Thankyou for this opportunity to share my views on an ugly reality of today’s world– the threat to democratic societies from the globalisation of terror.
It gives me no pleasure to say that we in India have experienced this realityfor the past many years, but it took September 11 to dramatically bring theglobal reach of terrorism into the collective consciousness of the world.
The world now accepts that terrorism can be tackled effectively only with aglobal and comprehensive approach. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 shows theright direction. However, the world’s democracies have to co-operateeffectively in its implementation and ensure compliance of other countries. Thisrequires collective political will, undiluted by short-term political oreconomic calculations. Whatever our political predilections or strategiccalculations, we cannot condone terrorism somewhere, while condemning itelsewhere, because this lenience will boomerang on all of us. We have tosystematically choke off the three crucial lifelines of terrorist groups:refuge, finances and arms.
It is a self-evident truth that democratically multicultural societies are theprime targets of terrorism and are also the most vulnerable to its attacks.Terrorists exploit the civil liberties, religious tolerance and culturaldiversity in our countries. They seek to destroy our democratic fabric byfomenting sectarian divisions and cultural tensions and ultimately deprive us ofthat very freedom which they have exploited.
It is also a fact, often ignored, that the sponsorship, bases and finances forterrorism come from totalitarian military or theocratic regimes. They nurtureand support extremist terrorist groups to further their political agenda. Inturn, these groups make themselves indispensable to these regimes by maintainingthe focus on external campaigns and diverting attention from the inadequacies oftheir internal systems.
It is here that we should look for the roots of terrorism. Those who keepharping on the "root causes" of terrorism should recognize that they arefound in the military adventurism and religious extremism promoted bytotalitarian regimes.
Democracies are more vulnerable to terrorism, also because our values inhibiteffective anti-terrorist action. Intrusive surveillance, curtailment ofliberties, restrictions on movement, and other such tedious security proceduresare highly unpopular because they affect the quality of our life. Today we haveto reconcile ourselves to some infringement of our rights and freedoms, so thatwe can counter the far more destructive threat from terrorism. We have to takedecisive, tough and forceful action against terrorists, which is both punitiveand deterrent. Even while demanding restraint and fairness from our police andsecurity agencies, we should recognize that extraordinary circumstances call foreffective responses. The human rights of terrorists cannot override those oftheir victims – not only those hit by their actions, but also the generationswhich are denied normal life and economic progress by the prevalence ofterrorism.
Distinctions are sometimes drawn between different acts of terrorism. In somecases, we are told, it is not really terrorism, but a freedom struggle. It isalso said that the battle against terrorism is really a battle for the heartsand minds of the population which harbours the terrorists. These facilearguments defy logic. They assert that Osama bin Laden’s associates arefreedom fighters when they act in one country and terrorists when they actelsewhere. They imply that freedom fighters can indiscriminately massacrecivilians among the population they are seeking to liberate, without losingtheir popular support. They ignore the fact that it is not popular support, buta fear psychosis created by violence that suppresses the silent majority inthese societies.
Advertisement
Wein India saw this graphically in the case of Punjab, where terrorist separatistforces struck in the eighties, with generous support in the form of refuge,finances, arms and training from a neighbouring country. Sustained tough actionby our security forces dealt with this and fully restored the democraticprocesses in Punjab. Significantly, none of these so-called popular groupsventured to test their public support by participating in elections, though itwas open to them to do so. Equally significantly, the movement for Khalistan –as the separatists called their desired State – today exists only outsideIndia, and quite unsurprisingly, many of its ringleaders reside in the sameneighbouring country which sponsored their terrorist activities. We have beenconfronted with the same menace in Jammu & Kashmir for a decade and more.
The international coalition against terrorism has to constantly bear in mindthat terrorism has a global network. It would be a mistake to concentrate allour efforts on the single evil genius of Osama bin Laden, as if his eliminationwould mortally wound the elaborate organization he has build up. Our attentionshould not only be focused on how he has vanished. We should ask ourselves whereand how the vast majority of Taliban and Al Qaida leaders and activistsdisappeared after October 7. Where are the thousands of foreign fighters andadvisers of Taliban, who were trapped in Kunduz in the final phase of themilitary campaign, but found a providential and mysterious aerial escape route?These are questions of long-term relevance to the international campaign againstterrorism. Anyone who looks at a map of the region would understand why forIndia, this is a matter of immediate security concern. This is also why Indiawould like to see concrete evidence of a diminution of terrorism from across itsborders before it acts on military de-escalation.
The most powerful lesson to the democratic world from September 11 is the needfor closer operational co-operation and intelligence sharing on counterterrorism. I am reminded of a recent TV interview in which our External AffairsMinister described how India had to release four terrorists from its custody tosecure the freedom of over 150 passengers of an Indian Airlines plane hijackedto Qandahar in December 1999. The released terrorists had known links with Osamabin Laden. The interviewer facetiously remarked that by releasing theterrorists, India was at least partially responsible for the September 11attacks! This is of course a ridiculous assertion. But it is not fanciful tosuggest that if the security forces and intelligence agencies of democraticcountries had been in closer touch over the last decade, we could well haveprevented the growth of the international terror machine into the Frankensteinit has today become.
National intelligence agencies are traditionally reluctant to share informationeven with their counterparts in closely allied countries. This reluctance sternsfrom apprehensions of present or future conflict of national interests or ofprejudicing relations with other countries. What we have to recognize is that interrorism, the democratic world today faces the single greatest existentialthreat to its ideology and its way of life. Compartmentalized nationalapproaches cannot advance our collective purpose of crushing it, since terrorismhas developed a seamless web of international linkages. Real-time informationsharing and operational co-operation can help to integrate diversely collectedbits of data into an interlocking coherent jigsaw. Analysis of data can beenriched by involving those who are familiar with the cultural subtleties andthe local idiom of its origin.
I would like to offer one final thought for consideration. We should never letterrorism blackmail us into submission or inaction. After the terrorist attackson the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly last October and its Parliamentlast December, India decided to confront cross-border terrorism decisively, asit was assuming unbearable proportions. We deeply appreciate the understandingand support of the international community in this endeavour. We sincerely hopethat we will achieve our purpose without use of unnecessary force. But it isimportant – not only for our national interest, but also for the globalcampaign against terrorism – that we should remain firm in our resolve untilit produces the desired objective. At no stage in this – or any other similarsituation – should we ever give the forces of terrorism the impression thatthe will for a firm response will be circumscribed either by fear of theconsequences or lack of unity in the international community.
