The cost of attack

Any response to the terrorist attack has to focus on only one issue - how to increase the cost of further such attacks for the perpetrators. Assuming that the agency responsible for this attack is a state sponsored agency, in this case the Pak ISI, the issue becomes more complex - are we to attack the country or the agency.

The ISI thinks it is in win-win situation. Assuming that India were to increase the pressure on Pak borders, it would be legitimate for the Pak army to move from its western borders (where it "fights" that so called war-on-terror at the behest of the USA) to the eastern border. The ground is already being prepared for this. This will not be acceptable to the USA - and the expectation is that this will lead to greater pressure from the USA on India to "act in a restrained manner". President-elect Obama has already indicated that he will want to get involved in Kashmir. The ISI would have killed two birds with one stone - get the USA involved in keeping India on a leash, and get USA involved in Kashmir (especially in the background of a hugely successful election in Kashmir - ignore the title of the linked article - a 50% plus turnout has to mean something in the context of violence threatened by the separatists).

On the other hand, the best that the US and Indian govts can do, is to pressure Zardari to change the ISI chief. This has already happened in the recent past, but with General Kiyani himself of ISI vintage, does that really mean anything?

To break this logjam, India therefore has to figure out a means of increasing the cost for ISI to go about its business. The debate in India has to move towards this ...

Bluster is not the answer

A lot of debate is taking place in the aftermath of the terror strike. Much of it is in the form of "citizen debates". The difference this time is that senior corporate honchoes feel that they need to get involved. The answers that are being thrown up are interesting in that they reflect a corporate mind-set.

Throw more resources at the problem. We are under policed is the common refrain. Aside from the impossibility of finding "adequate" resources (what is adequate after all?), the solution begs the question - should be treat the symptom or the disease. If more policing is the problem, would someone care to explain how the terrorist got through at a time when a naval exercise was on to stop exactly this intrusion?

Another, and even more inane response is that we should not "politicise the problem". Hello ! pray how ELSE will one work at solving it? After all, the politicians are our representatives, meant to find solutions to issues which are common to all. If there are differences of views among them, perhaps that is because there is a difference of view among the polity.

Meanwhile the geopolitical games move on exactly as expected.. watch the space...

Survivors !

Like many others, I had been anxiously keeping a close watch on the list of victims of the Mumbai attacks and hoping that I would draw a blank. Today's paper carries the story of Mr K R Ramamoorthy who escaped after having been in the hands of the terrorists.

I have had the great pleasure of all-to-briefly being associated with KRR. In a world where there are few icons who one can respect, here is a man who is truely inspiring. I thank providence for his escape.

Internal Security in India

In a week when the new channels are focused on the audacious strike by terrorists in Mumbai, it seems appropriate to take a close look at the security outlook for India.

A friend of many years, who is also a very senior police officer, offered this perspective:

• When the “security doctrine” (if ever there was one) for India was conceived, the focus was on combating external threats. It was assumed that domestic security requirement was limited to managing law-and-order. Consequently, the resources for security were shared between police and the army – with the latter getting the lions share
• The security climate has now turned a full 180 degrees – the security threat from external sources is significantly reduced, while that from internal sources is much higher
• India now needs an alternate security management outlook. One option is to extend the role of the army to manage security within the country. This, however, may require significant re-training. The military is used to following its own rules, and not used to managing civilian situations. Alternately, the police need significantly enhanced resources

Why is the domestic security environment so poor? Here, I think, the blame must be put at the door of the civilians of this country. We are a divided polity. Irrespective of how much we blame the politicians, we have to accept that there is a real division in civil society and the politics of this country just reflects this. Consequently, there is no single security goal that can be set.

The USA post 9/11 is often held up as an example of how to manage homeland security. However a comparison between India and the USA reflects complete lack of understanding of the circumstances of the two countries.

Physically, the USA does not share its boundaries with neighbors inimical to its interests. Internal issues are equally important – the US society is not divided on religious lines – it has no significant minority groups with international affiliations that sympathize with attempts to redraw its boundaries. (Oops, now I can be criticized for being “non-secular”)

Also, the legal system has evolved to a stage where the society is beyond debating common laws to be applied to all citizens. The USA does not have a Human Rights Commission! And when it needs to interrogate people and not provide them with right to counsel, it just takes them to Guantanamo Bay!

In India, the distrust between the federal government and those of the states is high. This offers a significant barrier to the creation of a central agency for coordinated planning and action. The CBI – which is supposed to investigate crimes at a federal level, is most often used by the government of the day to investigate its political rival. How can a new agency help? Even if we assume that such an agency can work towards one common goal, defining such a goal is almost impossible in the current context. Most states in India are now ruled by local rather than national parties, reflecting the growth of local aspirations, and the inability of the national parties to keep themselves relevant. There are no easy answers.