatingly long 60 hours!
But, perhaps, the aftermath has been more dramatic than the siege itself. The country's Home Minister has resigned and the two top functionaries of the Maharashtra government are out or on their way out. But that such rare events do not seem to have any significant effect in dousing the fit of rage that appears to be surging across the nation – particularly urban India. The sense of outrage is, indeed, understandable. Because, not only did the terrorists show and flaunt their audacity by launching the attack and indulge in indiscriminate killing but challenge the might of the nation-state and managed to hold on for an agonizingly long 60 hours.
But the manner and content of the protest is unprecedented. In earlier incidents of terror strikes, casualties have been heavy. But Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels are a different territory – absolute heart of the Indian elite. The reaction, therefore, is also as if somebody has driven home a sharp knife right into that heart. And, therefore, most influential sections of the Indian society – corporate India which as never been, is vociferous. Understandably, the media coverage has highlighted these reactions. And, the preferences were so obvious that even channels have subsequently admitted that the actions in the railway station where victims came from a more modest background have lost out in terms of coverage.
The anger has been directed against the `political class'. And, there have been enough reasons to put fingers at ineptitude, insensitivity and outright hypocrisy. There was not even a murmur from Raj Thackeray over non-Maharashtrians – perhaps the entire contingent of the NSG commandos who with supreme sacrifice broke the siege were of `outsiders'. Or, Narendra Modi, who attacked Hemant Karkare – the heroic chief of Maharashtra ATS as a conspirator against Hindutva for the manner in which he uncovered the role of saffron groups in Malegaon blasts – announced Rs. 1 crore as a tribute on behalf of the Gujarat government without even batting an eyelid. And, not to speak of many others.
But the question is what should be the alternative? Can democracy or the parliamentary system in India be substituted by something else? There can be no Indian in their senses who would not salute our security forces – NSG, or policemen who laid down their lives in defending civilians in their line of duty.
But to suggest that only people in uniform can take charge of our national security – as one of the in-house strategic affairs expert of a leading television indeed suggested – is outrageous to say the least. And, this is precisely what some of the bigwigs of corporate India and the social chatteratti in their fit of rage seem to be demanding.
While preliminary leads in the investigation seem to be suggesting that the conspiracy and its execution was initiated on the soil of Pakistan, regardless of whether the Pakistan government had any direct role to play or not, is a country which is today a hotbed of terrorist activities. This is despite the fact that there have been intermittent periods where men in uniform have been at the helm of the government. In fact, that was the reason and not the solution for facing the challenge of terrorism. Lack of democracy is hurting the Indian people and it is also hurting Pakistan itself. But instead of pointing out such a home truth, some of the mainstream media are eulogizing this cynicism.
There can be no doubt that there are major fault lines in our political process. But they lie in our failure to build institutions and put systems in place which can take on this humongous challenge of modern terrorism and safeguard security of our citizens. Why nobody talks about the dysfunctional National Security Council? Why are national security doctrine and its translation not a part of our public discourse? Why is an institutional mechanism to force accountability of those who are responsible absent? Why are the `enlightened' citizens and the media not taking on the political parties for their inability to build a consensus around these issues? Why are forces that communalise and attribute terrorism to certain religious denomination and thereby weaken our national unity and our resolve to unitedly take on the terrorist challenge not castigated?
If we have a political system which is obviously flawed and with its weaknesses, why do our mad rage not rallying for overcoming these flaws? We must be united. Political parties and our people at large must play a role to galvanise our anguish and hurt against those who perpetrated the siege in Mumbai and mindlessly killed a couple of hundreds of people. We must introspect. The US and Israel and their signature methods in authoring the direction of the global `war on terror', has led to spawning of terrorism which is far more widespread. India with its diversity has to be distinct in its response to this unacceptable and gruesome acts to which we have been subjected. There has to be a genuine cooperative approach – both within the country and the internationally. We must bring this unity into play through the United Nations and the Security Council. Facts and evidences must be the basis for global action. Meanwhile, within the country the debate must go on over systemic and institutional shortcomings. And, criticism also – but that for strengthening our battle against terrorism not betraying our despair. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
