|
|
|
|
Finally, a clear voice on
terror
By K P S Gill
"There can be no political compromise
with terror. No inch conceded. No compassion shown
... There are no good terrorists and bad
terrorists. There is no cause, root or branch,
that can ever justify the killing of innocent
people. No democratic government can tolerate the
use of violence against innocent people and
against the functionaries of a duly established
democratic government."
- Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh at the Chief
Ministers' Conference, New Delhi, April 15
NEW DELHI - For far too long now, the
political discourse on terrorism has been clouded
by a wide range of misconceptions, a great deal of
muddle-headedness and at least some self-serving
pretensions, and these have persistently stood in
the way of evolving a coherent national policy
against this scourge, even as they have obstructed
India's Security Forces (SFs) time and again from
taking necessary action.
In numberless
cases, where the SFs have, at great costs and with
untold sacrifices, imposed a measure of order in
areas of widespread violence, the advantage has
quickly been wasted by political adventurism and
unprincipled deals with extremist leaderships that
have restored the sway of violent anti-state
groups in wide areas of the country.
Political leaders at the highest levels
have repeatedly propounded the false sociologies
of "root causes" and the fiction that terrorists
and other extremists, who have taken hundreds of
innocent lives, are best treated as "our children"
who may have "lost their way". At the same time,
many political parties have entered into deceitful
pre-election alliances to secure extremist support
during the polls, against promises of a "soft
line" in the post-poll order.
Even where
political leaders have, in the past, condemned
terrorism, they have found it expedient to qualify
their remarks with platitudes about "wayward
children", "legitimate grievances" and the need
for undefined and inchoate "political solutions".
In a radical departure from this feckless
tradition, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has now
articulated what can be a sound and secure basis
for a national counter-terrorism strategy and
internal security policy. At the Chief Minister's
Conference on April 15, the prime minister's
statement was crystalline in its clarity, sweeping
aside the accumulated debris of discredited
political rhetoric - much of it emanating from his
own party and cabinet colleagues - to establish
and impose the beginnings of a consensus on a
fractious and opportunistic political community,
as he emphasized the dangers of "terrorist groups,
organized crime syndicates, drug trafficking and
external forces interested in destabilizing our
polity", and "urged leaders of all political
parties to ensure that such forces and groups are
kept away from our political processes. We need to
have zero tolerance for criminalization of
politics in our country."
It is
unsurprising that such a statement should come,
eventually, from an economist prime minister, as
he confronts the challenge of integrating India's
economy with the emerging global order, and
securing for the country its rightful place among
the "great powers" of the future. For decades,
expenditure on policing and internal security has
been casually dismissed by planners as
"non-developmental expenditure" and, consequently,
in some sense, "wasteful". Instead, it has
frequently been argued, massive investment in
areas of strife would address the "legitimate
grievances and aspirations" of the people, and
magically wipe out violence.
Billions of
rupees have, consequently, been poured into a
bottomless pit, with no visible impact on the
intended beneficiaries, even as a corrupt
politicians-bureaucrat-contractor nexus has
profited hugely, and substantial volumes of these
funds have also flowed into the hands of insurgent
and terrorist groups. At the same time,
ill-equipped state police forces, increasingly
supplemented by central paramilitaries and the
army, are thrown into unequal and unending wars
against elements that are complicit with their own
state political leaderships, and that, at least on
occasion, have had supporters in the national
political leadership as well.
Singh,
however, clearly recognizes the "huge societal
costs" of the multiple anti-state movements across
the country, and notes: "Investments are unlikely
to fructify, employment is not likely to grow and
educational facilities may be impaired ...
Delivery systems are often the first casualty.
Schools do not run, dispensaries do not open and
PDS [public distribution system] shops remain
closed. Public service providers can now ascribe
all their inefficiencies to 'extremism'."
Recognizing that "the challenge of
internal security is our biggest national security
challenge today", Singh has called for urgent
police reforms, efficient policing, special
attention to intelligence gathering and the
modernization of intelligence services and
security forces.
Clarifying another
element of frequent political double-speak, the
prime minister dismissed efforts by many to
underplay the growing dangers of left-wing
extremism (Naxalism), emphasizing the "inter-state
and external dimension to Naxalism today. This
requires greater coordination between state
governments and between the center and states. We
have to take a comprehensive approach in dealing
with Naxalism given the emerging linkages between
groups within and outside the country."
Singh reiterated that, "while talks and
negotiations should always be welcomed", these can
only be with groups that abjure violence: " ...
the basic issues regarding violence and the
state's obligation to curb it should be clarified
at the outset, so that there are no
misunderstandings or a feeling of being let down
at later stages. In our country, symbols and
gestures matter. Nothing should be done which
detracts from the authority of the Indian state
and its primary role as an upholder of public
order. The state should not even remotely be seen
to back away in the face of threats of armed
violence."
Few in India have recognized or
even understood the enormous effort and sacrifice
that has gone into the preservation of the
"symbols and gestures" of constitutional
democracy. It is useful, in this context, to
recall a small example of a "routine" operation
during the recent assembly elections in Jharkhand,
Chattisgarh and Bihar - areas widely afflicted by
Naxalite violence.
A contingent of the
Punjab Police (PP) was deployed in Chattisgarh for
22 days on polling duties, with a large proportion
of these in the Bastar area, including four of the
areas worst affected by Naxalite violence:
Jagdalpur, Kanker, Bijapur and Dantewada. One
party of 50 PP personnel, accompanied by one local
policeman, started from Bijapur to go through
forests to reach a place called Sundra, to prepare
a helipad so that electoral officials and
materials could be brought in. This short journey
was to be completed in two stages, with an
overnight stop at Sagmeta. They moved from Bijapur
at 07:00, and by 10:00, they were in the thick of
the forest. They were greeted by as many as 19
landmine blasts, coupled with heavy firing.
The commandos retaliated and used area
weapons - 2-inch mortars, GF rifles (grenade
launchers), light machine guns and advanced launch
systems. They found that all the existing forest
trails were mined, so they marched cross country,
cutting a path through the forest, and reached
Sagmeta, just 15 kilometers from Bijapur, at
17:00, completing the journey in over 10 hours. At
Sagmeta, from 23:00 to 05:00 the next morning,
there was a pitched battle between the police
party and the Naxalites who were surrounding them
from all sides. They then received information
that the route to Sundra was heavily mined. The
party consequently stayed on at Sagmeta for
another day. Firing on the party started again at
22:00 and continued till 05:00 the next morning.
A helicopter was eventually pressed into
service, and lifted one party - about half a
platoon - who secured the ground at Sundra. The
remaining policemen were then airlifted to create
and secure the helipad. They came under heavy fire
from the Naxalites through the night at Sundra as
well. For those who have not faced fire, it is
difficult to understand the enormous courage and
character that it would have taken this small
contingent, as they confronted a faceless enemy,
although unused to the terrain, being in the area
for the first time. It is a tribute to their
ruggedness, their training and their experience in
fighting terrorism in Punjab that, despite the
fact that they took casualties, they managed to
set up the polling station, and polling did take
place.
What they saw was often horrifying,
as people with mutilated limbs lined up to cast
their votes. These were the victims of Naxalite
"justice", their limbs cut off - often by their
own relatives on Naxalite orders - on the mere
suspicion of being "informers". After polling was
over, the party returned, once again under heavy
fire throughout the night. While details of this
expedition are available to me, it was far from
unique, and other parties in Kanker and other
districts were also subject to organized attacks -
though this was the most vicious. All forces
deployed for election duties in the area suffered
casualties, and 32 SF personnel died during the
elections in Chattisgarh and Jharkhand.
Singh has now made it clear that "there is
no place for violence and extremism of any kind in
a democratic, rule-based society", but translating
his newly articulated vision into policy will
require political will and perseverance. I have,
for nearly a decade now, advocated the need for a
national policy that would recognize the existing
and future threat-potential of terrorism and low
intensity wars, and create the basis for a radical
reformation of internal security forces and
strategies, to create the skills, knowledge,
attitudes and infrastructure necessary to confront
these dangers. It is now necessary to initiate
immediate processes to reform the institutional
structures that impinge on internal security
management - the SFs, the justice system,
intelligence agencies, the bureaucracy, and most
importantly the deeply compromised political
structures of this country.
Unless the
prime minister can secure these ends, his
exceptional statement on terrorism and internal
security will, regrettably, be just that: an
exceptional statement.
K P S
Gill, publisher, South Asia Intelligence
Review; president, Institute for Conflict
Management, a non-profit society set up in 1997 in
New Delhi committed to the evaluation and
resolution of problems of internal security in
South Asia.
Published with permission
from the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
