Can India afford to remain frozen in inaction?

Rajiv Dogra

Finally it is out in the open. The Indian defence minister, A.K. Antony, has said that war with Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai terror attack is not an option. And once again we find ourselves trapped in a dead end.

No one wants a war, especially a war where objectives are unclear and prospects uncertain. We should have learnt this lesson after we lined up our troops along the border like NCC cadets during Operation Parakram, which took place following the attack on the Indian parliament by terrorists Dec 13, 2001. In the end we were both unwilling and unable to cross the Rubicon. After posturing impotently we withdrew.

It is said that wise men keep the threat of an arrow leashed in the quiver, because once you've released it the arrow's potential as a threat is over. But this is exactly what we did when we called our own bluff during Operation Parakram. Now we don't even have a bluff in our quiver.

One wonders therefore what the recent hullabaloo was about.

Even as the terrorists were engaged in mayhem in Mumbai, the prime minister addressed the nation and said: 'We will go after the individuals and organisations and make sure that every perpetrator, organiser and supporter of terror, whatever his affiliation or religion may be, pays a heavy price'.

Since Pakistan will not extract that heavy price, it may be reasonable to assume that India may have had under consideration the option of direct action. Such an action, in the unlikely event that it actually happened, would have been violative of the sovereignty of another country leading possibly to a war.

So, in effect, what we are witnessing now is the formal withdrawal of our notice to make the terrorists pay a heavy price for having killed around 170 people between Nov 26 and 29.

Sadly, when the history of mayhem in Mumbai is written our inaction might be projected as vacillation and a sign that we did not have the stomach for confrontation.

Second, as any mafia don would advise, you must not permit what can only be called 'successful defiance'.

Unfortunately our inertia may be interpreted by the terrorists and their masters as confirmation that we are incapable of retaliation, emboldening them to greater dramatic action.

There was some hope that it might be different this time, that for once we will not be found running where we started from. But we were quick to expose all our cards, a daily flurry of bellicose statements and threatening rhetoric followed. But throughout, there was no sign of any concrete action against the perpetrators of terror or their masters, none at all. It will be hard to find an example elsewhere in the world where after such a wounding strike the nation remains frozen in inaction.

Instead, there were ponderous debates about the degree of instability of the civilian government of Pakistan. Sadly, we ignore the reality of politics in Pakistan. Rarely has any government there been powerful enough to stand up to the army. As Benazir Bhutto was fond of asserting, there are only two political parties in Pakistan - the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party) and the MQM (Muttahida Qaumi Movemment) ; all the rest are the army's creation. What remained unsaid was that even the PPP ended up compromising with the army. The Zardari government is no different, nor any weaker than its predecessors. We will therefore do well by not indulging in worried star gazing on his government's behalf.

In so far as the army is concerned I am reminded of an incident in Karachi. Once at a dinner a young man was introduced to me. He said he had graduated from the Pakistan Naval Academy earlier that day. After I congratulated him, he asked me when the bilateral tensions would cease. I gave him the sunny side response, at which he looked surprised and said, 'What will happen to our pledge then?'

It was an inadvertent slip of tongue by a young man and he moved away quickly. Later I gathered that the pledge he was referring to is taken by every Pakistani military officer on graduation, and it is to avenge the 1971 war leading to the formation of Bangladesh.

With such mental conditioning it will be naïve to expect a change of heart. This should also explain the practised ease with which Pakistan played its cards following the terror strike. As long as the world was watching the horror unfold on TV screens, Pakistan played the role of an anguished neighbour.

Meanwhile it gained time to let global tempers cool. Later when the world leaders came calling, as they did during Operation Parakram, it had its agenda clearly chalked out. It was a mixture of threats and demands as usual. First it declared that it might withdraw its forces from the Afghan border to its eastern frontier, conveying thereby that NATO action against the Taliban could become that much more difficult. A few days later there were attacks, conveniently spread over two days, on a NATO storage depot near Peshawar which destroyed over 200 vehicles.

Meanwhile its propaganda machinery was in an overdrive drumming up the threat of war. First there was a hoax call from our foreign minister to President Zardari. Then, allegations about air incursions by the IAF (Indian Air Force) followed. All these were conveniently timed before or during a visit by Western leaders.

Once again Pakistan has succeeded in temporizing. It is unlikely that it will take any action. And it will be futile to hope that good sense will prevail.

But the fault is ours. After every terror strike Pakistan insists on receiving evidence from India. Each time we fall into the trap. Should it be our responsibility to provide evidence, when all the proof is available in Pakistan? Moreover evidence is never provided to the perpetrators of a crime.

Unfortunately, like a bad rash terrorism will not go away. But the next time we should not wait till we dig up the absolute truth. Broad facts are sufficient in this global age where the focus on an event lasts till the next breaking news. And we shouldn't expect the US to wield the sword on our behalf. The US supports a country only as long as it suits its economic and strategic objectives. Pakistan still scores higher there.

Essentially, we are alone in this battle. The world may sympathize, it may nod in approval if we take action, but it will not come forward to help if we falter. Therefore, let us not engage in knee-jerk rhetoric that takes us to the edge of the abyss. Like dead-ends, they too are dangerous.

(Rajiv Dogra is a former ambassador and the last Indian consul general in Karachi. He can be reached at ambraja@yahoo.co.uk)

why are all terrorists Muslims?

Sir, why is it that all terrorists are Muslims?' Prajvi Bagga Malhotra, a Class 11 student of Modern School, asked me this question during a discussion about current events. This was a very timely, bold but sensible question and being a Muslim, I was accountable to address the curiosity in the minds of a class of 52 students.

Prajvi isn't the only one to have alluded to the Western media coined statement that all terrorists are Muslims but all Muslims are not terrorists. With so many voices stating that the religion advocates violence, Islam is today under the scanner. Not all of them can be wrong - people judge by what they see and today these terrorists speak and act violently in the name of Islam.

I told Prajvi that the guiding themes of every religion are the same. Islam too has the same theme and ideology as other religions but a few people misled some of its followers in the name of god.

26/11 (Mumbai), Kafeel in Glasgow, Mumbai blasts by the Memons and others in India, the jehadis in Kashmir, 9/11, 7/7 (London), 13/12 (Delhi), 29/10 (Delhi) and the Al Qaeda at a global level - all these make my head go down in shame.

It's so embarrassing that each time a Muslim name is found attached with the inhuman and insane acts of terrorism.

Note that jehad is the most misunderstood and misconstrued concept by our non-Muslim brethren and even Muslims. The true concept of jehad in Islam is not to be against other communities, groups or religions but to be against one's own selfish nature, vices and shortcomings within Muslim society in order to fight evil, injustice, inequity, illiteracy and ignorance. First an individual fights jehad against himself to get cleansed. After that he continues the efforts with his wife, family, locality and the whole community. This is Jehad-e-Akbar, the right meaning of jehad.

Terrorism is a political process and religion or a religious community has nothing to do with it. Neither does any religion teach to kill innocents (that is what the terrorists do) nor are the terrorists the people chosen by that religious community to undertake such ghastly acts on their behalf.

Nevertheless, an average Muslim's fears are hate crimes, difficulty in finding jobs, admissions and residential accommodation, unwanted repercussions, distrust and other such things that always get exacerbated by such incidents. Muslims also fear a backlash like the 1984 Sikh riots against them. Terrorists should not be helped in creating a rift between communities.

The Mumbai attackers did try to create a cleavage between Hindus and Muslims. However, though a tragic incident, it did have a silver lining in that it cut across religious lines and saw people uniting in their horror and outrage.

But leaders of some parties have even begun to think that any criticism of Pakistan would not be relished by this country's Muslims.

I still remember that during the last general elections in India, to appease Muslims the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) boasted of the Lahore bus and improving relations with Pakistan as one of its major achievements. It's so sad that these people still treat Indian Muslims as Pakistan's stooges.

Though all Indians know that a few terrorists do not tarnish a whole community, the government for fear of losing votes will not take the matter up with the Pakistani government seriously and will just resort to rhetoric.

It is quite clear now that Indian politicians of all shades were somehow living under an illusion that if they were to turn harsh against acts of terror, they would alienate the Muslims of this country.

When will they ever realize that by doing so they are clearly reflecting their perverted psyche of labelling all Indian Muslims as pro-Pakistanis, which is the worst abuse for any Indian Muslim.

Going soft on terror will not make Muslims happy as the perpetrators of such acts do not segregate their targets by religion. If the politicians of this country think that by shying away from taking on terrorists directly and by going soft on terror they will get kudos from Muslims, they are sadly mistaken.

The public in general has now had enough of those who exploit religious sentiment in order to gain electoral and political mileage. The recent poll results in Delhi are an indication of that.

The rider is: Let us save Islam from 'the Muslims', Hinduism from 'the Hindus', Christianity from 'the Christians', Judaism from 'the Jews' and Sikhism from 'the Sikhs' and other zealots as religion is a very personal matter and as humans, we are all same.

Over protected politicians

Are we paying tax for security of our politicians or for development ....... for security of ourselves and family...... for goodwill of infrastructure. ........ ???????????? ????????? ????

Despite the numerous terror strikes in India, the budget of counter-terrorism units has come down this year while the budget for the Special Protection Group, which protects VIPs, has gone up.

Rs 180 crore of the taxpayer's money is being shelled out annually to provide Z-class security to the PM, the Gandhi family, the leader of Opposition and a handful of other VVIP's .


The focus is so squarely on VIP protection that in Delhi alone, 15,000 men of the 60,000-strong Delhi Police are busy protecting around 400 VIPs.


In the 2008-09 the budget for the elite National Security Guards, was actually cut short to Rs 158 crore, from Rs 159 crore the previous year, But the budget for the Special Protection Group, which protects VIPs, went up from Rs 117 crore in 2007-2008 to Rs 180 crore in 2008-09.


Sources say that at least 30 per cent of the VIPs getting top security don't need any and 50 per cent can do with lighter security.


Home Minister P Chidambaram may have refused a Z security cover but his predecessor Shivraj Patil had no qualms about availing it.


There are other politicians who have said no to VVIP security in the past like Left leaders Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury and A B Barbhan, who shunned security, at times choosing to travel in their own cars.



In the next budget hope we can see some good changes ...

Cartoon of the Day

All terrorists in Mumbai attack identified

Mumbai, Dec 9 (IANS) All 10 terrorists who struck at Mumbai last month have been identified, police officials said here Tuesday.

Mumbai Joint Police Commissioner (Crime) Rakesh Maria released eight photographs of the terrorists and their identities in the evening.

One picture was not released since the body of the terrorist - involved in the attack at the Taj hotel - was burnt beyond recognition. His name has been given as Umar and his body was thrown down after the gun battle with the National Security Guard (NSG) commandos Nov 27.

The lone terrorist captured alive, Mohammed Ajmal Amir, was initially identified as 'Kasab,' and he quickly became the face of the Mumbai terror attacks.

His associate, now identified as Ismail Khan, was shot dead by the police near Chowpatty in south Mumbai during the early hours of Nov 27.

Ismail Khan's picture and actions were also captured on some closed circuit TVs installed at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) before he escaped with Amir to the nearby Cama and Albless Hospital, then to Metro cinema hall, from there to Nariman Point and finally to Chowpatty.

The three who laid siege at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel were: Bada Abdul Rehaman, Abu Ali and Abu Soheb. The Taj operation was the longest and bloodiest of all at the 13 sites which were attacked during the terror strike.

The duo killed at Nariman House in Colaba, where they laid a bloody siege to a Jewish place of worship, necessitating airdropping of commandos, are identified as Nasir alias Abu Umer and Babar Imaran alias Abu Akasha.

The two terrorists killed in the attack at the Oberoi Trident Hotel have been identified as Fahad Ullah and Abdul Rehaman Chhota.

Further investigations are underway to get the full background details of the nine killed terrorists, their associates and probably local support.

Total terrorists 10 - nine killed, one arrested:

They are: Bada Abdul Rehaman, Abu Ali, Abu Soheb - all involved in the attack at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel in south Mumbai;

Abdul Rehaman Chhota, Fahad Ullah - both involved in the attack on the Oberoi Trident Hotel at Nariman Point;

Ismail Khan - the terrorist involved in the attack at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus along with his associate Mohammed Ajmal Amir, (who was nabbed alive by the police);

Nasir alias Abu Umer and Babar Imaran alias Abu Akasha - involved in the siege at Nariman House at Colaba, where they attacked a Jewish place of worship.