Opinion - Editorials   

The ULFA challenge

It may be a general dictum that no state can protect all its unarmed civilians against hit-and-run strikes by terrorist organisations. However, this cannot explain the apparent helplessness of the Central and Assam governments as the United Liberation Front of Asom picks out soft targets virtually at will. Over the past few days, the banned outfit has killed 62 innocent non-Assamese migrant workers. The massacres made a mockery of the ceasefire-studded peace process initiated by New Delhi. On paper, a two-track course of pursuing a negotiated political solution while pressing on with necessary military operations is sound and progressive strategy; but in implementing the strategy in this case, the governments are caught in a dilemma. The notion of treating Assam or any other part of India mainly as a security problem, of allowing a drift towards a police state for whatever reason, is anathema to all democrats. On the other hand, civilised society and above all unarmed civilians must be protected by all that it takes from terrorist bombs, guns, extortion, and threats. It is a cruel dilemma, to which no simple and straightforward answers are available.

ULFA's strategy is to signal a highly iffy willingness to talk about demands such as `sovereignty' while stocking up weapons, resorting to terror, and eroding the credibility of elected governments and the morale of ordinary folk. The current focus is on terrorising non-Assamese workers — Hindi-speaking migrant labourers who are depicted as alien intruders in Assam's political and economic spheres. Many of the people targeted have been living in the State for decades; a large proportion of them are engaged in unskilled jobs, for example in brick kilns. Chauvinism is a potent mobilisation tool for an outfit that has lost much of its support base among the Assamese after setting off bombs indiscriminately in crowded civilian areas. If the security forces are to hunt down ULFA's high command and seriously degrade the outfit's strike capability, they will need better intelligence and administrative and political support on the ground. Another critical requirement is practical cooperation from neighbouring countries. The Indian Army got a grip on the situation in Assam only after Bhutan cracked down, in late 2003, on ULFA members operating from its soil. In 1995, Indian and Myanmarese armed forces cooperated to incapacitate ULFA in the border areas of the two countries. Some top terrorist leaders continue to enjoy sanctuary in Bangladesh, where the Khaleda Zia dispensation has been most unhelpful from India's standpoint. The time has come to do a fresh appraisal of the internal and external dimensions of the ULFA menace, publish the evidence in hand on external patronage and support, and put in place a zero-tolerance strategy against its terrorism.

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

Stories in this Section

The ULFA challenge
A monument to injustice
Bringing to book the guilty men of Baghdad
Singur to Nandigram and beyond
Different strokes of the coup masters
Global warming and the Indian monsoon
Many more will die
Corrections and Clarifications
Shocking violence
Disturbing

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu