Countering threats head on

Terrorists are the biggest threat to civilised society. They have no concern for human rights, but modern governments combating them are inhibited on that account. Pakistan’s military doctrine considers terrorists as strategic assets. The Pakistani regime have found it economical to use this low cost option in Afghanistan and in India with great effect.
Secure with two mighty oceans on both flanks and an anti-missile shield, the United States, despite its preponderant military strength, looked helpless when the Twin Towers came crumbling down in New York on 9/11. Our day of reckoning came on 26/11 when a nation of one billion people was virtually held to ransom by a handful of Pakistani terrorist in Mumbai. The US has been able to put up a failproof homeland security system against terrorists, but we in India, for various reasons, have not been able to do so. Our follow up action with Pakistan in the wake of 26/11, to say the least, has been pathetic.
Terrorists must be tackled head-on. Those who try to succumb to terrorist threats and give in to their demands, only whet their appetite. An Indian diplomat, Ravindra Mhatre, was kidnapped by Kashmiri terrorists in London. They demanded release of their leader Maqbool Bhat, then facing death sentence in Tihar Jail, for killing innocent people. The Iron Lady that she was, Indira Gandhi refused to yield. The terrorists killed the Indian diplomat. Soon thereafter Bhat was hung. Terrorist acts abated in Kashmir for a few years till the stage-managed kidnapping of Rubaiyya Sayeed, daughter of the then home minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed. The BJP government yielded and released hardcore terrorists. They organised vicious and widespread terrorist attacks in the Valley with the assistance of Pakistan.
In 2000, when IC 814 after taking off from Kathmandu was hijacked to Kabul, the NDA government yielded to the terrorists’ demand to release three of their hardcore comrades. These criminals were personally escorted by the then external affairs minister to Kabul to secure the release of the 200 hijacked passengers of the Indian Airlines aircraft. Recently, there has been a spate of kidnappings by Maoists. The Orissa government has been repeatedly yielding to their ransom demands and releasing their comrades, as in the case of a district collector, Alex Paul Menon, and later some Italian tourists. Terrorists captured with blood and sweat of security forces have been let off to merrily continue their depredations. Chhattisgarh chief minister Raman Singh took a commendable stand in not yielding to the terrorist demand and managed to ensure the safe return of his abducted collector, Mr Menon. Mr Singh has declared that if he ever gets kidnapped, his government should not yield to any ransom demand. The less said about the pusillanimous way in which we have been handling the hanging issues of Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab, the better.
There is a fundamental difference between insurgency and terrorism. Insurgents enjoy widespread support for a popular cause taken up by them. They target the government and the security forces to achieve their goal of “independence”. Terrorists, on the other hand, may or may not enjoy popular support. They target innocent citizens, including women and children. Notwithstanding these points of difference, the line dividing the two has been getting blurred.
India has been facing different types of terrorism for long — tribal terrorism, separatist terrorism, jihadi terrorism, retaliatory terrorism and Maoist terrorism. Tribal terrorism erupted in the Northeast in the mid-Fifties, separatist terrorism in Punjab and Assam in the Seventies, jihadi terrorism in Kashmir in the Nineties, retaliatory terrorism in the first decade of the 21st century and Maoist terrorism has been around since the Nineties. Each of these needs to be tackled in a manner suited to it and to local conditions. However, all must be tackled firmly and in an imaginative manner.
We have had our share of successes and failures in dealing with different types of terrorism. Mizoram was a classic example of resolving matters through a political settlement. For the last three decades, it has been the most peaceful state in the Northeast. The Punjab problem was resolved through the dynamic leadership of K.P.S. Gill on the basis of a bullet-for-bullet policy and growing support from the Sikh people. The United Liberation Front of Asom (Ulfa) was virtually annihilated by 2003 through a mix of psychological initiatives, economic development and firm military action. It got isolated from the people and the later returned to the national mainstream. A monograph prepared at the US War College refers to Punjab and Assam as the success stories of counter-insurgency operations in the 20th century. Unfortunately, through misconceived policies, lately Ulfa is getting revived in Assam, but they do not have the support among the people which they once enjoyed. Jihadi terrorism continues in Kashmir with support from Pakistan but we have managed to keep our borders inviolate. It has now spread to various parts of our country. We seem to have made some progress in dealing with this menace. Retaliatory or saffron terrorism is equally condemnable and calls for firm action. However, neither jihadi nor retaliatory terrorism should be linked to any religion. The former is a worldwide phenomenon and far more widespread both in India and elsewhere. Maoist terrorism has been thriving among the tribal people in jungle areas of different states.
After 26/11, P. Chidambaram took over as home minister. Initially, he inspired a lot of hope. He established the National Investigating Agency (NIA) separate from the CBI, for specialised investigation of terrorism-related cases. Four National Security Guard bases were established at different locations in the country. There seemed to be improvement in our reaction capability. No doubt there is need for a separate intelligence agency solely for terrorism. The setting up of a National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) is desirable.
However, intelligence and police functioning, like arrest and prosecution, must be kept apart in a democracy. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) set up in the wake of operations against thugs nearly three centuries ago was never given any police powers. The proposal to give these powers to the NCTC and keep it under the Director, Intelligence Bureau, would make the latter function like Beria, Stalin’s NKVD chief. Moreover, our Constitution provides for law and order being a state subject. The NCTC’s exercising powers of arrest and investigation independent of the state police will be a serious encroachment on the autonomy of states. No wonder 15 chief ministers, including from the Congress and its alliance partners, opposed such a move, making the ill-conceived version of the NCTC a non-starter.
It is lamentable that our police and paramilitary have been suffering inordinately high casualties while combating Maoist terrorism. This has largely been on account of poor professional leadership, poor tactics, poor training and poor equipment. These weaknesses must be set right on highest priority. Security operations must be dove tailed with development in Maoist-affected areas. Terrorists do not recognise state boundaries. We must ensure fully co-ordinate operations of bordering states.
The various lacuna pointed out must be set right on a war footing to ensure success against Maoist terrorism which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been rightly stressing, poses the greatest threat to our national security.

The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir