On terrorism

I started writing this as a short post intended to this post by GB, however since this post by FiTW and this article by Saubhik Chakravarti are also relevant to the issue at hand, so I broadened the scope.

It is almost unnecessary to state that terrorism is a complex issue involving various interdependent causes or factors having a feedback affect on each other. Now  I do concur that there are many factors involved which can be addressed and mitigated by considering as law and order problem. Specifically to bring results following at least are required  a. a federal agency with an unambiguous and centralized command and adequate resources, for intelligence, and investigation (as mentioned by GB) as well as clear and simple communication channel with various domestic and international agencies. b. Law(s) to facilitate intelligence, investigation, and prosecution without hindrance, this can be achieved by re-enacting POTA and other laws.

However the scope of these steps as far as terrorism is limited. To be precise, these steps are concerned with disrupting the supply chain of terrorism by dismantling the necessary infrastructure whether communication wise or logistics wise. What these can not address are the issues which go deeper than mere infrastructure, to be more specific, source of terrorism.

First take the more obvious. "Moral support" from "land of pure". So far this has been the major source for terrorism (although there is speculation that this might be changing). If counter-terrorism efforts have to have any meaning threat from Pakistan must be neutralized. As I have written many times earlier also, there are three approaches to accomplish that.

First, diplomacy. I hope I am not being too hasty in claiming that it has failed. Of course that it has failed should not stop secular liberal establishment from touting it time to time as a breakthrough or BJP from trying to imitate it looking for elusive acceptability from the establishment, but rest of us can move on. Second, in words of Don Vito Corleone,  is to reason with them, by delivering political equivalent of horse's head at Pakistan's feet. This may be difficult, but certainly doable, and importantly, the only way to achieve immediate results. In long term however, Pakistan will continue to weaken India by any way possible, and hence it is necessary that it be dismembered. But that is just my inner Hindutva Fascist speaking.

Now we come to the perplexing part, because while Pakistan is external threat, there is undeniable evidence that terrorism is being fomented from within the country as well. Muslims find themselves increasingly ghettoized, a problem largely of their own making, one which has been going since partition. A significant, and ever increasing, percentage of Indian Muslims are being indoctrinated in Madarassas resulting in increasing fundamentalism and radicalization. The community remains beholden to leaders who promise favors or mostly just a collective face against kaffirs, and to Ulemas deeply rooted in Islamic theology and a historical sense of  creedal superiority who ensure that Muslims remain chained in past, with only interaction in present as perpetual victims of either duplicity of kaffirs, or treachery of time. This is not helped by the secular liberal establishment for whom Muslim community is a convenient prop to burnish its credential as savior of oppressed.


No wonder then this radicalization along with resentment and grievance* over injustice works to inculcate sympathy for the terrorism among the community, with a few individuals actively turning to terrorism.

This is a cause for concern, and also the main reason why it should never be concerned as merely law and order, which basically means that it is a matter of random individual breaking laws for their personal and unrelated gains. However as FiTW points out this is hardly the case. The ultimate aim of terrorist is clear, even if cliched, to destroy this country.

This is also the reason that Saubhik Chakrabarti is way off the mark, surprisingly so, as he is very much the part of secular liberal establishment, any conversation on radicalization can not happen, indeed will not be allowed to happen as there is simply too much at stake, for Maulvis as well as establishment, to maintain the fiction of Muslim as lamb to be perpetually defended from big bad Hindutva wolf. In fact the very notion of Indian Secularism hinges upon the insistence at absolute equality between Hindus and Muslims irrespective of the time. Any contrary evidence is either ignored, embellished or dismissed as irrelevant.

* So am I saying there are no genuine grievances as opposed to manufactured ones. I think there are, but that subject will have to wait for another post.