07-15-2006, 11:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance</b>
Shishir Bhate
July 13, 2006
Rediff.com
As a child, I rarely fell asleep without listening to my grandmother
narrate 'good-over-evil' stories from religious scriptures. Her
dramatic story-telling ability held me enraptured as she described
how gods took on the demons and crushed them. With 330 million gods
to choose from and a near-perfect memory, her bank of stories was
inexhaustible. At school, I learnt 'moral science,' which primarily
consisted of religious tales of divine domination over wickedness.
I was in love with these godly heroes as they vanquished the forces
of evil, mercilessly mowing them down. It took me slightly longer to
realise that the magnitude of violence that lurked in religious
anecdotes could hardly be matched by anything human. Yet I continued
to be enamoured of Krishna and Christ alike.
For, to an impressionable mind of a child what mattered most was a
sense of fairness, of justice. My mind, then, could not fathom what
made people malevolent; all I believed was that the evil-doer pay
the price for his sins, dearly.
Many moons have passed since then, but my love for Krishna and
Christ is intact, and I still believe that evil should never go
unpunished: the more severe the punishment, the bigger the deterrent
it is for future violent acts. Or, I should say, the inevitability
of punishment is the biggest deterrent.
However, there is nothing inevitable about India's resolve to wipe
out terrorism.
But let me come back to the present. A day after the blasts, I
boarded the first-class compartment of a Mumbai suburban train. It
wasn't bursting at the seams with passengers, like it normally does,
but I couldn't discern fear on the faces of my fellow passengers,
only a weary cautiousness. Their voices, however, were laced with
anger.
The snatches of conversation that I could hear centered on the
Indian State's 'impotency' at fighting terrorism and what it should
do to destroy terrorists. But the common man does not have the right
to influence the State's policy towards matters as important as
these, does he? So what if he has the right to vote governments to
power.
<b>India, time and again, has failed to wield the hammer against the
lowly terrorist, often letting its citizens down. </b>And despite what
our leaders would have us believe, <b>we are a soft State: a fact fully
understood and exploited by terrorists</b>.
After every such attack, the political establishment makes some
threatening noises, hails the spirit of the civilians, holds aloft
the pennant of peace, even launches buses to inimical nations, and
then sits tight on its backside till the next wave of bombs rips the
stuffing out of its citizenry. <b>Then it is back to the same idiotic
idiom.</b>
But the common man, who actually bears the brunt of terrorism, has a
different view, as that train ride told me. India needs to hit them
where it hurts the most: squeeze the breath out of their networks,
starve them for funds, take out their leaders (who we claim to know
are hiding in this country or that), smash their hideouts, terrorise
their associates.
<b>No sooner is such an opinion voiced than human rights
groups, 'saner' elements in the political firmament, self-styled
negotiators and strategists jump into the fray to say: 'No, no, we
should engage these 'people' in a dialogue. We are a peace-loving
nation and terrorism needs to be resolved through peaceful means,
through tolerance, through negotiations, abiding by international
laws.'</b>
We are told: 'We need to fight terrorism by understanding what
triggers it and then remedying the situation. And by making 'them
see reason.' Reason, my foot! The next thing you know' that bloke
will be stuffing a dynamite stick down your throat and lighting the
fuse.
Many people agree that international terrorism cannot be brought to
an end only by the use of bombs and military might, but neither can
it be ended with mere talk. What is needed is a heavy dose of
ruthless action to go hand in hand with tactical and strategic
negotiations.
The nation should be ready to negotiate, with the underlying
condition that if there is any terrorist act against its citizens,
there will be hell to pay.
This is not some original thought. We hear it all the time. The
common man says:
Strengthen the infrastructure and the intelligence network.
Educate the society on how to remain alert and control panic.
Set up crack commando groups -- comprising snipers, specially
trained and equipped assault teams, state-sponsored combatants --
who will engage in unconventional warfare.
Dry up the terrorists' sources of funding: drug trafficking,
robbery, extortion, playing on international stock markets,
donations.
Keep a hawk's eye on hostile locations and smash them up.
Take out leaders of these organisations, no matter where they take
refuge.
Tighten the nation's borders even more, except maybe for trade.
Not an easy task, but not impossible either. The might of the Indian
State is hardly something to scoff at. Disuse of power is worse than
its misuse. It is time for Indians to roll up their sleeves, spit on
their hands and get to work.
The one-track 'mature, gentile, peaceful' way of unraveling this
menace only ends up in making the nation appear impotent. Just
because the citizens are brave and spirited doesn't mean they have
to keep suffering.
The common man wants a strong message be sent out: <b>if any Indian is
harmed in any manner, we will hunt you down and exterminate you, no
matter how fast you run or where you hide.</b>
The terrorist has no human rights; he loses them the instant he
points his gun at humanity. He is not a signatory to the Geneva
Convention and international laws of war should not apply to him.
Since he chooses to live by the gun, he deserves to die by it.
Sounds uncivilised? Like out of a trashy thriller? <b>Maybe. But ask
the newly-wed girl whose husband was blown to pieces in the blasts,
ask the old widow whose only earning son will walk no more...</b>
<b>India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance. </b>The inevitability of
punishment could nip many a hostile intent in the bud.
Which brings me back to grandma's tales. Not one of those stories
ended with the demon getting away unpunished. Not once was justice
denied. But since then, the concept of justice has changed for me.
No one wants justice, everyone wants a decision in his favour. So
why not the common Indian? It is time we were given our slice of
justice.
But can we do it? <b>Or will the nation have to wait for divine
assistance</b>: a Krishna or a Christ to deliver us from terror?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Mr. Bhate. We would have to wait. We will always wait. We have lost
the will to live, and deem fortunate to exist - at the mercy of others. So, we wait.
Shishir Bhate
July 13, 2006
Rediff.com
As a child, I rarely fell asleep without listening to my grandmother
narrate 'good-over-evil' stories from religious scriptures. Her
dramatic story-telling ability held me enraptured as she described
how gods took on the demons and crushed them. With 330 million gods
to choose from and a near-perfect memory, her bank of stories was
inexhaustible. At school, I learnt 'moral science,' which primarily
consisted of religious tales of divine domination over wickedness.
I was in love with these godly heroes as they vanquished the forces
of evil, mercilessly mowing them down. It took me slightly longer to
realise that the magnitude of violence that lurked in religious
anecdotes could hardly be matched by anything human. Yet I continued
to be enamoured of Krishna and Christ alike.
For, to an impressionable mind of a child what mattered most was a
sense of fairness, of justice. My mind, then, could not fathom what
made people malevolent; all I believed was that the evil-doer pay
the price for his sins, dearly.
Many moons have passed since then, but my love for Krishna and
Christ is intact, and I still believe that evil should never go
unpunished: the more severe the punishment, the bigger the deterrent
it is for future violent acts. Or, I should say, the inevitability
of punishment is the biggest deterrent.
However, there is nothing inevitable about India's resolve to wipe
out terrorism.
But let me come back to the present. A day after the blasts, I
boarded the first-class compartment of a Mumbai suburban train. It
wasn't bursting at the seams with passengers, like it normally does,
but I couldn't discern fear on the faces of my fellow passengers,
only a weary cautiousness. Their voices, however, were laced with
anger.
The snatches of conversation that I could hear centered on the
Indian State's 'impotency' at fighting terrorism and what it should
do to destroy terrorists. But the common man does not have the right
to influence the State's policy towards matters as important as
these, does he? So what if he has the right to vote governments to
power.
<b>India, time and again, has failed to wield the hammer against the
lowly terrorist, often letting its citizens down. </b>And despite what
our leaders would have us believe, <b>we are a soft State: a fact fully
understood and exploited by terrorists</b>.
After every such attack, the political establishment makes some
threatening noises, hails the spirit of the civilians, holds aloft
the pennant of peace, even launches buses to inimical nations, and
then sits tight on its backside till the next wave of bombs rips the
stuffing out of its citizenry. <b>Then it is back to the same idiotic
idiom.</b>
But the common man, who actually bears the brunt of terrorism, has a
different view, as that train ride told me. India needs to hit them
where it hurts the most: squeeze the breath out of their networks,
starve them for funds, take out their leaders (who we claim to know
are hiding in this country or that), smash their hideouts, terrorise
their associates.
<b>No sooner is such an opinion voiced than human rights
groups, 'saner' elements in the political firmament, self-styled
negotiators and strategists jump into the fray to say: 'No, no, we
should engage these 'people' in a dialogue. We are a peace-loving
nation and terrorism needs to be resolved through peaceful means,
through tolerance, through negotiations, abiding by international
laws.'</b>
We are told: 'We need to fight terrorism by understanding what
triggers it and then remedying the situation. And by making 'them
see reason.' Reason, my foot! The next thing you know' that bloke
will be stuffing a dynamite stick down your throat and lighting the
fuse.
Many people agree that international terrorism cannot be brought to
an end only by the use of bombs and military might, but neither can
it be ended with mere talk. What is needed is a heavy dose of
ruthless action to go hand in hand with tactical and strategic
negotiations.
The nation should be ready to negotiate, with the underlying
condition that if there is any terrorist act against its citizens,
there will be hell to pay.
This is not some original thought. We hear it all the time. The
common man says:
Strengthen the infrastructure and the intelligence network.
Educate the society on how to remain alert and control panic.
Set up crack commando groups -- comprising snipers, specially
trained and equipped assault teams, state-sponsored combatants --
who will engage in unconventional warfare.
Dry up the terrorists' sources of funding: drug trafficking,
robbery, extortion, playing on international stock markets,
donations.
Keep a hawk's eye on hostile locations and smash them up.
Take out leaders of these organisations, no matter where they take
refuge.
Tighten the nation's borders even more, except maybe for trade.
Not an easy task, but not impossible either. The might of the Indian
State is hardly something to scoff at. Disuse of power is worse than
its misuse. It is time for Indians to roll up their sleeves, spit on
their hands and get to work.
The one-track 'mature, gentile, peaceful' way of unraveling this
menace only ends up in making the nation appear impotent. Just
because the citizens are brave and spirited doesn't mean they have
to keep suffering.
The common man wants a strong message be sent out: <b>if any Indian is
harmed in any manner, we will hunt you down and exterminate you, no
matter how fast you run or where you hide.</b>
The terrorist has no human rights; he loses them the instant he
points his gun at humanity. He is not a signatory to the Geneva
Convention and international laws of war should not apply to him.
Since he chooses to live by the gun, he deserves to die by it.
Sounds uncivilised? Like out of a trashy thriller? <b>Maybe. But ask
the newly-wed girl whose husband was blown to pieces in the blasts,
ask the old widow whose only earning son will walk no more...</b>
<b>India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance. </b>The inevitability of
punishment could nip many a hostile intent in the bud.
Which brings me back to grandma's tales. Not one of those stories
ended with the demon getting away unpunished. Not once was justice
denied. But since then, the concept of justice has changed for me.
No one wants justice, everyone wants a decision in his favour. So
why not the common Indian? It is time we were given our slice of
justice.
But can we do it? <b>Or will the nation have to wait for divine
assistance</b>: a Krishna or a Christ to deliver us from terror?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Mr. Bhate. We would have to wait. We will always wait. We have lost
the will to live, and deem fortunate to exist - at the mercy of others. So, we wait.