Hype does not help fight terror
Praful Bidwai
Khaleej Times, 19 August 2006
Ten thousand policemen just to secure the Red Fort. Delhi air traffic closed for the entire day — in aid of a morning ceremony. Curfew-like ‘sanitisation’ of scores of cities. Intensive searches that inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people.
Never before has India witnessed such security on Independence Day. The arrangements were disproportionate to threats and based on a naïve ‘more-is-better’ assumption. The public reacted to this excess with some scepticism. Most citizens would put up with inconvenience if a specific terrorist attack seemed credible and imminent. But this week they were asked to accept harassment for an indefinite period to avert an imperceptible, vague, generalised threat. The authorities seemed to want to create a ‘barbed-wire’ mentality and a climate of anxiety and fear.
Three factors explain the security excesses. First, after the Mumbai bombings, which took the authorities by surprise — and whose perpetrators, motives and links they have failed to identify — they were anxious not to be caught napping again. This led the National Security Adviser to press the alert (panic?) button.
Second, after the uncovering of a "plot" to blow up 10 airliners between London and the United States, there were heightened fears that groups like Al Qaeda might launch another attack. South Asia might be targetted because a majority of the suspects were of Pakistani origin and a Jet Airways employee was involved.
The US embassy in India told American citizens it anticipated that foreign terrorists, possibly Al Qaeda, might conduct attacks "in or around New Delhi and Mumbai". It shared this intelligence with the Indian government, which immediately imposed the same kind of baggage restrictions on air travellers as in London — despite the different threats.
The next day, the US state department contradicted the embassy and said its warning must be understood as "hypothetical", not based on "definitive information". But India’s security establishment ignored this and further tightened security. It had already made up its mind — regardless of the facts.
This highlights the third factor: namely, National Security Adviser MK Narayanan’s strange new assessment that terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyeba has recently joined Al Qaeda, making India a target of "global terrorism", no less. If true, this would doubtless mark a qualitative change. But reaching that conclusion demands incontrovertible, weighty, clinching evidence. Narayanan hasn’t produced an iota of this. This violates all criteria of transparency and is utterly irresponsible. There’s a compelling public-interest reason why the nation should be told of the basis of this assessment. Instead of hard evidence presented through proper official briefings, all we have is one person’s statement, unsupported by facts — plus unverified, unsourced, planted media reports.
These claim that the "authorities" have obtained "intercepts" of wireless calls between terrorists; in Kashmir, they sighted "tall men speaking an alien language..." Some stories refer to "definite reports" that Al Qaeda has joined hands with groups like LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizbul Mujahideen. One paper says a "30-member Al Qaeda module is on the prowl in south Kashmir."
However, wireless "intercepts" have often proved unreliable. They are only as good as their interpretation. The sight of "tall men" speaking a foreign-sounding language in a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual state like Kashmir isn’t all that unusual. Some militant groups cited as Al Qaeda’s collaborators are at loggerheads, eg LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Hizbul-Mujaheedin, largely composed of ‘indigenous’ Kashmiris, regards both as ‘outsiders’.
Given all this, it’s positively irresponsible to tom-tom Al Qaeda’s arrival in India. This serves three deplorable purposes. First, Al Qaeda’s name evokes a super-human, Satanic, invincible force. Even the mighty US couldn’t defend itself against Al Qaeda. How can India? This becomes an alibi for inaction and incompetence on the part of India’s intelligence agencies — and an excuse for evading the duty to unearth and analyse evidence.
Second, exaggerating terrorist threats leads to panic and fear. Such a climate facilitates draconian anti-terrorist laws like TADA and POTA — favoured by trigger-happy policemen. But the more the state brutalises innocents, generating resentment, the higher the appeal of revenge-based ideologies — and the terrorist threat.
Third, the Al Qaeda bogey promotes all kinds of imaginary links between groups driven by local grievances (eg Hizbul Mujahideen) and those inspired by fundamentalist ideologies. This narrows the range of anti-terrorist options.
That’s what President Bush has done by inventing a preposterous new term, "Islamic fascism", and lumping together Palestinian nationalists, the Iraq resistance, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda. Duplicating Bush’s blunder will have communal effects in India. It will give ‘anti-terrorist’ legitimacy to Hindutva. With or without evidence, various organisations from SIMI to the Muslim Personal Law Board to sundry madrassas will be declared "linked to Al Qaeda" — with horrifying consequences.
Narayanan is playing with fire. His record inspires little confidence. As Intelligence Bureau chief in 1991, he lowered the threat level and security-cover rating for Rajiv Gandhi shortly before his assassination. He’s seen to be toadying up to those in power.
Most worryingly, Narayanan views terrorism through the prism of religion, that is, in ways open to a communal interpretation. Consider a speech he made shortly after September 11, 2001, to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in Toronto. He focused on "religious terrorists, especially of the radical Islamist variety", using every stereotype in the book.
He said, "Violence for them becomes a sacramental act, a divine duty executed... Terrorism assumes a transcendental dimension, and its perpetrators are undeterred by political morality..." He warned of an "intricate" support network for these "Islamic terrorist outfits," with recruits from "more than a score of countries."
Narayanan concludes by evoking a Hindu "mantra": "In extraordinary times, we need unusual remedies — religion not excluded... For the Hindus (the religion to which I subscribe), the ‘Gayatri’ is considered to be the supreme mantra... It is a purificatory mantra believed to create powerful vibrations... In these perilous times, may the chanting of the ‘Gayatri’ protect and guide us... to defeat the many forces of Evil."
It would have been thoroughly objectionable for a serving Indian official to make such a speech. Narayanan had by then retired. But now that he’s back in office, he owes Indians an explanation, besides an obligation to come clean on the LeT-Al Qaeda link.
Copyright 2006 The Khaleej Times
|
