Jump to content

Heroes, not wimps, make nations: Swapan Dasgupta


Guest dada_rocks

Recommended Posts

Guest dada_rocks

Heroes, not wimps, make nations A controversy being played out in Britain may offer lessons for India's war on terror. During the 'fertiliser bomb' trials that led to the conviction of five British Muslims, it emerged that the intelligence agency MI5 had put two of the perpetrators of the ghastly July 7, 2005 London bombings under surveillance in 2004. However, owing to a misjudgement the monitoring was discontinued, with tragic results. The revelation that Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanveer were actually on the police radar before they killed 52 people in the London Underground has outraged many people. The police and MI5 have been mercilessly pilloried in the media and there are demands for a public inquiry into the costly lapse. If only, it is being said, the surveillance had gone on many lives would have been saved. Wisdom in hindsight being a part of the popular discourse, the anger is understandable. In India, every successful terrorist attack is followed by shrill accusations of "intelligence failure". Yet, it is entirely possible that had Khan and Tanveer been detained by the authorities in a pre-emptive move, there would have been charges of human rights abuse by the same people who are today demanding an inquiry. In all likelihood, the 7/7 plot hadn't fully materialised in 2004 when the two came under the scanner and it is unlikely that a conspiracy charge would have stood judicial scrutiny. The question of how much leeway the police should be given to fight fanatical terrorists has agitated democratic societies. Pre-emptive action is, of course, the best recourse but this may also lead to some wrong numbers being dialled. Arguably, many of those incarcerated by the Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay were harmless cranks. Yet, can we honestly say that the world would have been a better place if Taliban-trained radicals were roaming free, plotting vengeance? In striking a balance between civil liberties and national security, the authorities have a daunting task. The Indian experience clearly suggests that it is extremely difficult to get a terrorist convicted through the ordinary process of law. Whether in Punjab during the Khalistan troubles or Jammu & Kashmir today, legal niceties have routinely been discarded because fear overwhelms witnesses, lawyers and judges. This is equally true of the war against Maoist terror in Andhra Pradesh. And even when there is due process, as with the conviction of Afzal Guru for the attack on Parliament, there are enough terrorist-friendly activists to claim that the evidence was fabricated and the verdict flawed. The conflict between robust anti-terrorism and cynical politics is at the heart of arrest of DG Vanzara and two other IPS officers on charges of killing Sohrabuddin Sheikh, a known extortionist and gun-runner, and his partner in a "false encounter". The English-language media, especially that section which blends visceral hatred of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi with a perverted sympathy for Islamist causes, has gone apoplectic. With indignation running riot, there are wild suggestions that Gujarat has made it its business to target "innocent" Muslims (like Ishrat Jehan whose death was commemorated by the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba website) in false encounters. A reputed newspaper with Communist sympathies has, in defiance of all journalistic norms, even published a forged document, purporting to be a CID report, implicating the Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah. That the Gujarat Police shed niceties in fighting terrorism is undeniable. It is also likely that there was some collateral damage, such as the killing of Kauser Bi. Two years ago, the British police erred in gunning down an innocent Brazilian in London. Did that lead to the demand for the interrogation and arrest of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister? No doubt the Supreme Court will do what it considers best for national interests, but it would be prudent to see the case beyond narrow legal terms. India has had a long history of counter-terrorism. In the 1970s, with the full support of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, West Bengal acted decisively in putting down the Naxalites. Yes, there were many "false encounters" but at the end of the day, the menace was eradicated. Likewise in Punjab, Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao gave blanket powers to the police under KPS Gill to do what was necessary to save the State for India. A highly effective strategy lay in combining aggression with deterrence. If both West Bengal and Punjab are normal today, the credit must go to the policemen who showed exemplary courage and leadership, and the politicians - the names of Siddhartha Shankar Ray and Beant Singh come to mind - who backed them all the way. Yet, the tragedy is that many of those who defended the nation against serious internal threats have been hounded by those bent on using democracy to subvert the country. The tragic circumstances which led to Amarjeet Singh Sandhu, a brave and outstanding policeman in Punjab, committing suicide after being harassed by the so-called civil liberties lobby, is well known. The system, it would seem, proved incapable of distinguishing between normal circumstances and conditions of war. Terrorism can't be fought by the Queensbury rules. The index of success is effectiveness. Since the Akshardham attack in October 2002, Gujarat has not witnessed any major terrorist attack, despite the State and its Chief Minister being top of the hit lists. Zero-tolerance of terrorism, not circumscribed by electoral compulsions, has paid dividends. It is also yielding returns in Congress-ruled Andhra Pradesh where the top leadership of the CPI(Maoist) has been eliminated. The quantum of "excesses" has to be measured against the magnitude of the challenge. India is pitted against hardened fanatics who gun down pilgrims in the Akshardham temple, bomb crowded market places and blow up commuter trains in Mumbai. The terrorists have no heart, no compassion and no sense of discernment. To treat them with kid gloves is certain to be interpreted as signs of colossal weakness. The country owes a deep debt of gratitude to Vanjara and the other officers who are being subjected to a vicious trial-by-media. They are the real heroes and patriots. It is time the silent majority stands up against the articulate minusculity that, in putting its liberalism above nationalism, ends up giving succour to those who are out to destroy India. Decency cannot coexist with the obscenity of terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Heroes, not wimps, make nations: Swapan Dasgupta Agree to most but the last paragraph. Vanzara's assests need to be investigated because there is enough suspicion that he did it at the behest of businessmen who were being harassed by that bloody extortionist.If it is found that this is true and some money exchanged hands....then i am sorry ...you can't compare him to people who fought terrorism that hard way in punjab.If that is true ...then he is far from ahero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dada_rocks

Re: Heroes, not wimps, make nations: Swapan Dasgupta

Agree to most but the last paragraph. Vanzara's assests need to be investigated because there is enough suspicion that he did it at the behest of businessmen who were being harassed by that bloody extortionist.If it is found that this is true and some money exchanged hands....then i am sorry ...you can't compare him to people who fought terrorism that hard way in punjab.If that is true ...then he is far from ahero.
That's altogether different matter. You may find it intriguing but take it from a guy who comes from extended family of bureaucrats each and every DM/SP is worth several crores and noone is claiming Vanzara is saint on that count. Pillory him if u must for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...