Beyond Terror

The recent horrendous terror attacks in Mumbai areobviously totally atrocious. They have woken up our elite citizenry of Mumbaiand the country to the dangers of terrorism as nothing ever has. There have beenmany terror attacks in this country before -- several serial blasts in majorcities of the country during this year itself. Each of those incidents killedalmost as many people as the terror attacks in Mumbai. There have however beenworse atrocities in the country, not long ago. In 1993, after the Babri Masjiddemolition, more than 1000 persons were killed and tens of thousands of homesand shops were burnt by marauding gangs who raped, burnt and killed at will,while the Mumbai police watched and even connived in those massacres. In 2002,more than 2000 persons were killed, many women raped, tens of thousands of homesburnt, in the most horrific manner by lumpen gangs of saffron hue, who operatedwith complete connivance of the Gujarat government and its police. Hardlyanyone, out of the hundreds who are easily identifiable, who were involved inthose massacres have been brought to book till today. Only in the last fewmonths, lumpen gangs terrorised and killed many in Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra andeven in Kerala. Just last month,  gangs of the local mobster Raj Thackerayterrorised and beat up hundreds of poor and hapless North Indians in Mumbaiitself.  

Twenty four years ago, this month, several thousand persons were killed andtens of thousands crippled for life by the poisonous gas of Union Carbide inBhopal, let loose because of deliberate and criminally negligent corporate costcutting. None of those responsible have been brought to book thus far. At thesame time in November 1984, 5000 Sikhs were brutally massacred in Delhi andelsewhere with total complicity of the police and the central government. Thoseresponsible have not been made accountable either. 

None of those terror attacks, brutalities and massacres, evoked the kind ofresponse from the elite citizenry of this country as we are seeing today. Thoseatrocities did not evoke cries of, "Enough is enough", or, "wewill not pay our taxes", or "politicians must be replaced by CEOs torun this country", at those times. Narendra Modi, who presided over theGujarat massacres still remains in office and has become the darling of the CEOsand the elite classes who have been roused by the Mumbai terror attacks. DowChemicals, which bought Union Carbide is being welcomed into India to set upmore plants to manufacture toxic chemicals. 

It is only when the attacks were directed at five-star hotels that our elitecitizenry, and the media controlled by them, comes out on the streets to railagainst politicians and the security establishment.  

This energy can however be usefully channelised to achieve many positivereforms in policing, intelligence and the security establishment and forpreventing their misuse by the political establishment, if it is done withcarefully considered cool deliberation about what measures can be useful andwhat would be counterproductive. Most of the news channels in their sensationaland hysterical 24 x 7 coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks have beenencouraging the expression of public anger and even mass hysteria at theattacks. A large section of the media has given a war cry, and is suggestingthat India should attack Pakistan or at least what they call "terroristtraining camps within Pakistan". The BJP's favourite theme of reviving thePrevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), to deal with terror, is back on the table.There are, however, some useful and sensible suggestions coming out of this --primarily relating to the revamping and depoliticizing of our intelligence andsecurity apparatus. 

"Get tough with terror", is however the main battle-cry of theelite, goaded by the media. "Getting tough" for them primarily means,attacking Pakistan or bringing back POTA. If India were to attack Pakistan --even if it only attacked the so called "terrorist training camps"within Pakistan -- would it stop or deter terrorism, particularly the kind ofsuicidal terrorism that we are seeing today? Apart from running the risk of awar with a nuclear armed Pakistan, such an action is bound to politicallydestabilise that country, which will only make conditions within Pakistan morehospitable for terrorists operating from there. Already, the US war onAfghanistan (which was the US’s tough response to the 9/11 attacks), hasdestabilised the North West Frontier province of Pakistan and made thatterritory much more hospitable to terrorists. That is why Pakistan itself hasseen so many terror attacks in the recent past, including the attack whichkilled Benazir Bhutto and the one which killed a large number of US citizens inthe Marriott hotel.  

There is little doubt, that such an attack would only help create thepsychological and physical conditions within Pakistan which will only increasethe number of terrorists being created and trained, who will attack Indianinterests in the time to come. We must understand that this is not a zero-sumgame, where our enemy's loss is our gain. Both Pakistan and India stand tosuffer severe losses in the event of India using military force within Pakistan.We must learn the correct lessons from the US war on terror, which, far frommaking the US, its citizens and interests safe across the world has onlyincreased insecurity worldwide and has led to many more terror attacks on USinterests and citizens across the world.  

It is however being said that the US’s tough responseto the 9/11 attacks has prevented further such attacks within the US. Thoughthere have not been any major terrorist attacks within the US recently, do theUS citizens feel any safer now than before the US "war on terror"? Allevidence suggests otherwise. The frequency of terror attacks in the world today,is several times of what it was prior to the US "War on Terror". While muchof these attacks are in Iraq and Afghanistan (many on US targets), the frequencyof such attacks has also increased elsewhere. Many of these attacks are directedat US Embassies, US army personnel and US citizens. The latest "WorldwideCaution" issued by the US government on July 16, 2008, says that "Currentinformation suggests that Al-Qaida and affiliated organizations continue to planterrorist attacks against US interests in multiple regions, including Europe,Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. These attacks may employ a wide variety oftactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackingsand bombings."  The Caution goes on to detail a very large number ofterror attacks which have taken place after 9/11 on US Citizens and US targetsacross the world. It advises US Citizens traveling abroad, to "maintain a highlevel of Vigilance, be aware of local events and take steps to bolster theirpersonal security."  

Much of the increase in terror attacks worldwide has been a direct result ofthe anger in the Arab and Muslim world at the US attacks on Afghanistan andIraq, the killing and imprisoning of hundreds of thousands of innocent personsin Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the imprisonment without trial of severalthousand Muslims in the US after 9/11. Even if some of those who have beenimprisoned were potential terrorists, the vast majority of those held onsuspicion under the "Patriot Act" (the US version of POTA), are clearlyinnocent. Their incarceration for the last 7 years, without any charges andtrial is also one of the causes of the resentment and anger against the US,which has fuelled the spurt in terror attacks worldwide against US interests. Infact,  the Mumbai attack was also an attack on US and Israeli interests,apart from being on India.  

What about the other costs of "Homeland security" in the US? HomelandSecurity costs are in hundreds of billions of dollars (rivalling India’s totalBudget). The costs of the two wars –the US’s main thrust of its war onterror, is in Trillions of Dollars (more than India’s GDP). From thepreeminent economic and military superpower prior to 9/11, the US is today asuperpower in precipitous decline having a debt equivalent to its entire GDP. Itis today the most hated nation in the world, with approval ratings of only 9% inTurkey, 15% in Pakistan and just 30% even in its NATO ally, Germany. Accordingto the report of the Pew Global Attitutes Project, "Since 2002, the image ofthe US has declined in most parts of the world. Favourable ratings of Americaare lower in 26 of the 33 countries for which trends are available." Bush istoday the most reviled President in all of US history, with approval ratings nowaround 20%. All this is part of the price paid by the US for its war on terror.And yet the bulk of our media, elite, and our security establishment want Indiato emulate the US in our fight against Terror.  

It is useful to recall the prophetic words of NoamChomsky, arguably the deepest social and political thinker of our times, ina short article that he wrote immediately after 9/11, on 12^thSeptember 2001. He wrote,

"As to how to react (to 9/11), we have a choice. We can expressjustified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes,which means making an effort to enter into the minds of the likely perpetrators.If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen tothe words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into the affairs ofthe region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing‘the wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people’, hewrites, ‘this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will beasked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashinginto Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing misiles into a Lebaneseambulance in 1996 and American Shells crashing into a village called Qana andabout a Lebanese militia – paid and uniformed by America’s Israeli ally-hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps.’ And muchmore.

Again we have a choice: We may try to understand, or refuse to do so,contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead."  

Chomsky’s sage advice to try and understand the reasons which had createdsuch a large number of terrorists who were determined to harm the US even at thecost of their lives, was drowned out by the jingoistic noise created by the Bushadministration, supported by the media, the military and security establishmentsand the belligerent right wing. They advocated an aggressive "War onTerror", and used the opportunity to increase the power and funding of themilitary and security establishment by squeezing out various Civil libertiesamong other things. Bush’s people had been wanting to do all this, butcouldn’t do this in a country which still valued its democratic and civilrights. They had said in their document "Rebuilding America’s defences"published a year before 9/11, just before Bush became President, that thescrapping the of Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, the treaty against SpaceWeapons, and a 50% increase in Military spending, though highly desirable forthem, could not be achieved politically, "in the absence of a catastrophic andcatalyzing event like a second Pearl Harbour". 9/11 provided them with such anevent which was seized upon to push through their agenda. And with such terriblecosts and consequences to the US, its people, and indeed to the whole world. 

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, has written about how such"crisis" have been routinely used by hawks and neocons to push throughunpalatable measures (such as the trillion dollar bailouts for private banks andcorporations pushed in the present financial meltdown). These responses wouldnot be accepted in normal times and are totally counterproductive in the longrun for society, but the crisis is used to scare the people into accepting themat that time.  The Mumbai terror attacks are also seen by such Hawks hereas providing a similar opportunity to push through POTA and an attack onPakistan. 

The terror attacks have brought POTA back on the table. The BJP and thesecurity establishment have been hankering after this draconian law for a longtime, but now the chorus for it can also be heard in the candlelight processionsat the Gateway of India and India Gate and in the discussions in TV studios.They feel that it is a strong Anti Terror law, without knowing what makes ittough. They don’t even pause to think that no law can stop or deter a suicideterrorist. A law can only help to keep in custody and prosecute those who havebeen caught. How can the fear of being kept in jail or prosecuted or, even, hungdeter someone who is already ready to die before he is caught? POTA hadessentially two major provisions which distinguish it from the normal criminallaw. Firstly, there is a provision of not granting bail to a person arrestedunder the Act, unless the Public Prosecutor consented or the court recorded afinding that the accused was not guilty. Secondly, police confessions have beenmade admissible. These provisions have only enabled the police to arrestinnocent persons, deny them bail and then chargesheet them on the basis ofessentially police confessions. Those against whom there is some evidence of involvementin a terrorist act would in any case be denied bail by the courts and onedoesn’t have to rely on police confessions which are always obtained bytorture or threat of torture.  

The inefficacy of POTA and its predecessor TADA is clear from the convictionrate of less than 2 percent under these Acts. Obviously the vast majority ofpersons arrested and charged under these draconian laws were innocent. Theprovisions for denial of bail and police confessions only encouraged the policeto target innocent persons. The people’s Tribunal on POTA consisting ofeminent jurists like Ram Jethmalani, Justice Suresh, Justice D.K. Basu, K.G.Kannabiran, and other eminent persons opined in their report in 2004: 

"Our review of victim and expert testimony shows that the misuse of the Actis inseperable from its normal use. It is a Statute meant to terrorise, not somuch the terrorists as ordinary civilians – particularly the poor anddisadvantaged such as Dalits, religious minorities, adivasis and workingpeople." 

It is the targeting of innocent persons as terrorists under these draconianlaws which is responsible in some measure for the anger and insecurity whichfuels the current terrorism. 

So what can be done to address the problem of terror?Revamping and depoliticizing our intelligence and investigative agencies cancertainly help. The Supreme Court had issued many directions in September 2006to implement police reforms which several expert agencies of the government hadrecommended many years ago but which had not been implemented. They includedsetting up independent state and national security commissions, police establishmentboards, police complaints authorities at the state and district levels, giving aminimum tenure to heads of field police officers at all levels including policechiefs etc. 

The thrust of these recommendations was to make the police and investigativeagencies accountable to the law and free them from the strangulating control ofthe political executive. The court had also asked the government, the NHRC, theSorabji Committee and the Bureau of Police Research and Development to opineabout the need for a central police agency to investigate and deal with federalcrimes like terrorism and organized crime. While the rest of the institutionsgave their opinions long ago supporting such a federal police organization andsuggesting how it could be constituted, the central government has been draggingits feet over it. Most of the states have also not implemented the directions ofthe Supreme Court about the police reforms. None of the major political partieswant to let go of their political control over the police which they have beenmisusing for partisan purposes. Implementation of reforms within the police andintelligence agencies should certainly improve security and reduce terrorattacks. That is where public anger and energy needs to be directed -- at apublic campaign to force the authorities to implement the reforms. That willrequire sustained engagement with the government, judiciary and with Civilsociety. It will require time and effort- more than occasional candlelightmarches. 

But it must be clearly understood that while this can help reduce the dangerof terrorism, it cannot eradicate the kind of suicide terrorism that we are nowwitnessing. The conditions for that kind of terrorism are being created by theenormous injustice that prevails in our country and society. If you allowthousands of persons, women and children to be repeatedly burnt, raped, renderedhomeless and killed, and the perpetrators to get away scot free by enjoying theprotection of the police, the government and the judiciary, then the insecurity,anger and rage among the victims is bound to create conditions which will givebirth to terrorists. Several people’s commissions have reported that most ofthe persons arrested, tortured and charged in the investigation of the recentterror offences are innocent. This too fuels insecurity, anger and rageespecially when a particular minority community is seen to be targetted. It isnot surprising that the Mumbai terrorists are said to have been shown films ofthe massacres of Gujarat, the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the egregioushuman rights violations by our 7 lakh strong security forces in Kashmir forseveral decades now.  

Unless we deal with these enormous injustices in our society, we cannoteliminate such suicidal terrorism. For this, we need to do many things, but mostimportantly we need to fix our criminal justice system to ensure that suchcriminal injustices are prevented, and those guilty are swiftly brought to book.We have a largely insensitive, communal, corrupt and failed judicial system.Neither the political nor the judicial establishment have the political will tofix it. We need a major public campaign for that. That is also where the publicanger and outrage over the Mumbai terror attacks needs to be channelised. If wecan succeed in doing that, it would be a major political achievement. If thatanger only fuels reflexive jingoism, we will, as Chomsky warned, only becreating conditions for more devastating attacks in future.