'"Hot Pursuit", "Pro-Active Measures", "End Of Tolerance" ... What Do They Mean

Since we met last, onFriday, to express our respectful homage to the brave security forces, who notonly saved our lives, but also saved the honour and dignityof this great nation by sacrificing their own lives, we have been getting theinformation through media that the Government would come out with a statement tobe made by the hon. Minister of Home, revealing their action plan to theParliament.  After going through the statement, as read by the hon.Minister of External Affairs, we find that out of the 10 paragraphs, the firstparagraph deals with the sequence of events which took place around 11.40 a.m.on the 13^th of December.

The next three paragraphs deal with the outcome of theinvestigations, most of which have already been revealed at the Press Conferenceby the Police Commissioner of Delhi, after the arrest of Professor Gilani. What happened subsequently?  In the remaining three paragraphs, it isalmost a reiteration of the Government's stand that Pakistan is responsible forit.  And, finally, in the concluding line -- quoting from the PrimeMinister's broadcast to the nation -- the hon. Home Minister has said that thenation will firmly and unitedly stand to confront the terrorist menace. There is no one in this House, or outside, who will disagree with the resolve tofight the terrorists. 

There is no one; not to speak of the Congress Party whichhad to sacrifice its various leaders, starting from Mahatma Gandhi to IndiraGandhi, to Rajiv Gandhi, to Sardar Beant Singh, and a large number of severalother leaders who sacrificed their lives, because they refused to compromisewith the demands of the terrorists, secessionists, who dared to strike at theroot of national unity and integrity. I can assure the hon. Members belonging tothe Treasury Benches that in this resolve, you will not find us wanting. 

At the same time, as a responsibleOpposition, and also having had the experience of running the administration inthis country for forty-five years, having learnt the lesson from our experienceas to how bitter, how ferocious, a terrorist attack could be, we feel, certainlegitimate questions which emerge, must be debated.  They cannot simply bebrushed aside.  It is said, at this moment of crisis, we are trying to findfault.  This is not the intention of the Leader of the Opposition.  Hestarted by observing that 'we are one with the Government on this issue; we havethe highest regard, and we are proud of our Security Forces' contribution.' 

But, at the same time, hon. Members will recall that at thebeginning of this Session, when the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue,in a substantive motion, of the situation in our neighbourhood, including theU.S. attack on Afghanistan or the anti-terrorist coalition's attack onAfghanistan, a very legitimate question was raised :  How our concerns offighting terrorism -- because of which we are suffering for the last 20 yearsand for which a large number of people have sacrificed their lives -- in Jammu& Kashmir alone, more than 70,000 people have died; and, in Punjab, not lessthan 30,000 people, innocent men, women and children, have lost their lives, --going to be addressed by the action of the United States and the Allianceagainst the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?  And, what was the response ofthe Government?  The response of the Government, as articulated by no lessa person than the Leader of the House, the hon. Minister of External Affairs, isthis.  Sir, if I remember his words correctly, he said that theinstitutions run by the Taliban are nothing but factories for producingterrorists.

And if those factories which are producing terrorists aredestroyed, surely India is going to benefit from that action.  Talibanregime has collapsed.  The words of the Leader of the House are still beingechoed on the floor of this House, but we have not been relieved from that. Therefore, we shall have to work out our own strategy. 

Even if you readtoday's newspapers, not one, but most of the national dailies have pointed outthat the Home Minister is going to take both the Houses of Parliament into confidenceexplaining the strategy and action plan against terrorism and terroristactivities in this country after the terrorist attack on Parliament.  Whereis that action plan?  We have heard some phrases like hot pursuit,pro-active measures,  end of tolerance.  What do they mean?  Ofcourse, the Leader of the Opposition has raised this question and I do expectthe Home Minister or the Minister of External Affairs would address thatquestion.  I understand the sentiments of some of the Members of the rulingparty, who are urging the Government that you take pro-active action and try todestroy the camps located in the other side of the border by crossing theborder.  They said, you take pro-active action even by crossing the Line ofControl.  I do not blame them.  I can understand their anguish andtheir feelings.  But what is the response of the Government? 

We read in thenewspapers that the US Secretary of State has almost given a certificate thatthe Pakistan President has taken action against the terrorist-basedorganisations in Pakistan.  Does the Government of India share thisperception of the US Secretary of State?  If we raise this question, are wedigressing?  Are we diluting the resolve of this nation to fight againstterrorism?  No.  But, we must know about that, because you had beentold again by that country that dealing with Talibans in Afghanistan was thefirst priority, Kashmir is the second priority.  The terrorist attack onthe US World Trade Centre and Pentagon buildings are to be addressed first andkillings of innocent people in Jammu and Kashmir or in Punjab or in theNorth-Eastern States can be taken care of later on.  We agreed to that. Fine, you deal with Talibanism first.  But you consider that Pakistanis perpetually abetting and aiding terrorists despite our protestations, despiteour peace talks, despite the bus ride by the Prime Minister.  Pakistan iscontinuing to support the terrorists despite that fact.  If that countrybecomes the front-ranking State in the overall strategic requirements of the US,I do not mind that, but what about me?  I must have my place somewhere sofar as the question of the world community and their resolve to fight againstterrorism is concerned.

Most respectfully I would like to submit, through you, to the Government, the time has come when they have todecide. If it is our own battle, tell the people of this country that it is ourbattle that we shall have to fight ; and people have the guts, have the courageand conviction to fight. If we could fight against the mightiest colonial powerof the world, simply some blatant violators of human rights, some mad capscannot cow down this nation of 100 crore people.   We may be half-starved,we may be half literate , but we love our country. We are proud of our heritage.We know how to protect it. But who is to lead? You are to lead. The Governmentof the day has to lead. The Government of the day must have a clear vision as towhat they want to achieve. Let us understand very clearly. I do want to knowyour game plan. I do want to know your action plan. The Government of the dayhas to formulate its strategy. There are classified information which I do notwant you to share with me. But, at the same time, except rhetoric, I would liketo know whether you have something in concrete.

Merely raising an accusing finger and saying, "You arestanding in the way of the POTO and that is why these things are happening"is of no use. Where  would it lead you? You can accuse me. You can abuseme. You can raise an accusing finger towards us. But please don't forget thatthree fingers are pointing towards yourself.  Merely accusing is not goingto help you. I may have differences of opinion. But the fact remains that thePOTO has been there from 24^th October, 2001. Till six weeks, till theParliament Session is over, it will continue to be there, whether I like it or Ido not like it. If I say that it did not prevent the attack, does it mean that Iam diluting our resolve to fight against terrorism? No. I am not diluting it. Weare firm in our resolve,  we are united to fight terrorism. But you are the Government of the day. People have entrusted this responsibility to you.You have all the inputs. You have all the information; and some of theinformation you can share with us at this critical hour.

Mr. Foreign Minister and the hon. Leader of the House, youare an erudite scholar, you might be knowing that after the immediate fall of Dunkiark, during the Second World War, the first thing the British PrimeMinister did was to have consultations with the Leader of the Opposition. Hadthere been one such meeting now in this country? There is a recognisedopposition. If you consider it necessary to have a discussion, share theperception with the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, "Let us decidewhat can be done."

The situation has changed. In fact, we did not wait. TheLeader of the Opposition, Dr. Manmohan Singh,  himself took the initiativeby discussing it among the opposition leaders. To support the Government, yes; we have our own perception on certain issues. But we will request the Governmentof the day which is responsible for running the House; this is not an occasionto divide the political opinion of the country. It will not serve any purpose.If we could  show to the whole world that despite the fact that terroristswere within 100 yards away from the place where we are sitting,  Mr.Ahluwalia was imagining a scenario where we could have become hostages.......

But my imagination is a little different.  If twopersons stood on both the sides of your seat, Mr. Chairman, Sir, with AK-47assault rifles, I think the entire political establishment, at least a part ofit, would have been wiped out in less than one minute, starting from Mr. JaswantSingh--if the Prime Minister was there, from him--Dr. Manmohan Singh, myself,Arjun Singhji and a whole lot of us. But, fortunately, our brave security peopleprotected us from that.  But despite that fact, thereafter, we must comeout. 

There are certain occasions when you must rise above your partisanconsiderations.  We decided.  What did we decide?  Why was theHouse paralysed for several days, 11^th, 12^th and 13^th? We are not raising that issue today.  Because we thought, "This is thetime, this is the occasion, when the nation should tell the world community thatdespite the terrorist attack on Parliament, the next day, Parliament couldmeet;" and, after the short recess over the week-end, Parliament has met;Parliament is transacting its business; Parliament is expressing its solidaritywith the nation, with the people of this country, to fight against this biggestmenace." 

Terrorism is not just threatening the lives of individuals. It isthe biggest enemy of human rights, the biggest violator of human rights.  There comes the question of your diplomatic initiatives.

Again, Mr. Chairman, Sir, mostrespectfully, I would like to submit one thing from a discussion on the floor ofthis very House. My knowledge is very limited. I do not go into the proceedingsof the other House or of the national or international parleys.  Whilehaving a discussion, while we were discussing the outcome of the Kargil war, theHome Minister claimed--the Home Minister is on record, and those words arerecorded in the proceedings of this House--that our success in Kargil wasgreater than our success in 1971.  Of course, sitting here, I did not agreewith him. I did not agree with him at that time, I do not agree with him now.  

But, nonetheless, let us assume, for the time being, that he was right, I amwrong, that their success was greater, that his Government's success in thebattle of Kargil was greater, because not only they had military victory, butthey had diplomatic victory.  The whole world appreciated the stand takenby the Government for restraining themselves from crossing the LoC, the Line ofControl.  That was the diplomatic success they achieved.  Why don'tyou utilise that diplomatic achievement?  Why don't you use that success?  

When you are calling the Pakistan High Commissioner, when your Secretary isgiving a demarche, when you are asking them, "Please take action againstLaskar-e-Taiba, please take action against Jaish-e-Mohammad", we arehearing in the newspapers that some others are telling, "observerestraint". Are we restraining as per their suggestions or are werestraining, being satisfied that Pakistan has taken the appropriate action? Tothis simple question, we would like to have an answer from the Government. And,by asking this question, in no way, we are diluting our resolve to fight againstterrorist activities.

The third questionwhich, most legitimately, can be put is this. It is true, I do agree, that ifthere be a determined group of people and they want to sacrifice their lives, itbecomes very difficult to counteract that. But, at the same time, in para 6 ofthe statement itself, you yourself have pointed out that while searching thehideouts of some of these people in Mukherjee Nagar, a large quantity ofAmmonium Nitrate and other ingredients used in preparing improvised explosivedevices, a map of Delhi, a sheet of paper carrying a map of Chankyapuri drawn inhand etc. etc. have been recovered. Forget about how did they come and how werethey resisted by our people.

Nobody is denying the fact that our security personnel didthe right type of things to prevent it. We are proud of them. I am sure theGovernment can take some credit for that also because they kept them alert. Theywere in a position to keep them in a state of alertness. I do not mind that.But, at the same time, if you want to take the credit, you will also have totake the responsibility that there was a failure of the Intelligence to find outwhat these people were doing, and as per the Police Commissioner's report, itwas going on from February onwards. Despite the fact that the Prime Ministerknew it, despite the fact that the Home Minister knew it, sometimes I am reallyat a loss to understand this thing.  

Mr. Chairman Sir, everybody kneweverything except a few fools like us, who only depend on the Government source,and who do not know anything. We are told by another very important politicalleader that she knew it and she informed the appropriate quarter that somethingis going to happen on 13^th of December in the Parliament. I do notknow. But if the information is correct, if the statement is correct, whataction has been taken by the appropriate authority? The appropriate authorityshould come and tell us: "Yes, these are the measures we took." 

Atleast, we thought that in this statement, there should have been some narrationby the Home Minister that he had the information, and in order to prevent suchoccurrences, he did take certain measures. It may happen that despite that, somedesperate group could succeed. But, at least, you will enlighten us about that.In para 10 of the statement, it has been mentioned that the Home Minister hadsome prior information. What action has been taken by the Home Minister aftergetting the prior information to protect the Parliament House Building?  Isit not the legitimate expectation of this House to know from you as to whataction has been taken by you? Whether I am satisfied with your answer or not,that is a different question. But, at least, you could have been clear toyourself: "Yes, I had the information, and after obtaining the information,I took these measures." But there is no such mention. 

You did not considerit absolutely necessary to mention it in this statement, which you are making atthe earliest opportunity, to take the House into confidence, because, 14^thwas not the occasion. Today is the occasion. If we could have given anysuggestions, say that is fine, those measures are all right.  But you addto it, you supplement it. If you want to fight against terrorism, if you wantthe nation to be united, for God's sake, as we have to come out of our narrowpartisan approach, you too will have to come out of your narrow partisanapproach. Unless you come out of that, nothing will happen. 

The responsibilitylies with you because you are leading the nation. You are running theadministration. You are more equipped with facts and inputs to which we have noaccess.  Mr. Chairman, Sir, to be frank, the type of expectation which wasraised, that was not only my expectation. Most of the average newspaper readersexpected that some strong action plan is going to be announced in the Parliamenttoday. But the statement, which we find, is nothing but the narration of theincident which we knew....which we read in the newspapers, the investigationoutcome, up till now, which we read in the newspapers, and, except themuch-repeated words, there is nothing.