|
 |
|
(Above) National Security Guards commandos eat a meal inside a BEST bus after bringing the Taj Mahal terror situation under control on Saturday (Left) Another NSG personnel splashes water on his face after the gruelling rescue operation comes to an end
Photos: Rane Ashish | Maroof Raza talks about why it's necessary to break our fixation over what the terrorists do rather than what they stand for
TERRORISM is as old as conflict itself. And as this horrible attack on Mumbai has shown, terrorists aim to terrorise innocent people arguing that 'bombings are the only effective tactics we have against our enemy'. The terrorists are often at 'war' with a government to put pressure on politicians to alter a policy. And surprise is their best weapon. In fact, a key lesson from the events of 9/11 and thereafter has been that the State (ie, the Government) is unable to guarantee a citizen complete protection. And there is a view that terror targets are often high profile leaders, institutions or even a city that creates envy, as in the case of Mumbai, which is India's financial hub.
Much of our policy since 9/11 has mistaken a technique of conflict for a type of conflict: confusing an age-old tactic of many wars with a new species of 21st century war. And the 2001 terror attacks on the Indian Parliament or the 2003 and 2006 bombings in Mumbai take on a new significance.
With the information revolution having reached homes across India, bomb making is not anymore the privilege of ordnance factories it's all there on the internet and moreover, terrorists of all persuasions now learn from each other. Terrorism is both an ultra-modern, and a very traditional, conspiracy. Suicide bombers are revered before and after their deaths, bound into the act with celebrity status, and a promise of paradise.
The most effective techniques are well-publicised across the global web. No image can be effectively suppressed, no declarations squeezed out of the system. The propaganda of the deed itself is ever-present; and no terrorist deed is a failure if s/he attains immortality in cyberspace. Not least, with the excessive media coverage of such events â one out pacing the other for viewership or readership there is a global dimension in the glamour and fashion that attaches to terrorism in the present era. It attracts recruits from all backgrounds and circumstances. And if the recent news reports are anything to go by, then there has been an alleged link between 'Muslim' and 'Hindu' terrorists in India.
We have lost much valuable time over the last several years. We have been fixated on what the terrorists do rather than on what they stand for. In a multi-cultural society as like India, there has been a great reluctance to challenge the narratives that terrorists create and feed off.
And elaborate conspiracy theories do the rounds, and our leaders don't really know where to start. All that they do is to dismiss the wickedness of the individuals rather than challenge the legitimacy of their ideas.
Take the case of India. Since Independence, India has battled festering ethnic or tribal insurgencies (what has now evolved in some areas as terrorism) in India's North-East, from the mid 1950's in Nagaland, then Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura and Assam. New Delhi's attempts to bring peace to the region has seen several rounds to talks and cease-fires agreements. But there is yet to be a lasting agreement.
And then in the 1990s, Pakistan initiated a campaign to get Kashmir to secede from India, following its failed attempts to do so in Punjab before that. It was part of Pakistan pan-Islamic design, to spread terror from Kashmir to Afghanistan and Chechnya.
The second phase of Pakistan's strategy was to de-stabilise India by systematic terror attacks in India's cities, to create fear and a communal divide. The idea of a secular society is anathema to terrorists, who essentially favour the idea of a single religious identity be they the jihadi groups, or Hindu hardliners, as reports about confessions of the those allegedly behind the Malegaon blast, have shown. It seems that terrorists today come not just from groups that support the al Qaeda movement its network of networks, its pyramids of hard-bitten professionals and dangerous amateurs and a vision of salafist Islam, but sadhavis and military men with a hardline Hindu view too.
Terrorists however have no religion. They have an aim, an agenda. And as we can see, that, apart from the Pakistan sponsored terror groups, the vast majority of terror groups in the sub-continent are non-Muslim. Sri Lanka's LTTE made up largely of Tamil fighters is a ruthless guerrilla force and peace is a far cry for Sri Lanka. The Tamils want independence, which Colombo is unwilling to give; and paradise island, is paradise no more. And until recently the Maoists of Nepal, had terrorised the kingdom until they won an election and are now its rulers. Even central India's naxalite militant groups or those in the North East are largely of ethnic denomination and religion is not their calling.
The most important lesson from these experiences is that you cannot defeat terrorism easily by sheer military power. These are politico-military conflicts and thus need a political solution. Military might can, at best, contain the terrorist, until a suitable solution is arrived at. The mistake that governments often make is to assume that the absence of conflict, is a sign of peace. But in fact, the militants are only using the lull to regroup and the respond at a place of their choice. They'll strike where you least expect them to.
Maroof Raza writes and comments on military and security issues | 
