On 13 January 1898, Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the French president in a major daily titled J’Accuse (I Accuse). It accused the government of anti-Semitism and the unlawful jailing of Alfred Dreyfus for espionage. The letter caused a stir and forced the re-trial of Dreyfus, in which he was cleared of all charges. Since then, J’Accuse has been used to publicise charges against the powerful and the mighty.
I don’t expect that piece will change anything. Yet, after witnessing 60 hours of carnage in Mumbai which cost the lives of at least 200 innocent women, men and children, it is my duty as a citizen to state what many millions of us believe but have not said.
I accuse the state of becoming soft on terror. On the UPA government’s watch, I have collated 16 episodes of terrorist attacks on Indian soil.
November 26-27, 2008:Mumbai hotels, train terminus killings. At least 200 killed.
That’s over 850 innocent deaths under the UPA. The list is not complete and doesn’t account for those routinely killed in Kashmir, or by the Maoists in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. Since 2004, India has the distinction of suffering the brunt of more terrorist casualties than any country in the world, except Iraq. It has everything to do with the government’s softness on terror.
India is the soft underbelly of terrorism. To the west, we have an anarchy called Pakistan whose government has no control over militant jehadis — who wage war on their own country no less actively than they do on our soil. To the east lies Bangladesh, another nation rife with militant Islamist groups, operating with the knowledge that the government has neither the inclination nor the ability to do anything. To the north lies the porous border of Nepal, from where terrorists and Maoists move as they wish.
Given that we are encircled by terror, what has been the response of the government? First, the quality of intelligence. How many of the 16 episodes given above were accurately anticipated by the nation’s intelligence agencies? I don’t mean vague signals. I mean solid actionable intelligence that clearly expects a specific city to be hit on or around a specific date. And if we had such intelligence, what did the state governments do with it? Should not the relatives of the dead know whether the state genuinely tried to protect their lives, but failed? Or that it just didn’t care sufficiently enough?
Second, coordination between different agencies. We know that the National Security Advisor had repeatedly warned the coastline states of terrorist attacks from the sea. Yet, there was no coordination between the various intelligence agencies, the Coast Guard, the Navy and the Mumbai police. Every law enforcement agency worked in silos — each loath to share information with others.
Third, equipment and morale. The Mumbai police was woefully equipped. No proper Kevlar vests; no real weapons — just pistols and 303 bolt action rifles; no night vision equipment; no stun grenades; no real anti-terrorist training; nothing that could give them an upper hand against these well-armed terrorists who were determined to kill and die. Instead of equipping the police properly and backing them to the hilt, they are told that their major challenge lies in “restoring the faith of the people, especially those belonging to religious and ethnic minorities and the weaker sections” and that “many are convinced that the police is less than fair… even when policemen die in their line of duty.”
Fourth, the centrality of Delhi to the neglect of all other metros. The NSG is located in Delhi. Why? Because our nation’s leaders live there. In the last decade, what has prevented us from having battalions of NSGs being posted in Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Guwahati — ready to move at short notice to meet terrorist threats? The denouement: 10 hours for the NSG to reach South Mumbai, by which time the terrorists had established their killing fields.
Fifth, our disgraceful political stance on terror. Terrorists are killers. We don’t care whether they are Ram, Rahim, Rupinder or Richard. They are killers, and must be killed before they kill. Yet, to protect ephemeral vote-banks, we can’t call a Pakistani or Simi-trained terrorist an Islamist. Just as L K Advani won’t call Hindu bomb-throwers terrorists. Our political discourse on terrorism is vitiated to the point of impotence. Any sensible citizen of India will agree that our squabbling leaders have failed to put national security above partisan politics.
If the government wishes to rise above vote-bank politics and tackle the terror, it has to do much better. It must admit that terrorism is public menace number one; that it will go after it single-mindedly, irrespective of the consequences; that it will not distinguish killers by their religion; that it will not allow vote-bank politics to come in the way; that it will never fight shy of wielding force; that it will accept collateral damage if need be; that it will give our intelligence, our cops and our armed forces all the resources that they need. And will walk the talk.
Will you? And instead of yet again rejoicing in Mumbai’s spirit, can you and other politicians first save its citizens?
The author is chairman, CERG Advisory Private Ltd. Views expressed here are personal
Content Guide
|