Opinion - Editorials   

Challenge and response

Both the Mysore Police and the Intelligence Bureau deserve credit for preventing what could have ended in one more of the horrific acts of urban terrorism in India. Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil warned on October 24 that this terror campaign could even end up provoking "a mini-war." While it may be tempting to dismiss Mr. Patil's assessment as exaggerated, the fact is that a single major terrorist strike pushed India and Pakistan to the verge of military conflict in 2001-2002. What happened in Mysore illuminates the competence of India's security services — and also the scale and persistence of the threat. Between 1998 and 2002, members of Islamist terror cells operating outside Jammu and Kashmir were, on average, interdicted every 14 days. Over the past three years, however, India's police and covert services have, on an average of every 10 days, shut down terror cells operating under the flag of Pakistan-based Islamist groups. Some of these inevitably have penetrated India's defences, with damaging consequences.

Diplomacy will help address the external dimensions of the problem but India needs to clean up its side of the street. Terrorism is not a new challenge; it is a persistent problem India has been grappling with for decades. Like poverty alleviation or primary education, counter-terrorism needs sustained institutional effort and massive resources. Worryingly, investments in upgrading the personnel skills and technological capabilities of state police forces remain inadequate. So too are India's intelligence resources and mechanisms. Politicians and policy-makers have shown a remarkable inability to learn doctrinal lessons from counter-terrorism success stories. Tiny Tripura has demonstrated just what good police-led counter-terrorism strategies and effective administration can achieve. Terrorist violence claimed 453 civilian lives in 2000; but in the first eight months of 2005 (the latest period for which information is available), the toll was contained to nine. Tripura achieved this despite adverse terrain, poor infrastructure, political attempts to destabilise the Left Front Government, and a long, porous border with Bangladesh. Policy-makers must recognise and reward such successes. Historically, India has not done a good job of providing post-conflict dividends — a core element of building a sustainable peace. New Delhi's developmental interest in Mizoram waned soon after an enduring peace accord was signed in 1986; Nagaland and even Punjab have suffered similar neglect. While governments have excelled in hatching grandiose schemes that have often ended up enriching terrorists rather than the intended beneficiaries, their interest in grassroots intervention in the development of sensitive areas from which terrorist groups draw their cadre has been fitful at best. Assam, for example, continues to import fish from Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh; Tripura remains dependent on imports to meet the demand for low-technology manufactures. Fighting terrorism needs a coherent strategy that addresses multiple political, economic, policing, and geo-strategic concerns. In his speeches, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has shown sensitivity to the challenge. He now needs to shape a decisive solution — and summon the resources to realise it.

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

Stories in this Section

Challenge and response
Two more for European Union
British Sikhs and multiculturalism
The long-drawn Naga dialogue
Interest in Hindi growing in China
Corrections and clarifications
Crisis in Bangladesh
Bleak scenario
Domestic violence
Reservation policy

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu