A Prime Minister Speaks

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.

For far too long, now, the political discourse on terrorism has been clouded bya wide range of misconceptions, a great deal of muddle-headedness and at leastsome self-serving pretensions, and these have persistently stood in the way ofevolving a coherent national policy against this scourge, even as they haveobstructed India's Security Forces (SFs) time and again from taking necessaryaction. 

In numberless cases, where the SFs have, at great costs and with untoldsacrifices, imposed a measure of order in areas of widespread violence, theadvantage has quickly been wasted by political adventurism and unprincipleddeals with extremist leaderships that have restored the sway of violent anti-state groups in wide areas of the country. 

Political leaders at the highestlevels have repeatedly propounded the false sociologies of 'root causes' and thefiction that terrorists and other extremists, who have taken hundreds ofinnocent lives, are best treated as 'our children' who may have 'lost theirway'. At the same time, many political parties have entered into deceitfulpre-election alliances to secure extremist support during the polls, againstpromises of a 'soft-line' in the post-poll order.

Even where political leaders have, in the past, condemned terrorism, they havefound it expedient to qualify their remarks with platitudes about 'waywardchildren', 'legitimate grievances' and the need for undefined and inchoate'political solutions'.

In a radical departure from this feckless tradition, Prime Minister ManmohanSingh has now articulated what can be a sound and secure basis for a nationalcounter-terrorism strategy and internal security policy. At the Chief Minister'sConference on April 15, 2005, the Prime Minister's statement was crystalline inits clarity, sweeping aside the accumulated debris of discredited politicalrhetoric - much of it emanating from his own party and cabinet colleagues - toestablish and impose the beginnings of a consensus on a fractious andopportunistic political community, as he emphasized the dangers of"terrorist groups, organized crime syndicates, drug trafficking andexternal forces interested in destabilizing our polity", and "urgedleaders of all political parties to ensure that such forces and groups are keptaway from our political processes. We need to have zero-tolerance forcriminalisation of politics in our country."

It is unsurprising that such a statement should come, eventually, from aneconomist Prime Minister, as he confronts the challenge of integrating India'seconomy with the emerging global order, and securing for the country itsrightful place among the 'great powers' of the future. For decades, expenditureon 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 strifewould address the 'legitimate grievances and aspirations' of the people, andmagically wipe out violence. Billions of rupees have, consequently, been pouredinto 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 ofinsurgent and terrorist groups.

At the same time, ill-equipped state police forces, increasingly supplemented bycentral paramilitaries and the army, arethrown into unequal and unending wars against elements that are complicit withtheir own state political leaderships, and that, at least on occasion, have hadsupporters in the national political leadership as well.

Prime Minister Singh, however, clearly recognizes the "huge societalcosts" 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 "thechallenge of internal security is our biggest national security challengetoday," Singh has called for urgent police reforms, efficient policing,special attention to intelligence gathering and the modernization ofintelligence services and Security Forces.

Clarifying another element of frequent political double-speak, the PrimeMinister dismissed efforts by many to underplay the growing dangers of Left Wingextremism (Naxalism), emphasizing the "inter-state and external dimensionto Naxalism today. This requires greater coordination between state governmentsand between the centre and states. We have to take a comprehensive approach indealing with Naxalism given the emerging linkages between groups within andoutside the country…"

Singh reiterated that, "while talks and negotiations should always bewelcomed", 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 recognizedor even understood the enormous effort and sacrifice that has gone into thepreservation of the 'symbols and gestures' of Constitutional Democracy. It isuseful, in this context, to recall a small example of a 'routine' operationduring the recent Assembly elections in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Bihar -areas widely afflicted by Naxalite violence. 

A contingent of the Punjab Police(PP) was deployed in Chhattisgarh for 22 days on polling duties, with a largeproportion of these in the Bastar area, including four of the areas worstaffected by Naxalite violence: Jagdalpur, Kanker, Bijapur and Dantewada. Oneparty of 50 PP personnel, accompanied by one local policeman, started fromBijapur to go through forests to reach a place called Sundra, to prepare ahelipad so that electoral officials and materials could be brought in. Thisshort journey was to be completed in two stages, with an overnight stop atSagmeta. 

They moved from Bijapur at 07:00, and by 10:00, they were in the thickof the forest. They were greeted by as many as 19 landmine blasts, coupled withheavy firing. The commandos retaliated and used area weapons - 2-inch mortars,GF rifles (grenade launchers), Light Machine Guns and ALRs. They found that allthe existing forest trails were mined, so they marched cross country, cutting apath through the forest and reached Sagmeta, just 15 kilometres from Bijapur, at17:00, completing the journey in over 10 hours. 

At Sagmeta, from 23:00 to 05:00the next morning, there was a pitched battle between the police party and theNaxalites who were surrounding them from all sides. They then receivedinformation that the route to Sundra was heavily mined. The party consequentlystayed on at Sagmeta for another day. Firing on the party started again at 2200and continued till 0500 the next morning. 

A helicopter was eventually pressedinto service, and lifted one party - about half a platoon - who secured theground at Sundra. The remaining policemen were then airlifted to create andsecure the helipad. They came under heavy fire from the Naxalites through thenight at Sundra as well. 

For those who have not faced fire, it is difficult tounderstand the enormous courage and character that it would have taken thissmall contingent, as they confronted a faceless enemy, although unused to theterrain, being in the area for the first time. It is a tribute to theirruggedness, their training and their experience in fighting terrorism in Punjabthat, despite the fact that they took casualties, they managed to set up thepolling 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 thevictims of Naxalite 'justice', their limbs cut off - often by their ownrelatives on Naxalite orders - on the mere suspicion of being 'informers'. 

Afterpolling was over, the party returned, once again under heavy fire throughout thenight. While details of this expedition are available to me, it was far fromunique, and other parties in Kanker and other districts were also subject toorganised attacks - though this was the most vicious. All Forces deployed forelection duties in the area suffered casualties, and 32 SF personnel lost theirlives during the elections in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

Prime Minister Singh has now made it clear that "there is no place forviolence and extremism of any kind in a democratic, rule based society",but translating his newly articulated vision into policy will require politicalwill and perseverance. I have, fornearly a decade now advocated the need for a national policythat would recognize the existing and future threat-potential of terrorism andlow intensity wars, and create the basis for a radical reformation of internalsecurity forces and strategies, to create the skills, knowledge, attitudes andinfrastructure necessary to confront these dangers. It is now necessary toinitiate immediate processes to reform the institutional structures that impingeupon internal security management - the SFs, the justice system, intelligenceagencies, the bureaucracy, and most importantly the deeply compromised politicalstructures of this country.

Unless the Prime Minister can secure these ends, his exceptional statement onterrorism and internal security would, regrettably, be just that: an exceptionalstatement.

K.P.S. Gill isPublisher, SAIR; President, Institute for Conflict Management. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal