Asia Times: Terror tactics could backfire on India


	December 15, 2001	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

Terror tactics could backfire on India
By Sudha Ramachandran

BANGALORE - While terrorists might have hoped to decimate some of India's top leaders in their suicide attack on India's parliament complex on Thursday morning, it is the country's democracy that is being perceived as their larger and long-term target.

The terrorists failed to achieve their immediate target. No members of parliament were killed in the explosions and the hour-long exchange of fire between the terrorists and security forces. Those killed in the shoot-out were mainly personnel of the Delhi police.

However, the impact that the attack could have on Indian democracy is worrying. Indeed, how the government chooses to respond will determine the extent to which the terrorists will succeed in achieving their broader goals.

It is believed that the government might use the current crisis to push through parliament controversial anti-terrorism legislation. The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) is widely perceived as a draconian measure to combat the problem of terrorism.

India has been battling terrorism for over two decades. An earlier anti-terrorism measure, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), had failed to tackle the problem. While POTO is being marketed as a "less draconian form of TADA", such arguments have failed to cut ice with civil rights groups and the opposition parties.

The opposition Congress party and the leftist parties firmly believe that POTO will be used by the ruling coalition, whose core is the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to harass religious minorities in the country. It is also feared that POTO will undermine the freedom of the media. Some of the BJP's allies in the ruling coalition, too, are opposed to POTO in its present form.

While POTO should sail through the Lower House of parliament, where the ruling coalition enjoys a majority, it will be blocked in the Upper House, which is controlled by the opposition parties. The government has to date failed to convince the opposition to vote for POTO.

But the attack on parliament has provided the government with a window of opportunity to blunt the opposition's united campaign hitherto to block POTO. The popular mood in the country could pressure at least some sections in the opposition ranks to extend support to POTO. Should POTO fail to be passed in the Upper House, it is expected that the government will call for a joint session of parliament. Such a session will enable enactment of POTO.

The calling of a joint session to push through legislation is permissible. The constitution provides for this option and it has been used in the past. But that was to push anti-dowry legislation. This time it would be for a deeply controversial piece of legislation, with serious implications for democracy, that is being bulldozed through the legislative process. Thursday's attack on parliament could prove a useful excuse in the justifying such action.

The attack has triggered off calls for tough action against the "sponsors of terrorism". A resolution passed by the cabinet asserts that the government "will liquidate the terrorists and their sponsors wherever they are, whoever they are". Soon after the attack, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee went on national television to say that India's battle against terrorism "had reached its final stage, and a decisive battle would have to take place".

While no terrorist group has yet claimed responsibility, preliminary investigations indicate that the Lashkar-e-Toiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammed, both Pakistan-based terrorist groups operating in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, might be involved. The Jaish had claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly two months ago. Intelligence sources say that the modus operandi adopted by the terrorists and wireless intercepts point in the direction of the Lashkar.

If involvement of Pakistan-based or sponsored groups is confirmed, there could be an escalation of tension with Islamabad. New Delhi has accused Islamabad of sponsoring terrorism in the Kashmir Valley. Successive governments in Pakistan have described the militants as freedom fighters. Indian ministers and analysts were quick to point out that in his message to the Indian government extending his sympathy, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf described those who carried out the attacks not as terrorists as had the rest of the international community but as "armed intruders".

Already, members of the BJP are calling for military strikes against terrorist camps based in Pakistan.

It may be recalled that in 1999, during the Kargil conflict, sections within the government were in favor of the Indian security forces crossing the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. At that time, significant domestic opposition to such action and international pressure, especially from the United States, restrained the government from pursuing this option.

Hardliners are now pointing out that post-September 11, such obstacles have been removed. After all, if the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the US - symbols of American military and economic might - could be described by Washington as a war on the US, justifying its military operations in Afghanistan, surely the same argument is applicable to the terrorist attack on the heart of India's democracy, its parliament.

Besides, there is also the Bush administration's refusal to call a halt to Israel's military strikes on the Palestinian National Authority and on alleged militants in Ramallah and the Gaza Strip. While India is no Israel in the US's strategic perception, these developments could embolden Indian hardliners.

Of course, the tough talk emanating from the government might be mere saber-rattling. Targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan will explode into a much larger war between the two nuclear neighbors. Further, the economic costs of a war will be an important deterrent to the government adopting a policy of "hot pursuit" of terrorists into Pakistan or of targeting their camps across the border. It is more likely that the government will use the tough talk to impress on Washington to crack down more effectively than it has so far on the Pakistan-based terrorist groups.

However, both the enactment of POTO in its present form and the possibility of military strikes on Pakistan-based terrorist groups will in the long run work to the terrorists' advantage. The use of coercive measures that POTO provides for will deepen alienation among the Kashmiris. A functioning democracy and a secular set-up provide a far better shield against terrorism than any anti-terrorism legislation.

The Musharraf government's sudden abandonment of the Taliban is reported to have created a rift between it and Pakistan-based terrorists operating in Kashmir. A military strike by India on these camps could push the two back into each other's arms.

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)