news details |
|
|
| Ensuring security in the age of global terror | | |
A.S. Kalkat
A MAJOR impact of the globalising world is that security can no longer be compartmentalised regionally or nationally and any analysis of the security environment of a region or area has to take into consideration global issues that have a direct or indirect impact on the region. Simultaneously the heightening levels of political and social consciousness have resulted in higher expectations by the people and consequently states and societies are coming under pressure. The changed environment after 9/11 and the U.S. perception that the definition of national security is not necessarily common for all states highlight the reality that in an inter-dependent world security cannot be achieved at the cost of others.
In the long list of weapons of mass destruction available to the violent societies there is a new player with an unlimited reach, infinitesimally small cost of production, and fairly basic technology: terrorism in the form of the `human bomb.' No state, howsoever powerful, is immune from this weapon that has the capability of striking from outside or within. The genesis of terrorism can be attributed to the development of exclusive instead of inclusive societies. Terrorism draws its strength from one of three sources: militant religious fundamentalism, ethnic intolerance or deprivation. Religion sans frontiers, therefore religious militancy, has to be addressed globally. Ethnic intolerance and deprivation are region-specific, with the common thread of economics running through them, and are best dealt with regionally or nationally.
Since Afghanistan the `Islamist holy warriors' or jihadis, emboldened by defeating a superpower, have constituted a grave threat to countries that had been insulated earlier due to their strength or distance. Militant Islamist fundamentalism in its new avatar as Al-Qaeda is now a global phenomenon and a global threat. It is important that this form of religious fundamentalism is differentiated from religious orthodoxy, which exists in all religions in some proportion or other, primarily to keep the flock together, and is no threat to society or the state. Militant religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, advocates the use of unbridled violence to terrorise the population and the state to achieve their ends. The impact is not confined to specific regions or weak and under-developed states but is faced across the board by all societies, entailing a global responsibility to jointly confront it.
Terrorism is a deadly act committed by highly trained and motivated people who are devoid of humanity and have no value for human life. Tackling it on conventional lines is unlikely to succeed. In the fight against terrorism the strengths of a free society are also its weaknesses. Terrorists use the rights and liberties inherent in a democratic society to operate with comparative freedom and then use the democratic laws to circumvent or evade the consequences. World leaders make profound statements like `if you sacrifice freedom for security you end up getting neither' and then promptly proceed to amend laws in their own country to curb civil rights and liberties to ensure security, underscoring the point that extraordinary circumstances need extraordinary measures.
There are no `good' terrorists, whatever their grievance or cause. Nor does terrorism have a religion. There are or have been terrorists belonging to almost all the religions of the world: to associate terrorism with any particular religion is unjustified and unfair. The `coalition' in the fight against terror has been careful not to group terrorists and religion together even though, in this instance, a militant `Islamist' organisation is the perpetrator. Fundamentalists very much want this to be labelled as the `clash of civilisations,' which serves their purpose of putting all Muslim countries and Muslim populations worldwide under pressure.
The terrorist groups are not ordinary civilians or some misguided youth but the paramilitary organs of militant extremism such as LeT, Naxalites, and the like who believe in the culture of extreme violence and whose objective is destruction of the established social system and structures, that is, the whole way of life of free societies. This virus does not take long to infect homegrown products and soon enough local criminal gangs get drawn into the terrorist's web. It is important to make a distinction between terrorism and insurgency, as different approaches are required to tackle each of them.
Terrorism needs a top-down approach while insurgency requires a bottom-up approach. For an insurgent movement to flourish, it must have support of a segment of the population whereas terrorism can be effective with just a few sympathisers and supporters amongst the population. In tackling an insurgency, it is a fight for the `hearts and minds' of the people and the people have to be addressed and won over. With terrorism, the leadership or perpetrators of terrorism need to be targeted. Insurgency usually has rural roots while terrorism has an urban bias. The terrorists are as well trained as, and often better equipped than, an army soldier and to pit our paramilitary and police forces against them is an unequal equation. Our approach so far has been to deal with it as a law and order issue, which being a State subject results in different States having different approaches to the problem and complicating the requirement of a countrywide coordinated approach against terrorism. Delays in the judicial process add to the problem.
We are a party to the `global war against terror.' Wars are fought under the articles of war, not under civil laws. Given that this war is not like conventional wars, the military is perhaps not the ideal force to deal with it. Neither are the conventional police and paramilitary forces the best option. When the enemy has already crossed the borders, he cannot seek the protection of civil law and has to be fought wherever and however with all the power, resources, and authority at the disposal of the state. Our laws were made for the normal law-breakers and criminals; our forefathers did not envisage the rise of this new threat to humanity and civilisation.
A structured two-pronged approach is needed to combat the new threat: first, a set of laws or `rules of engagement' for dealing with terrorists; secondly, a special force organised and trained to operate under these special laws, with the authority to operate domestically and externally to prevent disconnect. This special force should be supported by a dedicated counter-terrorism intelligence unit, the composition of which should be not the usual police and intelligence operatives but social and political scientists, psychologists, and cyber and financial experts. This is not to suggest that law enforcement agencies do not have a role. Law enforcement is central to sustaining the normal way of life and vital for domestic intelligence gathering. However, operations against terror groups require capabilities more akin to the military; this requires highly specialised forces and a dedicated organisation. This may be the time to constitute such a force in India.
The impunity with which some terrorists, after committing heinous crimes, escape to countries across the border or overseas leads to a feeling of helplessness. It leaves the law enforcement agencies the thankless job of dealing with bureaucracies and the laws of different countries. The world community needs to formulate a set of special international laws to overcome this hurdle. India is not a soft state; it just has a higher tolerance level than the West. The danger is that, at some stage, a frustrated and anguished population may react and decide that enough is enough and take the law into its own hands. We need to develop a capability that enables us to send the message that `we shall get you wherever and however' and that the Indian state will not be a mute spectator to the murder and massacre of its citizens and children. At the same time, NGOs and like-minded organisations need to focus their resources and energies on addressing the problem of terrorism from a societal and sociological angle, which is the only long-term remedy. This is the preventive aspect. In the campaign to reach out to the people, the police forces are not the right vehicle, given the public perception of their conduct, which is unlikely to inspire confidence or win friends.
The objective of terrorism is exactly what the name implies — to terrorise the population. If it does not receive publicity, it cannot succeed. The media, the public, and politicians can play an important role in denying this. A case in point is the recent cricket ODI tri-series in Sri Lanka, where after the Colombo bomb incident some of the media unwittingly went into a frenzy over the security concerns of Indian and South African cricketers. The fact that the prime targets, if at all, would have been the Sri Lankan cricketers and that top Indian diplomats would be a much more important target than the cricketers escaped the minds of many. In the event, South Africa withdrew its team and the terrorists achieved their objective. This is not to suggest that the media should underplay the threat of terrorism. In fact, they have a vital role to play in sensitising the public to this threat. However, they need to exercise care that this sensitisation does not whip up public hysteria.
India is rapidly reaching a high level of development and meeting this threat is central to our economic progress and is of great urgency. A developed society is highly dependent upon public utilities, technology, energy, instant communication, rapid travel, and prompt medical aid to sustain its way of life. Highly industrialised states are therefore far more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than countries with `rice and fish' economies. The spectre of terrorism haunts us as an omnipotent and omnipresent phenomenon. Living in fear of terrorist attacks is almost becoming the way of life. Today the question is not `whether' but `when and where' they will strike again. This will result in people fearing to venture out of their homes, not a good omen for a democratic society. The time for analysis is over. It is time for action before we reach the stage of `paralysis through analysis.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
