The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Re-forging instruments to meet challenges

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 18, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Re-forging instruments to meet challenges

Harish Khare

The polity will have to promote a new way of conducting its internal disputes in a manner that will not distract the Indian state from dealing with new globally-inspired instigations.

THE 60TH Independence Day passed off peacefully, but not before the capital was almost converted into a cantonment, with oppressive police presence at every streetcorner. The sand-bunkers are back, last seen during the critical days of Khalistani insurgency. Media, already high on the London plot drama, excitedly played their role in bringing into drawing-rooms impressions and images of a "threat" lurking around. American diplomats did their bit with their advisories to manufacture an atmosphere of insecurity. Responsible and knowledgeable officials concede that the "threat" is very real. On Independence Day, the security establishment proved that it was capable of a response, however disproportionate. On Independence Day eve, the President too joined in the threat chorus and called for a comprehensive security. A few days earlier, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan deemed it necessary to tell the country that the dreaded Al-Qaeda was already here. The unspoken assumption is that Al-Qaeda scouts are finding recruits and support. Drums of distant battles can be heard here.

Take Two. The latest issue of Milli Gazette, self-described as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper," carries a revealing front-page box. Titled A Matter of Shame, the brief signed note from the editor, deplores the "lukewarm" response to the weekly's appeal to "help our Palestinian brothers and sisters who are under economic siege by Israel and its western protectors." This lack of concern is baffling, despite the fact that "news of the deteriorating economic and security conditions are published daily in our newspapers, we show a lot of concern for them, protest and write letters and articles in their support." The response is so tardy that "we are still not close to our target to send the first instalment of aid to Gaza and West Bank. Let us put our money where our mouth is and support our brothers and sisters in Palestine in a big way utilising this opportunity to demonstrate our concern."

Could it be that there is a total disconnect between those leaders and intellectuals who "write articles" and seek to drag the community into overseas quarrels, and the Muslim masses, perhaps bothered more with their own creeping disempowerment than getting excited about battles in distant places?

Take three. In July 2005, there was a terrorist attack on the makeshift temple at Ayodhya. There was a massive sigh of relief that the terrorists could not get close to the temple. Muslim organisations and religious leaders promptly denounced the attack, as a reprehensible attempt to instigate communal trouble. There were predictable cries of "intelligence failure;" and equally predictable was the official response: to strengthen the security arrangements around the complex. The Uttar Pradesh Government and the Centre proposed to build a steel shield for the makeshift mandir. The Centre has filed an application in the Supreme Court for putting in place additional security arrangement.

This has provoked opposition, as the move is seen as tinkering with the legally mandated status quo. Since then the Uttar Pradesh Government, for obvious political reasons, has backtracked. Late last month a delegation of Muslim MPs, belonging to all parties, met the Prime Minister to register their protest. The distrust of the Muslim leadership is so total that even the professionally determined security arrangements are suspect.

The larger question is that given this distrust — partly genuine, partly unfounded, and partly tendentious — how does the polity gear itself to cope with the threat to our collective peace and well-being? Or, can our leaders conduct their disputes and pursue their political and electoral ambitions in such a way that the outsider is not able to take advantage of this fractiousness to advance his agenda? The question has acquired a lethal edge because the outsider is determined to introduce his liturgy of hate and violence here.

The need to keep the outsider and his baggage out has become decidedly more acute in the post-9/11 days. Till that horrifying assault on New York City's World Trade Center, democratic India displayed remarkable resilience and imagination to rebuff external troublemakers. Pakistan's attempts to make demands on the Indian Muslims' loyalty and patriotism invariably came to naught. Outside the Kashmir Valley, Pakistan and its claim to speak for Muslims in the South Asian region have never found any takers. Even during and after the violent destruction of the Babri Masjid, Muslims remained indifferent to the outsiders' efforts to take advantage of the community's hurt and outrage. Democracy and the ballot box provided the community an opportunity to punish the Congress, whose leadership stood silently when the mobs went berserk on December 6, 1992. Internal disputes, grievances and anger were dealt with internally.

Democracy's capacity to cope nonetheless was stretched to a limit after 9/11 and December 13, 2001. And when Gujarat 2002 happened the Indian state's neutrality became suspect for many segments of our population. The May 2004 Lok Sabha elections provided the opportunity for realigning the Indian state firmly with secular ethos and commitments. But once again the Indian state is being called upon to defend itself and its citizens against an enemy who has no stake in either democracy or inclusive pluralism.

New dimension

A new dimension to our divisiveness has been added by the manner in which the Indian diaspora finds itself caught in the West's current security concerns. It is still struggling to come to terms with the new situation, especially since the Bush-Blair team is seen to have decided to wage a war against Islam. The insensitivity, high-handedness and downright racial prejudices that inform the Western official response to jihadi terror have deeply angered and divided the South Asian communities in the West. Those frustrations and fellow-feeling are finding resonance here.

The paraphernalia of globalisation — the Internet, a round-the-clock global media, instant communication across the seas — is being pressed into service to find support and sympathy here for distant battles. As it were, new Indian/Pakistani connections have come to light in the wake of last week's terror plot in Britain. The task of the Indian security forces has become decidedly more complicated, as they have to devise tactics to deal with globally connected, inspired and financed jihadis. There will be mistakes and mis-steps. For instance, there have been justifiable misgivings about the Mumbai police's attempts to track down and monitor Muslims who travelled abroad recently.

We have to re-forge our instruments and re-orient personnel to meet the challenge of the new security scenario. Security officials, whether they belong to the elite all-India forces or serve as the lowly constable, have to inspire confidence in all sections. It should be obvious to any fair-minded Indian that our police and security personnel have to reflect society's pluralism. There is a touching faith in our current public discourse on the so-called merit-based professionalism of institutionalised personnel. Unfortunately, any attempt even to find out how the minorities are underrepresented is seen as an assault on professionalism. It defies common sense to suggest that the police force at the lower levels will remain immune to the polarisation that has become a depressing fact of life in urban India's big and middle towns. The instruments of law and order available at the basti level are totally inadequate in reaching out to the population; and, without mobilisation of the communities the new battle against jihadi terror would remain half-hearted.

The polity will have to promote a new way of conducting its internal disputes in a manner that will not distract the Indian state from dealing with new globally-inspired instigations. Some hard and bitter decisions cannot be easily avoided, and some of these decisions would be contrary to the prevalent notions of political correctness. We have to ensure that political leaders, parties and processes are always available — fairly and fearlessly — to any community or group to have its grievances, real or imaginary, addressed and highlighted. This is the greatest advantage democracy offers to a divided society. At the same time, this very process should not be allowed to become a tool to be exploited by those who do not wish us well or do not share our democratic ethos. We have to summon our democratic wisdom to insulate our polity from externally inspired arguments and divisions. A hard state enjoins honest and fair politics.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion