Beyond knee-jerk responses: Tackling terrorism rationally

This toll is about the same as in the 2004 Madrid bombingsEurope's worst-ever terrorist incidentwhich led to the Spanish government's collapse.

There's speculation that terrorists targeted first-class suburban rail coaches in Mumbai mainly to kill affluent Gujaratis who live in Malad and Kandivalias revenge for the Gujarat pogrom. But only 15 percent of those killed were Gujarati. Had Gujaratis been the main target, the terrorists would have bombed Kandivali/Malad stations.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

We must equally dismiss all that claptrap about the "Spirit of Mumbai." True, Mumbai struggled to quickly regain some sanity through its citizens' admirable solidarity. But it's ludicrous to equate ordinary people's survival struggle with the elite's craving to shore up the Sensex.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has tried to politicise the issue by accusing the government of "trading" national security for "votes." This implies that "Muslim appeasement" has encouraged terrorism. The charge is sickeningly communal.

The UPA, too, didn't cover itself with glory. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's bland, emotionless speech failed to register the gravity of the tragedy.

The Indian establishment was divided. The hardliners, led by National Security Adviser MK Narayanan, planted stories about the involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Students' Islamic Movement of India and other "Pakistan-backed" agencies. But the external affairs and home ministries initially said that the India-Pakistan dialogue wouldn't be affected.

Ultimately, the government's "natural" instincts produced a mindless ban on access to all Internet blogs!

The Mumbai police rounded up hundreds of Muslims without even a "midnight knock." They kicked open the doors of their homes, violating their dignity.

The bombings raise questions about the perpetrators' identity and motives. A major issue is whether the government was right to put Foreign Secretary-level talks on hold unless Pakistan honours its commitment that its territory wouldn't be used for anti-India terrorism.

Although horrifying, the Mumbai killings don't pose a systemic challenge to India. No sub-state organisation anywhere has successfully mounted such a challenge. For all the resourcesand fanatical cadresat its command, al-Qaeda has failed to repeat 9/11 in the US. The threat to Indian democracy from the communal Right is far graver.

Neither Indian intelligence agencies nor the police have produced any convincing, rigorous evidence identifying Mumbai's culprits or their external links. All we have is speculation.

This is no different from the "clues" offered in countless cases, from Mumbai to Varanasi, and Coimbatore to Jammu. That virtually no convictions were secured in these cases is a shameful comment on the police's slipshod work in generating evidence.

Dr. Manmohan Singh declared in Russia that the Mumbai bombings couldn't have been accomplished "without some external involvement." This stretches credulity. Neither the explosives usedRDX, ammonium nitrate and fuel oilnor the targeting of super-crowded trains involve sophistication or scale that cannot be mastered by numerous groups. You don't need the ISI, or even its "rogue" elements, for this.

The timing of such acts may be unrelated to specific events. Groups commit them simply when their cadres and weapons are in place. Nothing suggests that the bombings were meant to avenge a special humiliation or injustice, such as the post-Babri violence in Mumbai, or the Gujarat carnage.

Responsible governments don't change policies on the basis of imperfect, flimsy evidence. The Vajpayee government mobilised 7 lakh troops at the border in response to the 2001 Parliament attack. It sustained the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation for ten long months at enormous expense. India and Pakistan twice came close to the nuclear brink.

Yet, India achieved none of its stated objectives, including the release of any among the list of 20 criminals handed over to Pakistan.

There's no credible evidence of official Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai bombings. Such involvement scarcely makes sense given that Gen Pervez Musharraf is a jehadi target, that Pakistan has deployed 60,000 soldiers against al-Qaeda, and that it is under close watch of the international community as regards its anti-terrorism commitments. Harping on Pakistan denies that today's terrorism, and its causes, are rooted in India.

India would be ill-advised to jeopardise the peace process. Rather, it should explore Pakistan's offer of joint investigation, along with a multilateral agency like Interpol.

The India-Pakistan dialogue has worked, despite its flaws and now-slackened pace, in both countries' interest. Several barriers to people-to-people movement have been broken downwith an unprecedented 1.7 lakh people crossing the border in six months. India has created, to its own benefit, conditions conducive to economic and cultural cooperation with Pakistan.

India's biggest gain is the crucial assurance from President Musharraf that Pakistan would discuss Kashmir within a framework that rules out redrawing borders. Here lies a big peace dividend, which can free us of the psychological, military and political burden of rivalry. It would be self-defeating to miss it.

Mumbai holds a larger lesson. No state can guarantee absolute security and assuredly prevent terrorism. However, it can do three things. First, it can encourage greater alertness, and methodically collect information on suspect groups.

It can install simple surveillance equipment, such as closed-circuit television cameras, at transport hubs. It shouldn't emulate London, with its half-a-million hidden cameras.

Second, the government can, and must, provide advance warning, and emergency relief, including medical help, evacuation and rehabilitation, to victims. Citizens needn't feel that the state can prevent all violence, only that it is doing its utmost to help them. This can only happen if violence is thoroughly investigated, and culprits convicted, in a revamped justice delivery system.

Finally, the government must sort out "inter-agency politics." India's 10 intelligence agencies work at cross-purposes. Their top officers are often appointed on cronyist considerations.

This must stop. We must understand how terrorist groups work, and the associative bonds that consolidate them. Without this, our agencies will fail to bring terrorists to book. Their knee-jerk responses are the last thing we need.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.