The terror in Indian cell
phones By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - The world is used to living with the
threat of a terrorist strike, which can hit anywhere, at
any time, as with two Russian planes apparently brought
down by Chechen rebels last weekend. In India, there are
constant reminders that terrorists are lurking in the
shadows, all the time. A United States visa requires
fingerprinting, traffic is blocked in the capital
whenever the entourage of the prime minister or
president passes by and the intelligence agencies are
reportedly busy tracking private e-mails, which can
potentially harm the nation.
This debate is
about the ban on the use of cell phones in the presence
of important people due to a perceived security threat.
We know about constant new research that either proves
or disproves that cellular waves affect the brain, but
this is about a security drill reaching zealous levels
due to insecurity and the fear of terror that lives
among us. As things stand, cell phones cannot be used or
carried by any civilian in the presence of President
Abdul Kalam Azad, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, his
predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Congress president
Sonia Gandhi. They are not allowed inside parliament
house, the Race Course Road where the premier resides
and the Home Ministry, where Home Minister Shivraj Patil
attends office.
This ban on mobile phones has
naturally triggered complaints from journalists who make
the rounds of the various public interactions of
important people, and who are harassed by the long
queues at make-shift cell phone deposit counters at
various venues. Journalists in the know are quick to
point out that no such limitations exist while meeting
US President George W Bush at the White House or British
Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street. Even if
one had doubts the efficiency of US and UK security, the
immaculate security detail of Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon does not even involve surrendering cell
phones. This, many say, is the final stamp of
disapproval, as nobody does safety better than the
Israelis. It is argued if cell phones were such a
threat, why is there is no such bar on their use when
the defense minister or foreign minister of India are
addressing the media or attending a function. One would
think they are equally important with a similar threat
perception.
Some delve into the reasoning behind
such a happening. There is no statute that exists,
except for a report by the Intelligence Bureau a few
years ago, that there was a possibility of a bomb being
set off by a call from a cell phone. It could have been
a land line as well. Security personnel, too, do not
seem to offer a plausible argument. Some point out that
in the past terrorists have used cell phones to
coordinate attacks. The Indian government has
intermittently banned the use of cell phones and
facilities in the terror-infested Indian portion of
Jammu & Kashmir. During the December 11, 2001 attack
on the Indian parliament, the terrorists were in touch
with the masterminds through the cellular phones they
possessed, with records showing calls being made to
Pakistan and Dubai.
But this argument does not
bode well for personal security as calls can easily be
made by stepping outside the hall with the VIP already
present, detailing his/her movements. A senior official
told this correspondent once that nobody wanted to take
responsibility for lifting the ban, should an incident
happen after such a move.
Not that the issue we
are talking about is a national disaster, but it sure is
inconvenient and a reflection of how inflexible security
matters can get. More importantly it is an indication of
the fear of terror that has been ingrained in our
psyche, as well as the system. Speaking off the record,
senior security officials admit that they often feel
they are up against an unknown enemy.
It is the
same reason that Sikhs are mistaken to belong to the ilk
of Osama bin Laden and assaulted in the US. The problem
is not being a Sikh, but that the beard has come to
signify terror. Many Hindus in India shave off their
beards before traveling abroad for fear of being
persecuted. They change their names if there is even a
remote Muslim phonetic. It is the same reason that
students from Asian countries heading for the West are
perceived with suspicion. A low-flying aircraft is a
threat; a power failure is assumed to be a precursor to
a terror strike.
Earlier in the month, the US
"high-condition" orange security alert had an effect
here. Security and intelligence personnel warned
everyone to guard against the human bomb that could be
stalking any neighborhood structure, high-rise or office
building. The threat could have been real or quixotic,
nobody knows. Since September 11, 2001, the Indian
authorities have been dealing with several US requests
pertaining to security, most of which have been acceded.
The air space above the US ambassador's residence at
Roosevelt House as well as the US Embassy has been
blocked. Such a restriction exists only over the
residence of the prime minister, Rashtrapati Bhawan
(where the president of India resides) and parliament
house. Roosevelt House and the US Embassy fall under the
air corridor of the international airport and several
Air Force trainee flights used to fly over the house. In
April this year, insecurity afflicted guards outside the
US Embassy, who seriously assaulted a colonel on a
morning jog. Former defense minister George Fernandes
complained of being partially disrobed by security
personnel when he was on an official visit to the US.
Indeed, in an age when technology advances at
unimaginable speed, there is also a concomitant
perception that all gadgetry can be dangerous. It is
witnessed at airports where a person with a cell phone
is seen as a potential time bomb and a laptop is a
fitted missile, as vouched by a friend who complained of
the innumerable instances she was asked by security
personnel to switch on and off her computer as well as
detach the alkaline battery. Similar is the case with
cell phones, though not as bad.
It goes without
saying that terror and technology are at loggerheads -
one making existence seamless, the other inserts
roadblocks to normal existence. The difference,
ironically, arises out of a similarity between the two.
The potential of technology can never be completely
understood, just as the convoluted imagination of a
terrorist. The terrorist today is seen as a high-tech
being who ruthlessly twists know-how to suit his/her
ends. The image of technology has taken a beating due to
terror.
When Indian officials grapple with
explanations of why cellular phones are not allowed in
certain areas, are they to blame? In an age when
security is constantly breached by terror attacks, can
they withdraw a habit that has been in place, without
understanding fully how a terrorist behaves or plans
his/her attack? Nobody imagined September 11 until it
happened. Who knows what (mis)use a cell phone or
airwaves can be put to.
Siddharth
Srivastava is a New Delhi-based writer.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
