'Double Standards Will Only Help Terrorists'

Unedited, verbatim transcript of the speech in Rajya Sabha 

I rise today, Sir, with a deep sense of anguish over the terrorist attacks inMumbai, and I am only reminded of the powerful lines of Rabindranath Tagore,which he wrote after the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre: "Give me a voice ofthunder that I may hurl imprecations upon this cannibal whose gruesome hungerspares neither the mother nor the child." These lines, I am, actually,recollecting to assess the gravity of the attacks that have continuously takenplace in our country for the past few months, and using this discussion on theMumbai attacks and respecting the intervention of the Prime Minister, who said,"Using this statement of the Home Minister as the background, you candiscuss the issue of terrorism, in general, and of the attacks that have takenplace in various parts of the country, in particular". 

I propose to do that, Sir, because we have had attacks in Assam. There wereserial blasts that had taken place at three places. You have had attacks inHyderabad and Jaipur; you have had attacks in Ahmedabad. You had a series ofattacks which number about 48 in the last one year. Now, this sort of terroristattacks that are continuing with an alarming regularity is something that acountry like ours cannot afford to live with. And these are not merely attacksof one nature, Sir. But there have been attacks which are as diverse as is thediversity that we have in India. 

In fact, since we have become independent, you lost the Mahatma to thebullets of a Hindu fanatic; you lost the former Prime Minister, an incumbentPrime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, to the hands of Sikh militants; you lost aformer Prime Minister to the hands of terrorists of an LTTE variety. You havevarious types of terrorist activities that are conducted in the country,particularly in the North- East, by various outfits. You have a spread ofNaxalite violence and activities that are conducted by these forces. 

So, the diversity of terrorist attacks in our country must be recognised;otherwise, we cannot succeed in the fight against terror. And in recognisingthis diversity, whether it is the question of attacks on North Indians in Mumbaior whether it is the question of spreading a communal poison and hatred, andsharpening a communal polarisation, all these contribute to an atmosphere whereterrorism strikes very, very deep roots. And if you are really interested infighting terrorism, it is time that we recognise one fundamental fact that aterrorist, in India, knows no religion, knows no caste, knows no region. He issimply anti-national. Any attempt to try and straitjacket them into oneparticular community or the other is the surest recipe for the success ofterrorist forces and it is not an answer to resolve terrorism. This is thespirit of the discussion that took place here today and I would like to appealthat we should not resort to such bracketisation or such compartmentalisation,and you can't have a situation like a United States humorist, a Muslim by birth,has recently said, "I am always chosen for random checks at theairport". "Random checks" by definition means "random".But because he belongs to a particular community he has always been chosen. Thatsort of a witch-hunting against a community in the name of fighting terrorismwill only breed terrorism further. So, that is something we will have to avoid.

Since both the earlier speakers have quoted some couplets of Urdu poets, I amalso tempted, with your permission, Sir, to invoke Firaq Gorakhpuri. The reasonwhy I want to invoke him is also the diversity that I was speaking about. All ofus know that he, in fact, symbolises it. [He was born in an upper-caste Hindufamily. His real name was Ragupati Sahay. But he was an Urdu poet and so hechose the name Firaq for himself. Because he was from Gorakhpur, he was calledFiraq Gorakhpuri, and he taught English at the University. He is by himself asymbol of diversity. Once he went to a mushaira. The country was in turmoil,there were riots everyday, but people at the mushaira were reciting poems aboutbeauty and love ('husn' aur 'ishq'). Firaq sahib was also asked to recite somepoetry. He said this sh'r then:

haasil-e-husn-ishq bas itnii 
aadmii aadmii ko pahchaane

Now, if we have to fight against terrorism, it is imperative that aadmiiaadmii ko pahchaane. Man should recognise man, we should recognise terrorism.But while recognising terrorism, we must not include the whole community in theambit of terrorism. We must recognise that terror has no religion and if we wantto wage a war on terror in the name of religion, we shall never succeed. Weshould keep this in mind when we address the issue of what happened in Mumbai.]

The earlier speakers have also highlighted the failures of our intelligenceand security apparatus. I will come to that a little later. But some heads haverolled. I wouldn't say that some heads have rolled. I think only one head hasrolled. My esteemed colleague in this House, the former Home Minister, is nothere. Only that has happened. Beyond that, I entirely agree with the leader ofthe Congress Party who spoke earlier by saying that there had to beaccountability of the various officers and various people in charge of thevarious departments. There is an old English saying and this comes from the timeof David Livingstone, not Ken Livingstone as the Mayor of London. The saying is,"Mayors may come, Mayors may go; but the Town Clerk remains". Here itis being said that the Ministers have resigned. Okay, because they areresponsible for that. But what about others who are heading all these agencies?What is happening to that? Is there any sense of accountability? You have aNational Security Advisor and a whole set-up. Is there any accountability ofthat to the Executive so that the Executive will share the accountability withthe Legislature? These are issues which we have to take seriously if we areserious in combating terrorism.

Having said this, yes, there is a need, I want to emphasise, a need to createa new security architecture in our country. You have the existing set-up. Youhave the RAW; you have the Intelligence Bureau; you have other intelligenceagencies like the Military Intelligence, and you have various other agenciesthat contribute in the process of information gathering. All of us are aware ofit. I don't want to repeat them. But you see how the heads of the variousagencies have gone to the media and passing the buck saying, "We passed onthe information but the information was not taken seriously". We don't knowwhether the information was passed or not. What is worse is that the Chief ofthe Naval Staff of the country informs us that he learnt that the Coast Guardhas actually intercepted the vehicle in which these terrorists landed in Mumbai,but let it off because it had some documentation. He says, "Televisioninformed them". The Coast Guard does not inform the Navy. It informs themedia. Then the media tells the Naval Chief. This is a very sorry state ofaffairs and this will have to be plugged. 

I heard my learned colleague, Shri Arun Shourie, very attentively. He iscorrect. It is not a question of tu tu, main main here. But the questionis, we all would have been very enlightened if you could told us why all theproposals that you had suggested could not be implemented when you were inoffice for six years. That may give us some insight as to where we are failing.That is the experience which we would like to know from you. All of us know,after the Kargil war, you had the RAW Chief of that time heading a Committee setup by the then NDA Government, which included the present National SecurityAdvisor. They gave a series of recommendations. You had a proposal for a multiagency centre; a MAC was proposed. This MAC and a Joint Task Force onIntelligence, these two proposals were accepted by a Group of Ministers headedby the then Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Shri Advani. I am readingout the recommendations of this Group of Ministers. This was in 2003. 

The report says, "Dispersal of the NSG units at strategic parts acrossthe country". I am happy that the Government has now announced that it isgoing to do that and have various centres where the NSG would be there. But thatwas not done. The report further says, "The NSG should not be deployed forduties beyond its original mandate". How it is being deployed, all of usknow now. It is for the security of the VIPs, VVIPs. That is not their job. Butthat has not been implemented. It goes on to say, "Lack ofinstitutionalised arrangement for sharing and coordination of Intelligence atvarious levels and particularly at the field level." That is what we aretalking about today that there should be coordination among intelligencegathering agencies. But that has not happened despite the GoM's recommendationsfive years ago. It further says, "An apex body for management of maritimeaffairs for institutionalised linkages between the Navy, the Coast Guard and theconcerned Ministries of the Central and State Governments." This has nothappened. 

We have heard how the terrorists have used the sea route. It is not that wewere not aware. It is not that these were not apprehended. But the point is, inspite of all these recommendations why was it not implemented? That is why wewould be very enlightened if you could actually tell us your experience as towhy those could not be brought into force. It is very true and correct. Now youare telling the Government what you are deciding, please implement. Unless weknow why the earlier decisions taken could not be implemented, there is noguarantee to ensure that the decision taken now will be implemented. We wouldhave been grateful if you could have actually enlightened us as to whatprevented the implementation of decisions taken by your own Government at thehighest level from being implemented while you were in office. That wouldenlighten the entire House to make sure that such mistakes are not repeated.

Secondly, we agree that there should be a coordination mechanism amongIntelligence agencies. How it will come, I will come to it a little later. Butin this entire arrangement that you have, the weakest link in our securityapparatus is the bottom rung of the ladder which is your police force. Yes, wehave all seen the images of how the policemen who were hiding behind pillars atthe CST Station in Mumbai. By the time he could open and put the spring back inhis 303 ancient rifle, he had a barge of bullets coming out of automatic weaponsof terrorists. Unless you strengthen this at the bottom level, there is nothingthat can be done to improve the situation. That is where this question comes asto what has happened to all these police reforms that you have been talkingabout. 

What has happened to the various Commissions that have talked about themodernisation of the police force? Sir, as a person, who is born afterindependence, I still cannot reconcile to the fact that our police and the lawand order establishment functions under the Indian Police Act enacted in 1861,to subjugate the natives. That is the law under which we are functioning. So, itis the Indian Police Act of 1861! Then we had various commissions sinceindependence, say, the National Police Commission, the Law Commission, RibeiroCommission, Padmanabaiah Commission, Soli Sorabjee Commission, MalimathCommission, and all these Commissions have made various recommendations whichhave never been put into force. And this has led to a situation where you haveabsolutely inadequate policemen. The United Nations norm is to have 222policemen for every lakh of population. Now the all-India average is 126; and,in many States, it is much less. While the United Nations recommends 222policemen for 1 lakh of population, we have an all- India average of 126. And,in some of the States, where law and order is more fragile, we know it is muchless than that. Now why has this not been corrected? 

In 2003, the Group of Ministers, headed by Shri Advani, decided to recommendan additional 3,000 Intelligence Bureau personnel. It was a decision taken bythe Government of the day. Now what has happened? Five years down the line, theinformation that I have is that only 1400 posts have been sanctioned, and theyhave not yet been filled up. You take a decision to increase this Force by 3,000in 2003. Now, you sanction 1400 posts. And I do not know how many areimplemented. Maybe, the Home Minister will be able to enlighten us. But why isthis happening? Why is it that we are not able to implement what has beendecided in the past? And, if that is not going to be done, as is theapprehension which has been raised here, then, the matter is very, very serious. 

What we are now suggesting, therefore, is a proposal for a federalinvestigative agency on the lines, I suppose, of the FBI in the United States ofAmerica. We are not against borrowing good things from anywhere, including theU.S. But what we are saying here is, it has to have two objectives. Oneobjective is to strengthen and improve the coordination between the variousintelligence gathering agencies that we have, and that coordination improvementis absolutely necessary. And, as far as terrorism is concerned, many a time, itmoves beyond the power of any individual State. So, the question of coordinatingthe security agencies of these various States will also be necessary. Werecognise, and we agree that there should be a coordination mechanism. But whilemeeting this objective, there is another objective that cannot be violated, andthat is the federal content of the Indian Constitution and the powers of theStates, and it is to be done without infringing on the powers of the States andwithout violating the federal principles of the Indian Constitution. It is notthat we are not concerned with the gravity of the situation. 

I have listened to your appeal saying, "Sometimes, you will be in powerand, sometimes, we will be in power." Now, the issue is not of being inpower, which party is in power or not. The issue is the entire structure of thefederal content of the Constitution. And, in our constitutional scheme ofthings, the power and the rights of the States and the States' Lists, that wehave, is something, we think, cannot be encroached upon. So, what is the wayout? The way out is to have a federal agency which will be able to do thiscoordination, which will also involve the State Governments, the concerned StateGovernments. It cannot be that you have an agency at the top bypassing the StateGovernments. That is a mechanism which cannot work in our country. So, we think,we will wait for the new proposal that the Government would bring, and we willsee the fine-print and then take a decision. I think both these objectives willhave to be met, namely, improved coordination and greater effectiveness of yoursecurity apparatus as well as the inviolable content of the federal structure ofthe Indian Constitution. Maintaining both these, this new agency will have to becreated. Then, the question that comes up is that of a new law. We have had thisdebate in this House many a time in the past. Honestly, I think, it is not theinadequacy of law that these terrorist attacks took place.

You had the POTA on our statute books. You had this Parliament attack....(Interruptions)...

[Shri Amar Singh intervened to say: "Like the MCOCA in Maharashtra. ]

When you had the POTA in the country...

(Interruptions)...

[Shri Prakash Javadekar intervenes to say:  "So, change thepresent law altogether because all these things are happening. ...]

(Interruptions)...

Please bear up with this. The first attitude to develop in fighting terrorismis, understand the diversity of India. Listen to other points of view;otherwise, we cannot fight this menace. When you had the POTA, you had thisParliament attack, you had the Akshardharm Temple attack in Gujarat, you had theRaghunath Temple in Jammu and Kashmir attacked twice, you had the Red Fortattack. The POTA did not prevent these. It is not the inadequacy of law, forheaven's sake. Only yesterday was the International Human Rights Day, and all ofus say that we respect human rights, but you cannot have draconian laws that canviolate human rights. But, if there is inadequacy in the existing laws whichneed to be repaired, which need to be strengthened, yes, come with concreteproposals. But, don't use that as the excuse to say that because of that theseterrorist attacks have happened. 

Let us recognise the fact that India today is in the frontline of terroristattacks. You are living in the midst of what, I do not like the term, but thisis what Henry Kissinger once called them, the Failed States. Look all aroundyou. Look at Afghanistan; look at Pakistan; look at our neighbours in the East;look at Bangladesh; look at Nepal; look at Sri Lanka. What is the situation inwhich India is? And in that sort of a situation we are in, we have to recognisethat we are vulnerable to such attacks from any of these quarters. So, do not,again, compartmentalise, like a horse with the blinkers, look only in onedirection, and that unidirectional thing which has its own politics, that I willcome to later, but that unidirectional thing will not help us in combatingterrorism in our country. This is a point that I think we must today recognisewith all its gravity, and, therefore, pursue terrorists and terrorismuncompromisingly, irrespective of which religion they belong to, which castethey belong to, which region they belong to.

Mr. Hemant Karkare, a martyr, in my opinion, of modern India, when he waspursuing the Malegaon cases, you saw him with a tainted glass. When he gives uphis life in Mumbai against these terrorists, he is a martyr, for whom you havegiven the compensation! Now, these double-standards will only help terrorists.Whether it is Malegaon, whether it is Bhosale Military Academy, whether it isthe Mumbai attacks, whether it is the attacks at the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad,all these are terrorist attacks, and all of them have to be pursued without anycompromise. And the moment you try to give a blinkered coloured vision to this,saying, 'Hindus cannot be terrorists, only the others can be terrorists', I amsorry, then, we are not winning this battle against terrorism. 

And, if you want to win this battle against terrorism, let us maintain thespirit that was initiated this morning, and take up this fight in right earnestand not try to compartmentalise it in anyway. Further, Sir, various comparisonshave been drawn between the 9/11 of USA and how USA went about protecting itselfand how we are failing.