Recently I saw an interview on CNN-IBN with Fareed Zakaria, the Editor-at-Large (funny name, generally I thought legal offenders were referred to be at large) of Time magazine. Fareed is in fact of Indian origin and is a naturalized US citizen. His credentials speak for themselves, both education and career-wise. He is today one of the most respected journalists in the world today. He was all praise for the way the US has dealt with terror, how al Qaeda has been dealt with. There were three points he mentioned (in response to the interview questions) as to how India can deal with terror. Unfortunately I do not remember them verbatim. But I remember the basic gist and would like to take a look at his points.
One was intelligence. In his opinion Indian agencies have never been famous for their efficiency. We in fact stand a better chance of infiltrating terror networks compared to the Americans due to similar looks and linguistic backgrounds and thus have an advantage in that aspect. This is definitely true. We had no idea when Kargil happened. 26/11 seems to show that might not have changed much.
A second point was the state of our police forces. In his opinion they are pathetic. Also unlike in the US where the police are in a way part of the community here that is not the case. One would be hard-pressed to disagree. Just look at the weapons our armed forces use. Most of the police forces uses ancient rifles if I am not mistaken. We hear of massacres of CRPF personnel in Maoist areas. The poor chaps (security personnel) stay miles away from civilization and live in deplorable conditions. These people might have to lay down their lives for our security then we (or more specifically the administration/government) treats them like this! There were some recent operations in Jharkhand where a large number of security personnel fell sick with malaria as the operations were held in the jungle in the monsoon. I heard recently that some boats which had been bought after 26/11 are lying unused as there is nobody trained to operate them. Also the munition and weapons used by our armed forces vary widely. There is no proper standardization. Where are bullet-proof vests for security personnel who operate on the frontlines (even if these frontlines are in the heart of our metropolises)? Also today unless I am wrong the police inspire fear more than the belief that they are there to help the citizens. One of our professors at IIFT used to poke fun at the Delhi Police slogan which translates to mean "with you, for you, always".
Another point was integration. External terror cannot find a firm foothold in India if there is no local support. He in fact pointed out that Gujarat is a sore point even today among Muslims. However I must point out, without trivializing the atrocities that happened, that Gujarat is today one of India's most progressive states, under the same Chief Minister. Further if the perpetrators of India's blasts are proved to be from Gujarat I think Zakaria's words would hold actual weight. That we have not been very successful at solving various terror-related cases and that communiques from terrorists regularly point to Gujarat are frank admissions that have to be made. Now Muslims in India are considered to be at a great disadvantage as far as development is concerned. India has generally been an inclusive society. So should we blame our rulers for the state Indian Muslims find themselves in today? Further integration is not as outright or a one-way street as Zakaria's statements might make it out to be. The government and people can reach out to Muslims and they have to. Muslims are as much a part of this country as a person from any other religion. However we must remember that for Muslims (in many cases) religion is a factor more important than nationality. Unrest in the global Muslim world at the way Palestinians are treated is a direct reminder. Further many of us must have heard of instances when celebrations erupted when Pakistan won a cricket match. So, integration is a two-way street. There will always be fringe elements. But Zakaria is right, we need to do more to integrate our Muslim brothers into our national fabric especially in terms of development.
Moving on, however, somehow Zakaria missed out mentioning Pakistan in his initial assessment of India's terror situation. The spark (may be Gujarat riots) might exist but there also has to be fuel to sustain the inferno. This is helpfully provided by our neighbour. Comparing India with US in anti-terror action is not justified. Why? The US is bordered by Canada (an extremely peaceful place) and Mexico. Now, Mexico has huge narcotics-related problems. However there are no governments or armies (official) actively opposed to the US in its vicinity. Further launching an attack on continental US has a lot of logistical complications. This is not the case with India. In the south till recently we had the LTTE who had assassinated our PM. In the west we obviously have Pakistan. Even if the borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh are fenced, our borders with Nepal and Bhutan are very porous. Further look at how the US addressed terror. It attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq (the latter on the basis of spurious allegations). It set up Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay so that US laws would not apply to detainees there. The captured fighters in the "War or Terror" are not brought under the Geneva Convention which deals with prisoners of war. It set up interrogation centres in foreign countries where coercive interrogation techniques and/or outright torture were applied. I am not saying India did not indulge in human rights violations. But to the US the ends definitely seem to justify the means. Imagine what would happen were India to launch a war against Pakistan. The US had the luxury of fighting opponents who were technologically greatly inferior and it still had a tough time. The number of people killed in the "War on Terror" is in large multiples of the 9/11 casualty number (about 3000). What does the US care as long as the casualties are non-US? For instance when a stray missile or bomb, or one guided by faulty intelligence kills civilians in Afghanistan the US just apologises and moves on. There is huge outcry however in the US when US soldier casualties mount.
Mr. Zakaria is in love with his adopted nation. He says that today, in spite of all restrictions (frisking at airports, laws) an arrested civilian has the greatest chance of getting justice in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe he is right. But he has to remember that his adopted country is a nation that condones killing thousands internationally to justify securing "American lives".
No comments:
Post a Comment