synergy:
the bulwark
-Dr. Sanjeev Bhadauria
We have ‘guided missiles’
but ‘misguided men’ ready
to become terrorists. We
have ‘United Nations’ but not ‘United
Notions’. We have witnessed a
combination of terror and technology
being funded by narcotics money as
a major source. Although carried out
by ‘non-State actors’, the adversary
State (Pakistan) works as promoter of
terrorism and has institutionalised it in
the wake of a weak response giving an
impression that India is a soft State - a
position which ought to change to fight
terrorism.
▌▌Most assaulted
Terrorism is not new to India – but
what is unique now is the evolved
characteristics and the enhanced
operational capabilities of the
terrorist outfits and their operatives.
Surprisingly, India is ranked second,
right behind Iraq in the number of
terrorist activities (excluding Jammu
and Kashmir) despite the fact it is not
a country in conflict. The ‘new breed’ of
terrorism in India is confident, bold in
actions and increasingly sophisticated
making it the greatest threat to India’s
security.
India has consistently been
highlighting the need for a unified
international response to trans-national
and trans-border terrorism which is
today affecting a number of countries
and challenging established societies
and governments. The links between
terrorist groups operating in India and
other countries are quite clear today
and the role that Pakistan has played in
allowing this scourge to spread has also
been amply documented.
▌▌Concerted action
India has sought to emphasise at
international fora that terrorism is a
global menace to which democracies
are particularly vulnerable. It has called
for concerted global action to counter
terrorism and to ensure the enactment
of measures such as sanctions against
States responsible for sponsoring
terrorist acts across international
borders. But, it has not borne any
noticeable fruitful results.
The challenge clearly is emanating
from across the border primarily
from our western neighbour Pakistan
which can at best be described as a
‘functional anarchy’ with weakening
or breakdown of systems. It has a
weak democracy and weak President
and Prime Minister. With a crumbled
economy and growing unemployment
along with madrasas turning pupils
into religious zealots, the predicament
can be well imagined.
It has a restless Army and Inter-
Services Intelligence (state within state)
inclined to maintain their prominence.
To top it all, it has an uncontrolled
militia (multiple jihadist groups).
Consequently, it has been a target of
self-entrapment due to various counter
productive policies being followed
which are reflective of the emotional
psyche of a theocratic State. The
affairs inside Pakistan are bound to
spillover in the region and have serious
consequences for India.
▌▌Terror chameleon
In the wake of the Mumbai
terror siege, the challenge today for
India’s security machinery is not
only tackling terror attacks but also
providing a tactical response to the
changing operational and ideological
undercurrents that terrorism in the
country is presently going through
which have to be understood.
a. ) For the first time ever, the (Islamic)
terrorism has a pan-India network of
operatives and logistics support. There
has been a display of amateurism by
some highly-placed leaders to brand
terrorism as an Islamic evil that has to
be fought and defeated, is to overlook
the reality that terrorism, like any
other criminal activity, has neither
religion nor race nor caste. Giving
new meanings and interpretations to
terrorism to suit the occasion will only
help in obfuscating the issues involved.
b. ) The trend towards larger and
sophisticated attacks - i.e. terrorists are
exploiting the increasingly abundant
communication infrastructure and
information flow for their collaboration,
creation of covert support networks,
financing, intelligence gathering,
logistics and operational execution.
c. ) The ideological underpinning is
undergoing a change, as reflected by
the operatives increasingly having a
local urban face, contrary to what used
to happen a few years back.
d. ) There has been a major shift in the
targeting patterns of the terror outfits as
is evident in the recent attacks wherein
posh business and commercial centres
have been attacked. Terrorists are
increasingly likely to target westerners
and businesses (as was seen in the
past), and employ new tactics such as
hostage-taking and random shootings
at peak hours in crowded places. The
excessive nature of the terror attacks is
in itself a big concern.
▌▌Policy implementation
This leads us to the question that
does the Government of India have a
comprehensive anti-terrorism policy?
If yes, then the salient points of that
policy need to be publicised which has
not been done. The man responsible
for counter-terrorism in India had
announced a sweeping overhaul of
the country’s internal security and
intelligence apparatus in the wake of
the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Home
Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram
outlined the revamp in Parliament.
He said a new national investigation
agency would be established, coastal
security forces bolstered and anti-terror
laws strengthened. Police would also
receive better training. But, the fruits
of his announcements still remain to be
effectively implemented.
▌▌Vacillating policies
So, any analyst in the absence
of evident change which inspires
confidence and gives a feeling of
security would conclude that there is a
virtual ‘no concrete policy’ declaration.
There is no clarity and detailing as to
who is responsible to monitor and
implement the policy on the ground
and at the time of crisis and what the
status of implementation is. Nothing
concrete has emerged, except boasting
through hollow statements which gives
rise to another notion that India is a
‘soft state’.
Terming India’s policy on terrorism
as a confused one, KPS Gill claimed
that there was no national policy
against terrorism in India. ‘‘We have
a mixed policy with a combination
of the state and the centre and in my
opinion there is not even a single state
that has a tough policy on terrorism,’’
he said. According to him, a stop and
go policy cannot withstand terrorism.
On scrutiny, the weaknesses /
shortcomings can be summarised
under the following heads:
• Lack of Integrated Investigating
Agency
• Lack of Federal Laws
• Delayed functioning of judiciary
• Police reforms being kept in cold
storage
• Ineffective and indifferent polity
• Divisive vote bank politics and
appeasement policies
• Poor strategic communications
and information management
▌▌ Ad hoc responses
Experts say the government’s
response to terrorist attacks have
been episodic; soon after an attack the
government appears to take shortterm
measures. “India lacks a coherent
strategic response to terrorism; there is
no doctrine (Business Week) and most of
our responses are ‘knee-jerk’. There is
a broad consensus that India’s counterterrorism
agencies have not responded
well.
Some Indian journalists called the
Mumbai bombings a failure of the
country’s intelligence community.
Stephen P. Cohen, a Senior Fellow
at the Brookings Institution, says
that within the ongoing debate over
the effectiveness of India’s counterterrorism
apparatus, “there’s general
agreement that the old institutions
can’t cope with the new pressures.”
Wilson John, a Senior Fellow with
the Observer Research Foundation in
New Delhi, writes in the ‘Terrorism
Monitor’ the problem is an intelligence
structure which has yet to emerge
from its “debilitating colonial legacy
and a complementary stranglehold of
bureaucracy.” John argues the state
police and intelligence units are mostly
structured as agencies to protect law
and order and spy on rivals rather than
act as investigative and intelligence
units. He says there is reluctance and
even refusal, to share information
among the intelligence and security
agencies.
▌▌Political mindset
Others counter that the intelligence
agencies are performing well, but
politicians too often shy away from
making tough security decisions for
fear of angering their constituents.
Jeevan Deol, a Lecturer in South Asian
Studies at the University of London,
says, “There may well be occasions
where elected politicians may not see
it in their interest to isolate insurgent
groups.”
He says their actions are nothing “too
unusual for an elected democracy”.
Some have criticised the government
(Asia Times) for letting politics stand in
the way of necessary security measures
and proper intelligence gathering.
India’s counter-terrorism measures
have often been the subject of appeals
by human rights organisations which
is a serious consideration for the
operating forces.
▌▌Obvious errors
On analyses of the past events, one
can point out the Intelligence and
systemic failure responsible for the state
of affairs which may be enumerated as
below:
• Lack of co-ordination by National
Security Advisor (NSA)
• One-upmanship of different
agencies
• Poor command and control
(different agencies controlling the sea)
• Poor standard operating
procedures
• Creation of power centres
• Gaps in surveillance / lack of
actionable intelligence
• Weak policing (training, focus,
equipment, weapons and political
abuse)
▌▌ Options
Theoretically, there are three options
before a State in tackling the vexed
problem:
• First, is to adopt a political course
that prevents alienation of any segment
of population so that it does not take
recourse to or supports unlawful
activities or terrorism.
• Second, is to take recourse to
defence and deterrence that prevents
attacks and cripples the capabilities of
potential terrorist groups.
• Third, is to destroy the terrorist
infrastructure, wherever it may exist,
inside the borders or across the borders.
These three options are debatable
though mandatory to carry out any
successful counter-insurgency exercise.
It is accepted that it is not going to
be so simplistic to put these options
into practice without following a
single-minded approach bereft of any
deviation which is not easy in a vibrant
democracy like India with the inherent
pulls and pressures. India is a complex
society to govern.
▌▌Joint operations
The central government and the
state governments have their own
jurisdictions on many matters and both
share the power to legislate on many
subjects which complicate the issue.
The politics of national security should
give way to political consensus for
developing new mechanisms to fight
terrorism. Any new mechanism should
keep in mind the shared principle of
governance, regardless of party in
power and a responsibility to work
together. There should be greater joint
efforts among state governments as
well as between the central and state
governments.
India’s democracy is challenged
by communalism, excessive caste
consciousness and separatism. But the
State’s response to these challenges
has not been adequate and on the
contrary the politicians have exploited
it to their advantage irrespective of the
consequences. India confronts another
dilemma of transforming an orthodox
society of an ancient civilisation into
a modern State, from an agrarian
economy to an industrialised, urban
system though a democratic process.
The process is bound to be slower than
most of its people wanted and a degree
of turbulence was inevitable in such a
colossal change with security problems
to be addressed simultaneously. But
then there cannot be two views that
we need a dedicated, enlightened and
decisive leadership and an efficient
agency to look into this gravest security
threat and counter it efficiently.
▌▌Road ahead
It is thus imperative for us to
understand that terrorism can be best
met: Firstly, by understanding and
eliminating the causes that create and
provide motivation for the terrorists,
which is primarily caused when
society and State are thought to be
unresponsive to a large section of
people of their genuine demands;
secondly, by limiting the politics of
terrorism by creating a democratic
ground where even extreme ideologies
are allowed to defend their views,
policies and action in open public space
and thirdly, by incrementally isolating
extremism within society by defeating
their exponents’ views through an
ideological and political battle within
a democratic framework of nation
building process.
The present situation demands more
complex and sensitive approach to
deal with terrorism, which finds its
justification in primordial loyalties and
ideologies, like religion which has a
wider social resonance. In fact, in the
last decade, both in India and abroad,
the theologians, institutions and
ordinary people in the Islamic world
have provided theological opposition
and campaigned against terrorism
more than people of any other religion.
It is time we prominently publicise the
stand taken in support of the principled
opposition of these Islamic groups to
terrorism. We will contribute most to
the fight against terror by creating a
tolerant, secular and democratic society
and defending it.
▌▌Prerequisites
It has been recommended by many
that as an immediate priority, terrorism
in India needs to be handled more as
a matter of internal security and not
be dominated by its trans-national
context alone, particularly given the
existing geo-political scenario in south
Asia. The need of the hour is the
development and implementation of
an evolved incident based response,
clear definition of responsibilities of the
numerous security forces / agencies,
easy mobilisation of emergency security
teams, better investigative capabilities
and coordinated and expedited
response to intelligence inputs.
Although, India’s security
infrastructure is suitably large to
support the emerging demands, the
shortcomings have been primarily due
to the uncoordinated tactical response
and the absence of the necessary
skills to undertake an effective
operational management with suitable
preventive, reactive and corrective
measures to anticipate and act. Some
of these measures which need to be
implemented and some others which
are already underway could be:
• Undertaking police reforms
(Preventive)
• Strengthening India’s coasts
(Preventive)
• Defining detailed roles,
responsibilities and procedures to
identify, announce, control and
counter terror attacks (Reactive)
• Define do’s and don’ts for citizens
- affected and unaffected by the attack
and for the media (Reactive)
• Undertaking drills involving
counter terrorism security force,
citizens and media (Reactive)
• Formulating tougher anti-terror
laws on the lines of the US Patriot Law
(Reactive and Corrective)
• Regular review of the policy
(Corrective)
The need for establishing a new
Central Anti-Terrorism Commission
(CAT-COM), which should be under
enunciated by many. But for fighting
terrorism to establish secure society ought
to become one of the top priorities of good governance.
▌▌Difficult assessment
Terrorists don’t kill in the hope
that their depredations will lead to
attainment of their political goals, they
kill to break the will of the government.
Correlation between the policy
initiatives taken by the government
and their real impact on terrorism is
also vague, diffused and a matter of
subjective interpretation. For example,
the efficacy of counter-terrorist laws,
structural changes in the security
apparatus, role of diplomatic initiatives,
political engagement are all difficult to
determine, at least in a short run. This
provides scope for political decisionmakers
to take positions on political
considerations as
there are no clear
policy rights and
wrongs in the battle
against terrorism.
Besides the
turbulence and
tension that is
incidental to
the process of
development our
country has been
constantly contending
with the problem
of ‘regime interest’
versus ‘national
interest’ which has
to be addressed and
national interest is
held supreme and
only then we will
be able to minimise
the problem of
terrorism and
counter it effectively.
Diplomacy will help
address the external dimensions of the
problem but India needs to clean up its
side of the street.
▌▌Vulnerability of society
No open society can completely
protect itself against all acts of terrorism.
Security resources are always finite and
the potential terrorist targets always
infinite. The terrorists will continue
to demonstrate tactical adaptability,
which will make it difficult to plan
security measures around past threats
or a few threat scenarios. But India’s
government surely can do a better job
of protecting its citizens by the use of
diplomacy, military and socio-political
options besides creating a favourable
ambience by clever manipulation of
international climate.
Another important issue that receives
less attention in the larger framework
of policies to fight terrorism is related to
creating secure and humane societies.
Our governments ought to continue
to work towards eradicating poverty,
reducing disparities of income and
wealth, eliminating corruption and
indeed formulating good governance
policies.
What must also be clearly understood
is that ultimately Indians can’t count
on their government alone. They need
to also reserve the right and the means
to defend themselves. The role of civil
society and religious communities in
the fight against terror should not be
underestimated. Finally, one has to resort
back to spiritual solace and traditional,
cultural, moral / ethical values when we
are facing a crisis of insaniyat in the form
of terrorism.
Terrorists don’t kill in the hope
that their depredations will lead to
attainment of their political goals, they
kill to break the will of the government.
Correlation between the policy
initiatives taken by the government
and their real impact on terrorism is
also vague, diffused and a matter of
subjective interpretation. For example,
the efficacy of counter-terrorist laws,
structural changes in the security
apparatus, role of diplomatic initiatives,
political engagement are all difficult to
determine, at least in a short run. This
provides scope for political decisionmakers
to take positions on political
considerations as
there are no clear
policy rights and
wrongs in the battle
against terrorism.
Besides the
turbulence and
tension that is
incidental to
the process of
development our
country has been
constantly contending
with the problem
of ‘regime interest’
versus ‘national
interest’ which has
to be addressed and
national interest is
held supreme and
only then we will
be able to minimise
the problem of
terrorism and
counter it effectively.
Diplomacy will help
address the external dimensions of the
problem but India needs to clean up its
side of the street.
▌▌Vulnerability of society
No open society can completely
protect itself against all acts of terrorism.
Security resources are always finite and
the potential terrorist targets always
infinite. The terrorists will continue
to demonstrate tactical adaptability,
which will make it difficult to plan
security measures around past threats
or a few threat scenarios. But India’s
government surely can do a better job
of protecting its citizens by the use of
diplomacy, military and socio-political
options besides creating a favourable
ambience by clever manipulation of
international climate.
Another important issue that receives
less attention in the larger framework
of policies to fight terrorism is related to
creating secure and humane societies.
Our governments ought to continue
to work towards eradicating poverty,
reducing disparities of income and
wealth, eliminating corruption and
indeed formulating good governance
policies.
What must also be clearly understood
is that ultimately Indians can’t count
on their government alone. They need
to also reserve the right and the means
to defend themselves. The role of civil
society and religious communities in
the fight against terror should not be
underestimated. Finally, one has to resort
back to spiritual solace and traditional,
cultural, moral / ethical values when we
are facing a crisis of insaniyat in the form
of terrorism.
The writer is Associate Professor in the
Dept. of Defence and Strategic Studies,
Allahabad Central University, Allahabad.
He has done his doctorate (D.Phil.) on Indo-
US Relations (1971-85) from the University
of Allahabad. He has authored three books
and a monograph on ‘National Security’.
Dept. of Defence and Strategic Studies,
Allahabad Central University, Allahabad.
He has done his doctorate (D.Phil.) on Indo-
US Relations (1971-85) from the University
of Allahabad. He has authored three books
and a monograph on ‘National Security’.
