Some 400 people died in terror attacks in 2008. In 2005, 94,985 died in road accidents in India. Delhi alone had 2169 casualties (source below).
The poorest in our country live in perilous conditions every day of their life – their daily commute is fraught with danger, their underpaid jobs provide little safety or security, and there’s seldom any mention of their names in the news when dozens die crushed under the giant wheels of a bus, or a drunk rich kid’s car. The daily terror of being poor is ignored. Yet there is disproportionate angst after the Mumbai attacks (or the misnomer 26/11) since for the first time the rich and powerful were targeted. Addressing and combating terror is clearly an important priority however as a country we need to keep perspective with respect to the focus, mindshare, and resources we attach to it. Moreover to combat terrorism, we need both a short-term response and long-term solution.There’s a lot of talk (and pseudo-action) on the short-term response. Some are no brainers: we need to fix accountability (yet stay away from reactionary politics), plug our security holes (while understanding the constraints of India’s size, multi-ethnicity, its stated secularist ideals, and civil liberties of its citizens and residents) and improve our emergency response apparatus (more NSG hubs etc). Other initiatives like the anti-terror law are unproductive: unlikely to deter the terrorist who comes to kill and be killed, and more likely to to be misused to violate civil liberties. Terrorism in India isn’t an isolated problem of dealing with an errant neighbour, and it cannot be addressed simply in crisis management mode. We need a social solution, an interlocking framework of symbiotic initiatives. Terrorism in India is both homegrown (e.g., SIMI, Maoists, ULFA) and (forcibly) imported from Islamic extremists (Pakistan supported LeT, Jaish e Muhammad etc).
The homegrown terrorism can never be crushed without mainstreaming the marginalized (the poorest, and/or minorities) of the country, those without opportunities of education and vocation. While there are cases of middle class ideologues (e.g., the Bangalore IT guy), overwhelmingly, on the ground recruits hail from backward communities (the Hindu fundamentalists are unique in that they are actively cultivated by some of our highest politicians (think Narendra Modi, Advani)).
As for the insurgency created by Pakistan – we absolutely need to find a peaceful political solution to Kashmir. What we have now is a stalemate – Kashmir cannot possibly be hundred percent either with India or Pakistan. Even Ehud Olmert, the outgoing prime minister of Israel understands that lasting peace in Israel is possible only if Israel cedes some territory to Palestine, including parts of Jerusalem. In India we grow up indoctrinated in to self-righteous avows that Kashmir is ours without ever going into the details (as is undoubtedly the Pakistani public). India and Pakistan were carved out of one country, with the 560 princely states under allegiance to the Brits told to join India/Pak based on their geography and religion of the residents. The ruler of Kashmir dithered until Oct 1947 to sign the instrument of accession to India, but only after Pak army had come marching in to stake control. Both Pak and India brokered a peace agreement to confirm the accession based on a referendum (which never happened). Given this backdrop, does a two-state solution really seem that far out the realm of reasonable? Yet no politician on either side of the LoC will advance this idea, ’cause of the insurmountable public opinion against it. However, as we sit in Delhi, Mumbai or any other damn place other than Kashmir, what right do we have to continue a stalemate that is destroying the people of Kashmir. Also, we are losing moral authority with every human rights violation by Indian forces there, which creates a tide of bad feeling against India in the minds of Kashmiri residents.
India can’t possibly afford the rhetoric of a war with Pakistan. War is expensive (we are already running one of the highest fiscal deficits in the world) and it will further destabilize Pakistan and increase its military’s might. Which country, however mighty its armed forces has been able to control guerrilla insurgency (US cannot in Iraq; Israel can’t with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian suicide bombers). These suicide bombers, these men on a mission to kill (and be killed in the process) cannot be stopped merely by waging a war. It’s their very sense of marginalization that finds solace in extremist ideology. After eight years of waging a costly and unpopular war, the US too is rethinking its unilateral recourse to military action. The US Defense Secretary Robert Gates writes in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs. “But not every outrage, every act of aggression or every crisis can or should elicit a military response… [military action] “should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom terrorists recruit.” It is India’s self-interest to focus on development at home, and its neighbouring countries, like its current efforts in Afghanistan. We should also resume cultural and trade ties with Pakistan – suspending the much looked forward to cricket tour served no purpose. The Pakistani civilian government is weak, and we shouldn’t play into its military’s plans by irresponsible rhetoric from our government or our news media.
As a country, we need to actively start thinking about concerted action – we can’t selectively target the problem of terrorism and hope to fix it in isolation. Long-term development plans don’t incite the same kind of passion as war rhetoric, or gotcha! investigation of the government do, but objectively that’s our only hope.
Source: World Road Statistics, 2007. The data is a little dated; however it will likely be comparable (if not more) in India given the increase in cars on Indian roads died in Indian road accidents
