Author: Rahul Datta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 6, 2001
Introduction: 'We are outstanding
in our rhetoric and abysmal in making real recommendations for action'
Dr Brahma Chellaney is a strategic-affairs
expert. He is Professor of Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research,
New Delhi, and author of three books. Here he speaks on the question of
national security.
Q: Is the Indian state prepared
to deal with the challenge of terrorism?
A: Although the problem of externally
sponsored terrorism has been building up since the early 1980s, successive
Indian governments have done little to combat it through a prudent, enduring
strategy backed by undaunted resolve. Terrorism has been treated largely
as a law-and-order issue. Each time there is a major terrorist attack in
any region, the Government promises to send more security forces there.
To treat terrorism as essentially a law-and-order problem is to do what
the terrorists want - bleed yourself. No amount of security can stop terrorism
if the nation is reluctant to go after terrorist cells and networks and
those that sponsor or harbour terrorists. The only defence against terrorism
is offence that strikes at its roots. India also has to recognise that
no campaign against terrorism can succeed by conventional means. The unconventional
threats mounted by terrorists demand unconventional counteraction. Political
will and good intelligence hold the key.
Q: How would you describe India's
conduct?
A: India has the potential to be
one of the world's great powers. It has the talent and the resources. But
the problem is that it hardly behaves like a nation of a billion people.
It conveys the impression of being weak, flabby, corrupt and gutless. India's
poverty of goals goes hand-in-hand with the poverty in which the majority
of its citizens live. With prosperity and security constituting a personal
agenda rather than a national agenda, its governing elites have left the
bulk of the population in destitution as they enrich, ensconce and endow
themselves.
Terrorists look at India as an easy
target, especially because this nation imposes no costs on them or their
sponsors. In fact, India is willing to hold secret negotiations with terrorists
and their patrons, as exemplified by the talks that took place with the
Hizbul Mujahideen and the Hurriyat. The Hurriyat has been fattened with
halwa puri by New Delhi, and many of its thuggish chieftains move around
with bodyguards provided by the Government.
India's turn-the-other-cheek attitude
has only incited further terrorism. Terrorists freed by India have come
back to haunt India and even the West. Who should bear responsibility for
the 40 fatalities in the J&K legislature attack? Pakistan that hosts
terrorist Azhar Masood or India that allowed him to set up the Jaish-e-Muhammad
by releasing him? Another terrorist hand-delivered by Jaswant Singh in
Kandahar is under FBI investigation as the suspected financier of Mohammed
Atta, the alleged ringleader in the US airborne terrorist strikes. Terrorist
forces grievously miscalculated that if India, the largest democracy, can
bow, they could also tame the United States, the most powerful democracy.
America has responded by declaring jihad on the jihadis.
Q: Why don't our intellectuals enlighten
our citizens and policy-makers about the specific steps the country needs
to take against terrorism?
A: I am afraid India presently
is saddled with second-rate politicians, third-rate bureaucrats, fourth-rate
journalists and fifth-rate intellectuals. Have you been to any seminar
or debate where concrete counteraction against terrorism has been discussed?
We are outstanding in our rhetoric and abysmal in making real recommendations
for action. Mere talk cannot help fight terrorism.
Intellectuals should be a catalyst
for change in any society. In India, a majority of intellectuals either
beat their chest despondently or beat the drum of whoever pays for their
services. Politicians are the closest to the grassroots, as they have to
return periodically to the people for votes. Our problem, however, is that
most of our politicians are very old. At their age, they should be playing
with their grandchildren, not playing with the interests of the nation.
Many of our self-styled intellectuals also are old, as they are retirees
from other professions. This is so different from the patterns in the more
successful societies in the world. An aging leadership and a calcified
intelligentsia inevitably build timidity, resistance to rapid change and
indecision.
Q: The Prime Minister has warned
that India's patience against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is wearing thin.
Do you think we should engage in "hot pursuit" of terrorists across our
frontiers?
A: First, the message Mr Vajpayee
has conveyed by writing to President Bush is that India is still hesitant
to act despite a bloody terrorist attack in Srinagar on an institution
that epitomises democracy. The message is that India intends to keep its
powder dry and wait for yet another terrorist strike. The letter also may
be read by some as proof that India will not act without America's permission.
Having lived in the United States for a number of years, I know that Americans
respect those who respect themselves. If India hits back at terrorists
and their sponsors, the Americans will publicly protest but come to privately
accept the logic of the Indian action. Hasn't the Bush team accepted, almost
openly, the logic of an Indian nuclear deterrent against China and the
rationale for the 1998 tests?
Second, if by "hot pursuit" you
mean overt military retaliation across the borders, I think that is neither
necessary nor likely to be militarily effective in uprooting terrorist
cells. It also carries the risks of escalation that our lily-livered decision-makers
are unlikely to accept. However, if you are suggesting hot pursuit of terrorists
and their harbourers through covert military and intelligence operations,
yes, such action is practicable and can help inflict proportionate costs
on our tormentors.
Pakistan has pursued a covert war
against India for nearly two decades. Nothing stops India from waging its
own covert war against Pakistan. Yet, instead of taking the covert war
inside Pakistan or fighting Pakistan in Afghanistan, we have done exactly
what the enemy has desired - we have bled ourselves by battling Pakistan
on our territory, in Kashmir and elsewhere. How stupid! We have allowed
Pakistan to impose escalating costs on us and shown that, in return, Pakistan
has no costs to bear. In such a comfortable situation, which adversary
will desist from terrorism exports?
Q: But how do we build the national
resolve to combat terrorists and their sponsors?
A: First by devising a counter-terrorist
strategy that incorporates both short-term and long-term components. Second,
by strengthening our intelligence agencies, adding more resources, and
building up our ground assets in Pakistan, Afghanistan and ISI's staging
grounds for clandestine operations such as Bangladesh and Nepal. We also
need better intelligence assets inside Tibet and Han China. Third, by learning
from the clearheaded, no-nonsense manner the United States is waging its
war on terrorism and the range of tools it is employing. The Americans
are combating their terrorism, we need to separately combat ours by taking
advantage of the new international anti-terrorist mood. Fourth, by matching
our words with our deeds. It is counterproductive to talk tough and act
meek, because then warnings by the state begin to be taken as fulminations
of the impotent. And fifth, by setting in motion certain elements of clandestine
military and intelligence operations to bring pain to bear on terrorists
and their harbourers. These operations can be gradually expanded, but we
need to start without further loss of time.
India is surrounded by an arc of
authoritarian or totalitarian regimes engaged in covert actions. If they
are not exporting terrorism to murder, maim and menace innocent Indians,
they are making illicit transfers of nuclear and missile technologies to
contain India. India has to employ different tools to counter different
hostile actions. But no longer can it just sit idly and hope that good
sense will prevail on its adversaries.
India needs to show that it now
means business. For a start, it needs to add a deadline to its reasonable
demand that Pakistan return terrorist Azhar Masood. If Pakistan does not
meet the deadline, India should cut by two-thirds the staff strength of
ISI's nest in New Delhi, the Pakistan High Commission, and trim the size
of its diplomatic mission in Islamabad to similar level. The Indian strategy's
ultimate objective has to be the fragmentation of Pakistan and Afghanistan,
two artificially created, roguish states with no roots in history.