No one can possibly accuse Dy.Prime Minister, L.K.Advani, of lacking in energy in responding to the challenge of cross-border terrorism. Nor can anyone fault his zeal in trying to nail Pakistan as the principal sponsor of terrorism today. This display of activism has taken the Dy.Prime Minister to the US, the UK, France and Russia, quite a few countries of West Asia and very recently to Singapore and Thailand. The message he conveyed has been loud and clear viz. that of 'zero-tolerance' of Pak- sponsored terrorism, that India's patience was wearing thin at the international community's unwillingness to pressurise Pakistan to resile from its actions and, implying, that India might be constrained to consider a doctrine of pre-emption to prevent future attacks.

2. During the Dy.Prime Minister's visit to Thailand, Delhi and Bangkok agreed to enhance security-related co-operation. Both countries also underlined the importance of concerted international action to combat such terrorist activities as 'threaten the stability of the region'. In Singapore, Sri Advani went much further in fashioning his idea of 'security-diplomacy'. He portrayed Pakistan as India's main security threat, argued that 'if a state resorts to terrorism as an instrument of war, it becomes particularly dangerous', observed that unchecked 'jehadi terrorism' posed grave problems, and that States 'flouting enforceable UN Resolutions against terrorism need to be ostracised', going beyond mere sanctions. Sri Advani also pointed out the zero-degree separation in the world of terrorism, referring to the link between the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu in December 1999, Omar Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl killing, and Mohamad Atta one of the persons involved in the WTC bombings in New York on September 11, 2001.

3. India, undoubtedly, faces a serious problem on the terrorist front. Sri Advani's unhappiness at the unwillingness of the international community to properly address the issue of cross- border terrorism is hence understandable. Credible information is also available that new terrorist training camps have sprung up in Pakistan and PoK and are churning out 'jehadi' militants in sizeable numbers. Also that, Pakistan is currently openly encouraging militants to intensify violence in J&K, even to the point of releasing prominent members of terrorist outfits such as the Jaish-e-Mohamad. India also nurses a real fear that terrorists may soon be able to gain access to weapons of mass destruction, in the light of Pakistan's recent posturing and threats of nuclear blackmail.

4. Terrorism in the region is already impacting adversely, and having a highly unsettling effect, on India's relations with some of its neighbours like Bangladesh and Nepal, where the ISI is particularly active. Contemporary terrorism's extensive linkages are also causing serious problems for India. Common behavourial patterns among terrorist outfits across South and South East Asia, for instance, have strengthened terrorist partnerships. This is beginning to create a ripple effect on the terrorist scene within the country. The residual influence of Pak- Afghanistan continues to be strong. In certain countries of the region, terrorist now have ready access, have the ability to process travel documents with ease, and have streamlined their supply and logistics chain. This reveals the existence of a well- knit network, which has further enhanced the content of the threat from terrorism.

5. What is specially galling is that it is India which is being urged to exercise restraint. Pressures are being mounted on India to talk to Pakistan so as to bring down tensions in the region. The US for its part had been able to get the world to endorse the principle of 'forward defence' and strike at Al Queda outfits globally. The policy ensured that Al Queda cadres were denied sanctuary and those funding or otherwise acting as their sponsors face severe penalties. On the other hand, India and Pakistan - the victim and the aggressor - were often put on the same footing.

6. The situation is serious enough to warrant taking strong and effective action, and for India to make its intentions clear. It is a moot-point, however, if well publicized rhetorical flourishes - whether within the country or outside it - or the declaration of a 'war on terror' would prove to be of any use. Outside support for terrorists is without doubt their lifeline, but this is hardly likely to cease by India indulging in 'breast beating' on foreign soil. What we have to do, instead, is defend our 'homefront', and protect it from further terrorist acts which appear inevitable. We should harden our defences, and improve both our intelligence and protective mechanisms. Inter and intra- agency co-operation within the Government should be improved, for inspite of the weighty recommendations of the Group of Ministers, Departments remain intent on protecting their turf. As a result, most of the hoped-for efficiencies have yet to be achieved.

7. Thinking about the shape of future terrorist threats clearly requires to be put on a 'fast forward' mode. Our vulnerabilities are only too evident. We are an open, diverse, and mobile society. It is not uncommon for people to congregate in large numbers - for political, social or religious purposes - making them easy targets for mega-terrorism. Mere declarations of a 'war on terrorism' are likely to meet the same fate as earlier declarations of a 'war on poverty' and a 'war on drugs'. Iconoclastic thinking and Probability Analysis, the use of sophisticated tools such as 'Game theory' and Stochastic Estimates to accommodate random variables in any situation, are far better methods to deal with current and future terrorist threats. Whether the next major wave of terrorist attacks will be different only in scale, or they will tend to be different in kind from earlier episodes of terrorism, is a critical matter and for which answers have to be found. If the latter is likely, more detailed planning and preparation, need to be undertaken. Intelligence and law and order priorities will, in all probability, have to be reordered. Considerable re-calibration in other areas may also be required.

8. We need at the same time, however, to be extremely careful, and display greater sophistication than the West, in defining the contours of contemporary terrorism. We should avoid falling into the trap of seeing this as an existential struggle between 'good' and 'evil'. While talking of 'jehadi terrorism', we should not equate radical Islam with 'evil' as many in the West are now tending to do. We have no agenda of 'modernising' or 'moderating' radical Islam, nor do we subscribe to the Western thesis that the tactics employed in the past against Soviet-style Communism will succeed in the case of radical Islam as well. Our leaders should exercise care while making statements, and avoid giving any impression that they are preachers speaking from a pulpit.

9. Public safety takes precedence over everything else, but a balance needs to be struck, specially where warnings of possible terrorist attacks are issued. Allowing citizens to calculate and decide what risks to run, rather than confuse them with a blizzard of hard-to-evaluate warnings, may not be a bad idea. If people are too frightened, or turn apathetic by the authorities 'crying wolf' too often, vital public co-operation that is needed to fight terrorism may not be forthcoming. Too much vocalisation of the 'threat' by those in authority can also give an impression that the balance between public safety and civil liberty is beginning to tilt against the latter. This could lead to needless controversies on how much liberty should be surrendered. Several advocacy groups have already joined issue with the Government on several anti-terrorist initiatives.

10. The terrorist threat to all democracies is of a serious magnitude. This is likely to be the case for quite some time. Outside support for terrorist groups is unlikely to diminish significantly during this period. We have concentrated our attack on Pakistan, but also need to take a harder look at other supporters and sponsors of terrorism in West Asia and elsewhere. Today, Saudi Arabia is the leading fund-raiser for terrorist causes. Our battle against terrorism would appear more credible if we directed our 'fire' against those who sponsor and fund terrorism as well, and not merely at the perpetrators of terrorist acts.

All materials on this website are © 2000-2010

Printer Friendly Format

Search this website

top