India, Washington and the Middle East Crisis

Terrorism is not a new threat in India. It has been around since its independence more than half a century ago. Various terror groups use various reasons and means in justifying their terror operations. But the most significant reason of these terrors is political rather than religious reason.

Kashmir, the Northeastern region, Punjab are examples of where terror groups have been operating and voicing their discontent against the Indian government. Even though religious groups different from the majority group in India dominate these regions, but they have political reason to assert their terrorist activities: being independent from India. Besides, the threat from the Maoist (Naxalite) group is also very much apparent in India.

Of these various terror threats, the threats in Punjab and the Northeastern region have significantly subsided over the years, but Kashmir and Maoist militancy are on the rise in the past few years. The government has been trying hard to curb and suppress the activities of these groups but it seems that the threats of terror are growing by the day. The most recent terrorist attacks in India occurred in Mumbai, Srinagar and Orissa two weeks ago. More than 200 innocent people were killed in these attacks. If the first two attacks, Mumbai and Srinagar, were suspected to be conducted by Kashmiri militants, the attacks and killings in the villages in Orissa was conducted by the Naxalite group.

It was on the backdrop of these recent attacks that the Indian government decided to seek international support in its fight against terror threats at home. India wanted the international community to isolate terrorists anywhere irrespective of the cause they are fighting for and the group or country they get support from. And when India was invited to join the Outreach Session of the Summit of the G-8 leaders in St. Petersburg last week, it eagerly took the opportunity and lobbied these leaders to issue tough statement against terrorism.

The result: they stood with India and agreed to “undertake all necessary measures to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors of terrorist acts and those who incited perpetrators”. This was termed as a “major diplomatic gain” for India but the issue has gone well beyond Pakistan against whom India had intended to tighten international screw. It means that India stands equal with other nations in the fight against terrorism and all terror groups and their sponsors in the eyes of the US and its allies are now must be regarded the same by India.

This newly found support from the world leaders to India’s fight against terrorism at home, and its cozy relation with Washington, proved to be too delicate for India’s foreign policy in the Middle East. This “major diplomatic gain” has become a double-edged sword for India’s foreign policy in the region. India has long been known for its staunch support to the Palestinian cause and has close relation with Iran and Syria, two countries widely perceived as traditional supporters of Hezbollah. At the same time, it has also opened a diplomatic relation with Israel and building up a closer relation with the Jewish state. Thus, when the current Middle East crisis erupted, India found itself in a complicated position.

Even though the Indian government has strongly criticized Israel’s “disproportionate retaliation” to the kidnapping of its two soldiers by Hezbollah, but it is unable to unequivocally and strongly condemned Israel’s military action to root out Hezbollah militant from Lebanon. Israel has breached international laws and the Geneva Conventions by unlawfully entering and occupying the southern part of Lebanon, a sovereign and independent state. Israel has destroyed public infrastructures killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Israel’s military aggression, thus, deserves a strong and unequivocal condemnation from the international community and India should have done this regardless of any risk it might face.

But the reluctance shown so far by PM Manmohan Singh’s government will certainly bring additional criticism from its Left allies who already claim that New Delhi is increasingly aligning with Washington and not critical enough of Tel Aviv. At the same time, it would also affect India’s non-align stature and its position in the region. Its relation with Iran has already been affected in which Teheran has already called off an LPG agreement between the two countries. This could go even further if India does not respond to the Middle East quickly.

Having a good relation with Washington is beneficial in one sense but it can also be very delicate to handle. India’s current position is an example of this. It has good relation with both Washington and the Middle East but at the same time, it has to balance the two so as not to fall into the trap of unilateralism. Furthermore, if India is still ambitious enough to play major role internationally it must take corrective actions in the current crisis in the Middle East and must balance its national and international position so as to keep multilateralism intact. A failure to do so would not only bring down the government in New Delhi but would also put India at par with Israel and other Washington’s allies.


This post has been published in the Op-Ed section of The Jakarta Post on 29 June 2006. The published title of this post was India, U.S. and the Mideast Crisis.

Bangalore Terror Attack

The last week of 2005 in India was marked with a terror attack that struck India's IT capital, Bangalore. Similar to the bomb blast in Delhi in the last week of October 2005, this act of terror has again taken the life of innocent victim, a retired professor of IIT Delhi, as well as injuring five others. This attack has become a reminder to the unrelenting efforts by terrorist groups to disrupt the peace and tranquility in the society. Bangalore, the capital city of Karnataka Sate, is a home for India's leading IT companies, the ISRO, the HAL as well as important centers of learning. The city also acts as a technological hub for India's ever growing IT industry.

The Bangalore attack that targeted a leading Indian institute of science has become a wake up call to other centers of learning in other parts of India. The soft target chosen by the terrorist to launch their heinous crime has forced the administration in the Center as well as throughout the Indian States to increase the security measures in various other leading institutes and establishments across in India. The Home Ministry had issued an order to provide CISF security at institutes like IITs (Delhi, Kanpur, Mumbai), IIMs (Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta) as well as additional security personnel to scientists in Defense Research Development Organization Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and the Bhabha Atomic Research Center.

This Bangalore terrorist attack should be viewed as a clear warning for us that the terrorist war in India that is being fought is not about Jammu and Kashmir anymore. It is a war against the Indian state. It has become a deep-rooted conflict and the targets have been varied since: centers of economic growth, institutions of higher learning and other symbols of an open society and democratic culture. The 1993 and 2003 Mumbai blasts - the Bombay Stock Exchange, Air India headquarter, Gateway of India and the Zhaveri Bazaar. Attacks to provoke communal riots and to draw fear over the country's populace are too many to be listed - the foiled Ayodhya attack earlier this year and the pre-Diwali Delhi blast were only the most recent.

Who is responsible for these attacks? In India, whenever terrorist attack appeared, blame is always mounted to the terror groups that have been working to destruct the stability of the India state: the Pakistani sponsored terrorist groups like the LeT, the Hizbul Mujahedeen and others. The same logic is also applicable to the recent Bangalore attack. The Pakistani sponsored LeT terrorist group has been blamed for this crime. The police have been gathering evidence and information to prove the involvement of this group in the attack. Even though so far there is yet to be found any concrete proof for the involvement of this group in the attack, but their records of planned attack in Bangalore in the past years as well as other parts of India are enough to suggest that this group is involved. But until the final clue is gathered, it is impossible to put finger on any certain groups or individuals to be responsible for the attack.

One thing that needs to be emphasized here is that whoever is responsible for this attack, as well as other attacks on innocent lives, is regarded to be irresponsible being. If any he/she is still willing to be regarded as human, there should be an end to this kind of act of terror. Their action is a crime against humanity and as long as they are alive and continue their acts of terror, humanity will not be the same. It is a duty for all of us to fight and eradicate this menace forever. Until and unless terrorism is defeated, peaceful coexistence between peoples of different shades of life is a distance reality. The eventful year of 2005 is finally coming to an end and with the arrival of the new year, a new beginning, a new spirit of harmony and peace should be revive. Let’s hope and fight for a better tomorrow.

Containing Terrorism in India

The tragedy of 9/11 in the US in 2001 has developed into a global problem to the international community. The terror act that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent souls has been condemned as a crime against humanity and posed to be a new global threat for humanity. The attack of the Indian Parliament building just two months later, on 13 December 2001, signalled the expansion of the scale and scope of terrorist violence. It was in the backdrop of this event that act of terror, or terrorism, rose to become an important subject of concern among nations in this century. Efforts to fight this evil menace has since been started the world over. And to successfully eradicate this evil, a thorough understanding about the concept of terrorism as well as its roots is very important so that tragic events in the post 9/11 tragedy like the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the pretext of removing the roots of terrorism could be avoided in the future.

What is terrorism?

The word terrorism comes from Latin, terrere, that means “to frighten” and terrorism as a concept can be understood as the organized use of violence for political ends by non-state actors of various kinds like the nationalists, the anarchists, the rightists, the leftists, the secessionists, and so on, which is directed primarily towards non-combatants, the innocent civilians, in order to frighten the other into capitulating. The acts of violence conducted by these groups are random, spontaneous and not an everyday occurrence. At the same time, this kind of act of violence is also an instrument of states or legitimate governments, often to combat non-state terrorists. However, there is a marked difference between the terrorist violence conducted by the non-state actors and of the state in which even though both can be bloody, both may seek to shock and disrupt, both may be defensive in nature, i.e. to protect the society against oppression of the other, but terrorist organizations usually claim responsibility for their violence whereas the states are reluctant to acknowledge the use of violence to frighten and intimidate. It is publicity of their outrages that terrorist organizations are seeking whereas the states do not necessarily seek to publicise their use of violence. In certain circumstances, though, the states might well admit to and advertise its use of violence to deter violence sponsored by non-state organizations. It is meant as punitive action towards those irresponsible acts of violence by non-state organizations in the efforts to prevent or reduce terrorist violence in the state.

As an act of violence, terrorism has causes and remedies. Two major streams of thinking, the Liberals and the Conservatives, offered different understanding towards the problem. According to the Liberals, terrorism is a response to economic, social and political deprivation as well as bad government. People who feel deprived of these situations harbour violence to dramatize their misery or to change the conditions that are responsible for it. And since in the modern world the government is the most eligible party to be blamed, their anger and misery are directed towards it thus creating the problem of terrorism.

On the other hand, the Conservatives think that it arises from the process of nation building and that it is a stage that all nations have gone through, a transition period before embarking into a strong, developed nation. It is the ‘natural’ stresses and strains of nation-building process in which the integration of different elements, e.g. classes, castes, religious and linguistic groups, in the nation resulted into different responses. Alienation towards certain element in the newly constituted government might result in the form of resistance, which may turn into violence. If it does, the government, according to the Conservatives, will have to restore law and order through the immediate use of act of violence as the punitive action that resulted in the emergence of a cycle of violence and counter-violence.

Besides, there is another stream of thinking, the Realists, which offer different approach to the problem of terrorism. According to this third group terrorism is caused by the competition between states in which the absence of an overarching authority – no world government that can enforce justice and peace – the only means of settling disputes and differences between the states is through the threat or the actual act of violence. Terrorism, thus according to the Realists, is one of the stratagems available to the states in their competition for power. It can weaken rival states by throwing their domestic life into chaos and weakening their government thus they cannot compete with their external rivals.

Having differently pointed causes of terrorism, these groups also suggested different approaches to contain terrorism. The Liberals argue that the best answer to terrorism is to improve the lot of the people, including those who might be moved to secede, and to provide better if not good government. The act of violence as a means to end terrorism becomes the last resort to be adopted if these approaches failed to deliver. On the contrary, the Conservatives argue that the best way to counter terrorism is to urge governments not to waste time with social, economic, political and administrative engineering as a way of containing and defeating terrorism the way the Liberals have suggested and instead to maximize the use of violence to eradicate terrorism. The Conservatives urge governments to quickly resort to violence approach if there is any resistance from within the nation. Pre-emptive violence, according to the conservatives, will staunch terrorism and save lives. Similarly, the Realists give a green signal to the use of force to quell terrorism. The justification of the use of force by the Realists is based on their concept that terrorism is just another instrument in the hands of rival states to disrupt internal integrity of a state. Thus, only the prospect of actual use of even greater counter-violence will end terrorism.

It is on the basis of the conceptual definitions of terrorism presented above that the discussion on the threat of terrorism in India is explored.

Terrorism in India

Discussing about terrorism in India, it is an irony that a liberal democratic country like India has been the stage of immense social and political violence for the past fifty years of its independence: communal rioting, caste wars, the political assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi, the leftist insurgencies, and secessionist terrorism in the borderlands. Tracing back to the very first days of Indian independence, there was the struggle of the Naga militants in the Northeast India against the Indian government in order to carve out a separate state of Nagaland. Other militants in the Northeast have also fought the government (and against each other) to achieve their political goals. The crisis in Punjab in the 1980s has cemented the roots of terrorism in India when the Sikh militants attacked government officials and ordinary citizens as part of their campaign for an independent Khalistan. And in 1989, after two decades of calm, Kashmir exploded into violence with young Kashmiri men crossing over into Pakistan and returning to fight the Indian state and anyone else who opposed the struggle for an independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Other parts of India like Hyderabad in 1948, West Bengal in the 1960s, Andra Pradesh since late 1970s and in northern Bihar since 1980s have witnessed the practice of terrorism by the left-wing groups. Similarly, the rath yatra (long march) in 1990 marked the beginning of the act of violence by the right-wing Hindu in India that climaxed in the form of the Babri Masjid demolition on 6 December 1992. It continues in the attacks on religious minorities over the past three years. The incidence of violence against Christians since 1999 is the most public example of Hindu militancy. Right-wing Muslim violence was visible in the Mumbai bomb blast in 1993 in the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. In March 2002, Hindu and Muslim groups in Godhra, Ahmedabad, and Baroda in the state of Gujarat engaged in a form of terrorism.

These various threats of terrorist violence have become the foremost security concern of the liberal democratic government of India. The responses given towards these threats are varied depending on the degree and roots of these threats. Internal as well as external factors are very much involved in the acts of violence throughout the history of Indian state. Of the threats of violence in the borderlands, the Khalistani movement in Punjab, the Northeast as well as the Jammu and Kashmir separatist violence, external factors are very much involved in this area in which the neighbouring states are very much involved in these violence. The rest of threats of violence in India emanated from internal factors ranging from disparities in the economic status to chauvinistic feeling of certain groups against another. Then, what should India do to end terrorism or at least to manage it better?

Ending terrorism altogether is against the grain of history but managing the threats of violence for an improved situation is the best possibility that can be achieved. The three streams of thinking, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Realists, offered different approaches to the problem. But the fact that India is a liberal democratic nation, only the combination of these approaches will give the best of benefits to the Indian state. Because by adopting any single options proposed by any of these groups, the possibility is the failure to contain the threats. Take for an example of the approach taken by the Liberals who argue that best way to respond to terrorist violence is by an imaginative program of political, economic, and social engineering. It is hard to get a program political, economic and social accommodation going if violence and other forms of intimidation are not brought under control. Similarly, the policing of terrorist groups through punitive violence and intimidation as argued by the Conservatives cannot bring peace and instead will only encourage the same response by the terror groups if nothing is done to get to the root cause of the problem. Finally, both the Liberal and Conservative programs will fail if India’s neighbours are determined to harbour and support terrorist groups. As long as there are regional governments willing and able to interfere in India’s domestic affairs, there will be groups who will continue to fight and resist and settlement with New Delhi.

Containing Terrorism

Combating terrorism requires delicate efforts that involve a wider set of ameliorative measures to undercut the perverse appeal of terrorism. The threats of violence that has been lurking the Indian state since its independence more than five decades ago can be best managed through several approaches like power sharing, de-legitimisation of violence as well as diplomatic approach.

The first step offered to contain terrorism in India emanates from the very fact that the Indian constitution guarantees and protects individuals and groups against government tyranny or the tyranny of others, including social majorities of any kind who, by virtue of superior numbers, could override the rights and preferences of those who disagree with them. The liberal constitutionalism that becomes the element of power sharing structure in the Indian state allows those who feel that their rights have been violated to seek justice and compensations. Through this arrangement of power sharing in which the process of devolution of power is guaranteed, the problem in the gargantuan, far-flung country, especially in the distant borderlands, as well as of those communities who seek justice over the alleged violations of their rights can be addressed.

The second step towards better management of threats of violence is through the process of de-legitimation of violence. The fact that violence cannot be eliminated altogether, the best possible approach is to reduce the esteem in which violence has come to be held in India and the grasp it has on the people’s imaginations. By reducing the esteem of violence, a peaceful environment could be created in which it eventually reduced the legitimacy of violence as the preferred way of seeking justice over the injustices and violation of rights. Other peaceful approach to address grievances like dialog can be offered as an alternative.

Finally, the fact that the terrorist violence in the Indian borderlands (in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir as well as in the Northeast states) is sponsored by foreign countries, diplomatic approach as a way to contain terrorism is necessary to be adopted in which continuous international pressure towards countries that support and sponsor the acts of violence in India to end their role will bring improvement to the situation. The ability of the Indian government to exert diplomatic pressure towards its neighbours to end terrorism within the Indian state instead of using its military prowess will certainly beneficial to its status as a big country in South Asia as well as in the international stage. Besides, by enhancing the diplomatic ties between India and its neighbour will help in curbing cross-border terrorism that has since wrecked the peace as it affects the domestic affairs of India.

The effective combination of these approaches to contain the threats of terrorism in India will answer the question of what should the Indian state do to the threat of terrorism. Power sharing through the process of devolution of power between the Center and the states as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution while at the same time de-legitimising the acts of violence will help the process of better management of terror threats in India. Through carefully calibrated military response accompanied by wider set of ameliorative measures to undercut the perverse appeal of terrorism will certainly help the process of winning the war against terrorism. Because a military approach per se to end terrorism will only produce more counter reaction to the action. Diplomatic approach as the essential step to end foreign sponsored terrorism in India complement the efforts to win this endless war against terror. The successful application of these approaches in the Indian soil to contain the terror threats can be a mirror for the global community in its fight against the most evil menace in the twenty first century.