Debate on terror blasts generates more heat than light

Dileep Padgaonkar
23 February 2013, 11:26 AM IST

Double-speak is what we have heard since the latest terrorist attacks in Hyderabad. We'll come to that in a minute. But for the country, the only question is: could the government have been better prepared to pre-empt the attacks when they were so explicitly on the cards after the hanging of Kasab and Afzal Guru? The straightforward answer is: yes.

The home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, has said that states were alerted about the possible attacks two days before they took place. The nature of the alerts is a matter of speculation. Were they specific? Were they actionable? From all available evidence, they were neither. Even so, we need to know what steps the Andhra state government took on the basis of the general alert. Shinde's statement in Parliament was silent on this issue. That information is not available.

As a result, we do not know who will pay the price for what came to pass. Who should be held accountable for the non-functioning of CCTV cameras where the blasts took place? Were all intelligence agencies on the same page? During the debate on the blasts in Parliament, the Home Minister's statement rang hollow. That is what gave the opposition parties, led by the BJP, the opportunity to castigate the government.

The debate, unfortunately, generated more heat than light. It should have focussed on issues that security experts have discussed threadbare: de-politicisation of the intelligence agencies and the police force; a sound system to ensure that intelligence in-puts are shared and acted upon; enhancing both the numbers and the quality of the police; effective police patrolling in areas vulnerable to terrorist attacks; proper functioning of CCTV ; deployment of the requisite technological gadgets used in anti-terrorism activities and so forth.

More to the point, the MPs should have addressed on a priority basis how to swiftly put in place two mechanisms to deal with terrorism. The first is NATGRID which will collate, consolidate and analyse data received from a plethora of intelligence agencies. Each one of them is so eager to protect its turf that wires are inevitably crossed. That results in confusion, even chaos, and in delayed action.

There has been a similar procrastination in setting up of the second mechanism – National Counter Terrorism Centre. The objectives of this apex body are to prevent or pre-empt terror strikes, to counter them when they occur and to investigate them in a thoroughly co-ordinated manner. Progress on this scheme has got stuck because states, including Congress-ruled ones, fear that the Centre would ride rough shod on their federal rights for its own political ends. The Centre has taken that fear into account and modified certain key provisions related to the powers of the NCTC. It is now for the states to give their assent to it. They can take the cue from the effective operations conducted by the National Investigation Agency.

What would also serve the cause of anti-terrorism is some circumspection on the part of our political leaders and senior bureaucrats. The statements of the Home Minister and the Home Secretary soon after the blasts left much to be desired. The former – who was compelled to make amends for his reference to 'Hindu terror' - first harped on the fact that the Centre had shared vital information about possible terror attacks with the states only to clarify later that this information was quite general in nature -which was precisely the view of the Andhra Chief Minister. And what possessed the latter to announce the time when NIA and NSG teams would take a special flight for Hyderabad? Such details are kept confidential on security grounds.

The opposition leaders too jumped the gun. They paid scant heed to the fact that the police had not rounded up the suspects in the Hyderabad blasts, let alone made arrests and booked charges against them. Sushma Swaraj, for instance, squarely blamed the hate speeches of the Owaisi brothers for creating an atmosphere that encouraged the terror attacks. Would she say the same thing about the hate speeches of Praveen Togadia and Sadhvi Rithambara? What purpose did they serve if not to widen the communal divide? 

The finger of suspicion for the Dilsukhnagar blasts has been pointed to the Indian Mujahideen whose links with extremist and terror groups in Pakistan are no secret. Nor are their antecedents. But until the police possess prima facie evidence of its involvement, all that you are likely to get is a media trial that, in turn, encourages certain political leaders to fan communal flames. The BJP has found a heaven-sent pretext to harangue the Congress at a time when the latter was refurbishing its tough-on-terror image after the hanging of Kasab and Afzal Guru. But can politicking of this sort help the nation to face  the danger of terrorism in all its many avatars with a united will? A time could soon come when Sushil Kumar Shinde and Sushma Swaraj are seen to be two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Debate on terror blasts generates more heat than light

Dengan url

http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/02/debate-on-terror-blasts-generates-more.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Debate on terror blasts generates more heat than light

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Debate on terror blasts generates more heat than light

sebagai sumbernya