Backpage

MORE disturbing than the horror of a citizenry subjected to repeated acts of terror like the recent serial bomb blasts, is the nature of response of our political masters – from both the ruling and opposition parties. Government spokespersons put on a brave face, issue proforma statements of sympathy for the victims, and declaim that the country will not be cowed down by these despicable acts of terror. The political opposition, equally predictably, accuses the government of being ‘soft on terror’, lacking political will and pandering to vote-bank (read minority) politics. Nothing captures the bizarre character of this discourse better than the demand for sacking the Union Home Minister, pointing to (sic) his sartorial preoccupation.

Media coverage of the tragedy traverses a well-trodden path. Shots of the carnage are interspersed with ‘big fights’ between spokespersons of antagonistic political persuasion. It is, as if everyone is playing to a pre-arranged script, each side accusing the other of selling out the country. Somewhere in between are retired policemen and intelligence officials bemoaning the absence of stringent laws, even as stray human rights activists raise the spectre of a draconian state.

Meanwhile, ‘distanced’ academics point to the need to address ‘root’ causes as they discuss the fine points of the relationship between rising inequality, alienation of ‘minority’ and ‘disaffected’ groups from the state, and the increasing popularity of terror acts as a way to attract meaningful attention. Are we surprised that the entire process and sequence of events leaves the common citizen perplexed and feeling more insecure than earlier?

Why is it, for instance, so difficult to have meaningful debate on the laws needed to handle the new, ‘extraordinary’ situation created by widespread acts of terrorism? To state more sharply, is our inability to apprehend those responsible and, more important, secure convictions due to insufficiently stringent and enabling provisions in law or is the problem a poorly-equipped, ill-trained and insufficiently-motivated security apparatus? Will further empowering our police forces with more enabling provisions of search and seizure, tapping phones and e-mails, extending periods of custody, hardening bail provisions, making confessions in custody admissible evidence in a court of law and so on, work as suitable deterrent? Or, as critics fear, this would only increase the incidence of human rights violations and incarceration of those ‘accused’.

None of the above admit easy resolution, more so in a country where large sections of the Muslim community – many poor, ghettoized and stigmatized – feel, rightly or otherwise, that the entire community is being unfairly tarnished for the actions of a few; that the security apparatus is partisan and selective in its operations; and that ‘tougher’ laws will only add to existing victimization. Simultaneously, it is worth underscoring that the politics of terrorism is not merely the ‘weapon of the weak’; in modern times it is also an organized activity of ideologically motivated groups, well-funded and trained, often by forces and states inimical to the Indian state and society. The fact that many such groups claim religious inspiration and sanction, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for the ‘cause’, makes their challenge far more daunting than conventional radical opposition.

Every liberal democracy, when faced with this new challenge, has been forced to rework its understanding of the ‘rights’ of citizens and assess how, in what circumstances, to what degree, and under what oversight provisions, individual rights can be curtailed to subserve common good. Whether these new arrangements have worked well or whether the new legal architecture is creating an Orwellian nightmare remains a subject for heated debate. Yet, to not act, or worse, to act surreptitiously can hardly be good for democracy. Above all, it is vital not to get stampeded into passing more stringent and ‘draconian’ laws merely to create the illusion of a strong and effective state working to ensure the security of its citizens.

The unaddressed problem is the sorry state of our intelligence apparatus and its singular inability to produce actionable intelligence in good time. Also that information for disaffected communities or groups which shelter terrorist cells is unlikely to be forthcoming, if the wider group continues to be treated with suspicion. Heavy-handed application of broad spectrum laws can only add to alienation and thus make the task of intelligence gathering even more difficult.

Extraordinary laws need to be subjected to more stringent tests of fairness. Yet, when the government spokespersons underscore the special need to address the ‘fears’ of minorities, as if ‘going after criminals is somehow in conflict with being secular,’ we are entitled to be sceptical about its seriousness of purpose.

Harsh Sethi